Weapons in Mercenary

[MadDog]

I think the smallarms/personal armor balance could use a few tweaks, but it isnt too far off. The real problem lies within the heavy weapons/vehicles adn the interactions with personal armor.

A TL 5 rifle can penetrate the armor on a TL 12 tank. Bad. A TL6 AT gun, on average wont kill a person. Bad. A guy in combat armor (TL14) + protect suit has a better armor rating than all but 2 listed vehicles ? Heck, add the best subdermal armor (total cost = ~1.1 MCr) and you have a guy who has the armor equal to the Tl15 main battle tank of the Imperium.

Maybe this is more inconsistent than bad. This could be fixed, if there was a will to do it.

Mad Dog

 

[Klaus Kipling]

It's an anti-armour vehicle, a tank destroyer, which (in RL) are lighter than MBTs but carry the same main gun, allowing them to engage MBTs. Their armour is good enough against small arms, but they're not meant to go toe to toe. At least, that's what it sounds like by the description (mercs probably can't afford MBTs, but a tank destroyer or two, just in case they ran into them...), and 18 armour seems about right for that.

A basic hit with a single ACR round can't even scratch them. On burst the shooter needs to roll 16+ on 3 damage dice to score two hits (an external hit, on a vehicle with 8 hull), and there's a less than 5% chance of doing that. External hits damage sensors, hull, drive, armour, or weapon. And we're talking 2 hits. A gauss rifle, laser carbine, or LMG has an even smaller chance than that with a single shot. Burstfire has a larger chance, but we're not talking by massive amounts, and only 1 to 3 hits. Small arms have an infinitessimally small chance of harming a Gcarrier.

A very good shooter rolling well with bursts has a larger chance, and can do more damage, but there's still no way he can take it out in one go. A platoon of troops firing their ACRs at a single hover-trak may be able to disable it before it kills them all, but they'd be very lucky.

They'd need to use grenades at least, which, as was pointed out, have a higher chance (around 50%) of scoring at least 1 hit, but in RL RAM grenades are called RPGs and they are used against armour. Still be lucky to take out a tank in one go.

An ARMP, on the other hand, would be just the ticket.

 

[Travellingdave]

First, thank you, Bryan, for replying to this thread directly. As the author, your input is paramount ... and it takes courage to wade into these discussions when they concern your work.

I tend to agree with MadDog. The personal weapon/armor balance seems adequate, but the vehicles/heavy weapons seem to need some review IMHO.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding what this equipment was intended to represent.

Bryan, can I ask what your rationales were behind the artillery ranges, heavy weapon damage, and selection of vehicles in the Mercenary book? Understanding what your thought processes were may help me properly interpret and utilize the published material more effectively.

I'm not trying to set you up. I promise not to tear your answers apart, and I ask that others on this thread show similar restraint. I think we want the authors talking to us without feeling like they are leaping into a flamewar.

 

[MadDog]

It's an anti-armour vehicle, a tank destroyer, which (in RL) are lighter than MBTs but carry the same main gun, allowing them to engage MBTs.

Name one that can be penetrated by a rifle round. Just off the top of my head, I cant think of any that might be affected by a rifle round. M18 ? Nope. M10 ? Nope. M36 ? Nope. Styker ? Bzztt... not a tank-destroyer. S-Tank ? Nope. Hezter ? Elefant ? Jagpanther ? JagdTiger ? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Marder-II/III....hmmmmm....just maybe if you hit the gun shield just right, but then again, its more of an AT gun on treads than a tank.

Unless AFV design gets a lot worse in the future, there is no. way. anyone. is. going. to. design. a. tank. that. has. armor. so. thin. a rifle. round. can. penetrate. Period.

Their armour is good enough against small arms,

As you so nicely illustrate below, no its not. Not good enough against small arms at all.

but they're not meant to go toe to toe.

Go toe to toe with a guy with a TL 5 rifle ? Good heavens, armor design must be really bad in the future.

At least, that's what it sounds like by the description (mercs probably can't afford MBTs, but a tank destroyer or two, just in case they ran into them...), and 18 armour seems about right for that.

Since Imperial designs are so bad, why dont mercs just go out and buy cheap TL5 or TL6 tanks ? Heck, we KNOW they are immune to smallarms. Since they are immune to smallarms, that gives them an armor value of about 30 or so...... Heck, a TL 5 Panther main gun 75L70 would go clean through a G-carrier with no problem.

Small arms have an infinitessimally small chance of harming a Gcarrier.

TL5 smallarms should have no chance to hurt a TL15 tank. period. None. Zero. Never-ever. Nein. Nada.

Mad Dog

 

[Klaus Kipling]

An example 'best case scenario'. A well trained (skill 3) LMG armed soldier at medium range (40m), firing a burst (auto 6) at a stationary hovertrak.

He rolls an 11 on 2 dice, +3 skill for 14, an effect of 6. 6 + 6 (auto) = +12 to the damage roll.

(There is around an 8%, or 1 in 12, chance of this occurring, therefore divide all the damage chances by 12 to find the actual probability of it happening).

4d6+12 damage.

1 hit - roll 7+, 99%, or 7% overall.
Double - roll 13+, c.50%, or 3-4% overall.
2 double - roll 21+, 2%, or 0.16% overall.

That's the best he can do. Not going to do any serious damage; won't knock the hull off, maybe knock out some sensors or damage a weapon, or degrade an AG unit. But that's it. And only 1 in 600 bursts (if he's got the ammo for that).


I would not give any odds for a rifleman to be able to harm a hovertrak. A hovertrak up against a long duration of sustained LMG fire over time will take some wear and tear. May make the steering a bit wonky, knock out the searchlights.

Many present day tank destroyers have wheels and tyres. Sustained autofire would degrade them soon enough. What if TL12 AG nodes have some fragility issues too.

There's been plenty of unfortunate soldiers taking stray rounds through view ports and while manning a turret gun.

Have to remember also that while 3d6 can roll 18, and that 4d6 can hit 24, the odds of doing this are tiny.

3d6 will net you 9-13 70-80% of the time, and a less than 3% chance of doing 17 or more.

4d6 is even more clustered along the average, with 12-17 being achieved 7 out of 8 times, roughly, and, as above 21+ only 2% of the time.

It would be suicidal for a small armed foot soldier (or even 30 of them) to go up against a tank.

Change those armour numbers and the system becomes broken.

And we can put it another way: playing d20, and the player rolls a 20 when attacking a tank with his assault rifle, it would be a cruel DM who ruled that it had absolutely no effect at all - taking out a sensor, snapping the radio aeriel, damaging the air seal on the turret hatch, mashing up the pintle the mg is mounted on. This is the level of damage we're talking about, and the player has more chance of doing it in d20 than in MGT. By a large measure.

 

[apoc527]

Just to further assist Klaus with his point, what would it do to the game if you go ahead and make realistic armor and damage values? Here's what happens in a nutshell:

Players meet tank.
Players unload on tank with their smallarms. Nothing happens.
Tank fires back.
One PC killed instantly (perhaps more depending on ammo type).
Players go "Oh crap" and start running.
Tank kills one PC per round until out of line-of-sight.

This may be accurate, but it is in no way fun for the players or even the GM. Yes, in real life a tank is completely undamageable by an M-16 and a hit with virtually any style of anti-vehicle weapon is going to pulp a person into unrecognizable goo.

Now, as Klaus has so competently shown, the chance of a PC to harm a tank is extraordinarily small. It's so small that it's almost never going to happen in an actual game (where generally you don't sit around and try to make something happen over and over again).

So, while I don't have Mercenary yet (I'm waiting to make a largeish Amazon order including HG), from what I've seen, the anal-retentive military/firearms buff in me will recoil (haha) at some of the stuff, but overall the GM in me will say "well done."

 

[B_Steele]

This may be accurate, but it is in no way fun for the players or even the GM.

This sums up my design process for RPGS pretty much to a 'T'. As to an earlier poster who asked what I was thinking when I stylsed the ranges and damages and such in Mercenary; this is the best answer - to make the game more fun.

Like the above quote, a group of players that try to go up against a tank without the proper equipment ARE going to have a hard time and likely lose people (or at least limbs!) to it. They need to have some kind of chance though, or else it simply becomes a meat grinder that the GM has to wade through. Although I agree that realistically some of these weapons should be firing miles of distance and a MBT should not have to worry about a row of infantry with ACRs, but adding a theatrical element of danger and drama to ALL aspects of RPG combat is better than simply playing the "I win" card.

I agree that perhaps players who want a more realistic game should tweak the heck outta my numbers, but as a few posters (and my own home sessions) have shown, Mercenary works just fine as it is if you look at it in the light of fairness instead of technical-accuracy.

Hey, and to the poster who patted me on the back for responding: you have to learn to shrug off ALOT of comments from naysayers and forum trollers in my line of work. Everything is subjective, and for every vocal fan that "hates" my work, I know there are dozens out there that aren't saying anything because they love it.

The proof of that is shown by the number of threads that start off with "I love product X" that make it past the first page of posts. Gratitude is simple and easy to forget, but interweb drama is hard to ignore - it is a fact of my industry.

Cheers all,
Bry

 

[Infojunky]

This may be accurate, but it is in no way fun for the players or even the GM.

This sums up my design process for RPGS pretty much to a 'T'. As to an earlier poster who asked what I was thinking when I stylsed the ranges and damages and such in Mercenary; this is the best answer - to make the game more fun.

GOOD, if that is what you found then go with it. We all know that fandom on the web is savage and unhappy group for the most part....

I agree that perhaps players who want a more realistic game should tweak the heck outta my numbers, but as a few posters (and my own home sessions) have shown,

Tweak, replace, spindle, mutilate.... Heck this is Traveller, there are how many different combat resolution systems associated with it?

Bry this isn't so much at you, but at the general base, especially the newer members. Guys, All Traveller is a toolkit, meaning you use the bits that work for you and your game. If there is a set of mechanics that don't work for you and your group, DON'T use them. There are more than a few options before you get down to writing your own. Heck write your own, publish them, if they are better than what is presented in the TMB and Mercenary there is a good chance some portion of the larger Traveller Fan-base will adopt them.

Mercenary works just fine as it is if you look at it in the light of fairness instead of technical-accuracy.

I'm not sure what fair has to do with anything. But I am biased towards force escalation in my games, the heavier the firepower the player want to use, the heavier the opposition, just like real life.

Hey, and to the poster who patted me on the back for responding: you have to learn to shrug off ALOT of comments from naysayers and forum trollers in my line of work. Everything is subjective, and for every vocal fan that "hates" my work, I know there are dozens out there that aren't saying anything because they love it.

Bry it is a creditable job you are doing so far. And I am tempted to pile on my questions here but I won't, mostly because of the nature of the beast you are working with limits the amount of innovation you can do in core rulebooks.

Keep up the good work. And I at least will try to keep my complaints to constructive criticism. (Actually I should just publish my fixes and put my money where my mouth is)(Well shit that was a bit of damning you with faint praise, Really keep it up your doing ok.)

 

[MadDog]

Klaus, you are ignoring the what the damage table can do. Lets take out hypothetical hovertrak. Armor 18, Hull 8.

Look at the external damage table. Whats a "7" get you (33%?) ? Armor ! Thats right, your TL5 light machinegun just knocked off a section of armor from the TL15 tank. Of course, you cant do that. It doesnt happen. Ever. [1].

Of course, a "2", "6", "8", "12" (33% total ?) gets you a hull. Congrats, after 8 hits you have totally breached the armor, and are now damaging the internals.

Totally, completely, wrong. You cant rationalize this away.

Look, a TL 5 tank (Sherman) is all-but immune to smallarms. Thats documented fact.[2] You arent going to damage the armor, the gun or the hull, using a rifle or machinegun.

When designing vehicle rules, you have to start from documented facts and work your way from there. Smallarms arent going to do anything to a tank.

As for the cruel GM, frankly, I dont want to be coddled by a GM who will reward me for engaging armor with smallarms. Thats weak.

Mad Dog




[1], yes I realize there are some stories about early war Italian tanks with bolted armor having sections knocked off, but I havnt seen any proof of this
[2] OK, I guess you can hope for a 1 in a million shot through the drivers viewslit. Maybe you can get a mobility kill on the treads with a rifle, but I have yet to hear evidence of that. Knock the headlights out ? Who cares.

 

[MadDog]

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:
Just to further assist Klaus with his point, what would it do to the game if you go ahead and make realistic armor and damage values? Here's what happens in a nutshell:

Players meet tank.
Players unload on tank with their smallarms. Nothing happens.
Tank fires back.
One PC killed instantly (perhaps more depending on ammo type).
Players go "Oh crap" and start running.
Tank kills one PC per round until out of line-of-sight.

Thats what should happen. If you engage a TL15 tank with a TL5 weapon (pick one, I dont care), you will either:

1) run away
2) hide
3) die
4) get really lucky and get close enough where it cant shoot you
5) surrender

why coddle the players ?

This may be accurate, but it is in no way fun for the players or even the GM.

Its more accurate. I am trying to visualize a circumstance where a GM isnt "cruel" for throwing a tank at you in the first place. Smart players will avoid an open battlefield, unless the possess some sort of advantage.

Yes, in real life a tank is completely undamageable by an M-16 and a hit with virtually any style of anti-vehicle weapon is going to pulp a person into unrecognizable goo.

So, in the name of accuracy, why is any schmoe being allowed to take an anti-tank shot and live ? Why, instead, not use a penalty to hit for those weapons that arent designed to hit man-sized targets ? You want balance - use that.

Now, as Klaus has so competently shown, the chance of a PC to harm a tank is extraordinarily small.

Chance to harm a TL15 tank with a TL5 smallarm = 8% ?

Mad Dog

 

[MadDog]

This sums up my design process for RPGS pretty much to a 'T'. As to an earlier poster who asked what I was thinking when I stylsed the ranges and damages and such in Mercenary; this is the best answer - to make the game more fun.

Like the above quote, a group of players that try to go up against a tank without the proper equipment ARE going to have a hard time and likely lose people (or at least limbs!) to it. They need to have some kind of chance though, or else it simply becomes a meat grinder that the GM has to wade through. Although I agree that realistically some of these weapons should be firing miles of distance and a MBT should not have to worry about a row of infantry with ACRs, but adding a theatrical element of danger and drama to ALL aspects of RPG combat is better than simply playing the "I win" card.

Is it more fun when the suspension of disbelief is difficult to accomplish ?

Why should a player be allowed to have a chance at damaging a TL15 tank using a TL 5 rifle ? Is that fun ?

Look, I like Mongoose Traveller - I consider it superior to CT. I like a lot of the mechanisms, but in some of the weapon/armor categories, there are severe, factual deficiencies. For example, consider a TL 15 tank that has an armor value of 25. What then is the armor value of a TL 6 tank ? 10 ? See the problem now ? There isnt enough of a range or armor values and at lower levels it becomes silly ("I see a tank, Bob, pass me the antique rifle").

Can this be fixed ? Sure ! Use the same sort of mechanism you use for firing at starships !

Does any of this make you bad designer ? Nope. Does it mean that maybe a revision or a new "advanced" product would be appropriate ? I think so.

Mad Dog

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Well you're going to have to show me how a 3d6 weapon can hurt 25 points of armour.

Just because something can harm something does not mean that it is at all likely. In fact, it is so unlikely as to be statistically irrelevant.

With larger multiples of dice the upper and lower end become increasingly rare. Even in a long running campaign lasting years the players will not make enough attacks to guarantee giving a tank a hit with small arms, and that's if all they ever do is fight tanks with ACRs.

In fact, and I'm going from memory here, but I think it is just about possible to do a point or two of damage with a rifle or LMG to a tank-like vehicle in T20, with criticals and rolling top damage, but I don't remember any uproar about that over at COTI.

If it ever happens in a game, it would be so extremely anomalous that any decent Ref would have a lot of fun with it.

The balance of probabilities is about right as it is.

(btw, a 7 occurs on 2d6 1 in 6 times, not 1 in 3).


I also doubt a Sherman tank would have an AR as low as 10, not when a Ford Mondeo has 6. 18 more like it...


Look, initially I also thought armour ratings were a tad low in MGT. Running a few combats quickly convinced me that if I raised AR by even one or two points then I'd better hope the PCs had plenty of ammo and be resigned for combats that last hours.

MGT just ever so favours offense over defense; in an rpg that is usually a good thing, unless you really like rolling dice.

 

[MadDog]

Well you're going to have to show me how a 3d6 weapon can hurt 25 points of armour.

There is more than one TL15 tank, and more than one TL5 smallarm.

Just because something can harm something does not mean that it is at all likely. In fact, it is so unlikely as to be statistically irrelevant.

Did you not just demonstrate a 8% chance to damage a hovertrak with a TL5 LMG ?

With larger multiples of dice the upper and lower end become increasingly rare. Even in a long running campaign lasting years the players will not make enough attacks to guarantee giving a tank a hit with small arms, and that's if all they ever do is fight tanks with ACRs.

I think the point here is that the players should be smart enough not to fight armored vehicles with smallarms. Why would a GM throw so many AFV against players anyway ?

In fact, and I'm going from memory here, but I think it is just about possible to do a point or two of damage with a rifle or LMG to a tank-like vehicle in T20, with criticals and rolling top damage, but I don't remember any uproar about that over at COTI.

I dont really care what the T20 version did. If smallarms can damage and destroy a tank, then its simply silly - no matter what system.

If it ever happens in a game, it would be so extremely anomalous that any decent Ref would have a lot of fun with it.

What is anomalous about blowing armor and hull off an AFV with smallarms ? (sarcasm)

The balance of probabilities is about right as it is.

No it isnt. The balance of probabilities of damaging a tank with a smallarm is ZERO. ZERO. ZERO.ZERO.

(btw, a 7 occurs on 2d6 1 in 6 times, not 1 in 3).

Thus, my question mark.

I also doubt a Sherman tank would have an AR as low as 10, not when a Ford Mondeo has 6. 18 more like it...

You are telling me that in thousands of years of armor development, the armor on a Sherman is almost as good as it gets ?

Seriously, if the top of line TL15 Imperial AFV has an armor of 25, what would you rate the TL 5 Sherman ? 8 ? 10 ? 15 ?

Look, initially I also thought armour ratings were a tad low in MGT. Running a few combats quickly convinced me that if I raised AR by even one or two points then I'd better hope the PCs had plenty of ammo and be resigned for combats that last hours.

Are we talking player-AFV fights or smallarms-players fights ? I dont have a big beef with the smallarms-personnel armor. Mostly I think a few weapons should be tweaked a bit. And maybe change the range penalties for some.

Mad Dog

 

[collins355]

I've bitten my tongue trying to avoid the usual 'I said, no I said' discussion, but time for a couple of observations...

re 'fun' (TM): I don't accept this explanation at all. It cuts right across the core principles of roleplaying in general and certainly Traveller. We don't reward/encourage players doing dumb things. Taking on an armoured vehicle with small arms is a dumb thing (TM) and should be suitably punished by the rules. A charitable referee might try to warn particularly obstinate players: "you want to take on that behemoth with small arms?! Perhaps hiding/negotiating might be a better course of action?"

We don't bend the reality of vacuum to "give the players a fighting chance" if they choose to step into it unprotected. Nor corrosive atmospheres. I can only imagine the howls of outrage from the fly boys if MGT High Guard authors deliberately designed dreadnaughts to be vulnerable to free trader weapons to "give the players a fighting chance" and preserve "fun". I know we ground pounders are a smaller group than the fly boys, but I feel a little insulted and patronised being told reality in this part of the game has been suspended for the good of the game.

I accept KK's sterling efforts at defending the system, at least as it relates to personal armour. This I see as a defensible design decision and does speed man-on-man combat, but it is the vehicles/heavy weapons in Mercenary (and some of the vehicles - the AFV - in the main rulebook) that are all out-of-whack. I have tried tinkering with them but have concluded that a complete re-appraisal and re-write would be quicker and cleaner. It would be best if Mongoose did this so as to be in keeping with their in-house equipment design system.

Obviously there are other serious flaws in Mercenary that need addressing with errata, but they are beyond the scope of a weapons thread and have been raised elsewhere.

 

[rust]

I somehow fail to understand the apparent magnitude of the problem. :?

All you need is a one sentence house rule that armoured vehicles can
not be damaged by small arms fire, it seems. So why not just introduce
that rule and consider the problem solved ? :wink:

 

[MadDog]

All you need is a one sentence house rule that armoured vehicles can
not be damaged by small arms fire, it seems. So why not just introduce
that rule and consider the problem solved ?

In an ideal world, wouldnt it be better if Mongoose corrected their product ?

Mad Dog

 

[rust]

In an ideal world, wouldnt it be better if Mongoose corrected their product ?

Of course, but I would not want to stop playing Traveller until they did. :lol:

 

[collins355]

I somehow fail to understand the apparent magnitude of the problem. :?

Rust

I respect your opinion on areas you clearly are knowledgeable about. I would accept it if you said "I don't care much for ground combat at anything more than the bar-room brawl scope and so this Mercenary stuff doesn't apply to my game". Fair enough, you've got the core rulebook. But you seem to be implying that the people for whom Mercenary was intended - the military-oriented gamers - should be the same.

All you need is a one sentence house rule that armoured vehicles can
not be damaged by small arms fire, it seems. So why not just introduce
that rule and consider the problem solved ? :wink:

Think two seconds before posting such suggestions: why bother with a vehicle combat system at all if that is the answer? Why bother with varying starship armour and different weapons effects? Why not have a series of declarative statements? Just as High Guard players want more than to be told that merchants can't hurt warships, end of story, so do Mercenary players expect a bit more for their GBP15. Gasp. Its not too much surely to expect a convincing system that reflects the strengths and weaknesses of ground combat equipment just as High Guard players expect a certain outcome in their realm. :shock:

 

[Jame Rowe]

This may be accurate, but it is in no way fun for the players or even the GM.

This sums up my design process for RPGS pretty much to a 'T'. As to an earlier poster who asked what I was thinking when I stylsed the ranges and damages and such in Mercenary; this is the best answer - to make the game more fun.

Which sums up my opinion of this book perfectly: a good fun book, but by no means militarily accurate.

 

[rust]

@ Collins 355:

Oops, sorry - it seems my English failed me this time.

I really did mean a temporary solution to the problem, a way to
solve that problem until Mongoose has found a permanent solution for
the next edition of Mercenary.

My own way probably would be to put small arms, vehicle weapons and
starship weapons into three different "scales", with small arms unable to
damage armoured vehicles and starships and vehicle weapons unable to
damage armoured starships - and in the other direction direct hits by ve-
hicle or starship weapons would always kill persons, and direct hits by
starship weapons would always destroy unarmoured vehicles.

The remaining problem would be weapons specifically designed to dama-
ge or destroy vehicles, like RPGs. These I would treat as man portable
vehicle weapons, I think.

One could also try to design one continuous armour and damage system
for everything, from personal armour to battleships. However, I have ne-
ver seen a successful and playable attempt to do this, it normally ends
with lots of very high numbers and lots of formulae to deal with.