Weapons in Mercenary
- Thread starter MadDog
- Start date
At Fort Knox, Kentucky there was an old M114 hull used as a "hard target" during live fire exercises. The M240 (7.62N FMJ Ball) coax on my M1A1 bounced off, the M2 HB (.50 cal FMJ Ball) penetrated one side (and bounced around) and the 120mm aluminum training rounds went right through. Range was around 500m, target aspect was side view with little or no angle.MadDog said:
Here's a nice chart on ballistic protection about halfway down the page. That should give y'all some more to chew on.
I have found (for the most part) this discussion interesting enough to re-examine a few more things about Mongoose's Mercenary. I personally had decided not to use the "Field Artillery Battledress" and "MagRail" weapons. Too much Mecha-anime and WH40K Eldar for my taste. If all else fails, I still have the Classic Traveller Striker! rules to use.
As a side note, I was VERY disappointed not to see SMGs in Mercenary. The "carbines are SMGs" falls ludicrously short, IMO.
PTRD Anti Tank Rifle: 14.5 mm capable of penetrating 25 mm of armour at 300 meters (1941/42).
.55", Boys Anti-Tank Rifle. Mark 1, Mark 1*, Mark 2 which probably had similar performance (c. 14 mm round).
Lahti L-39 Anti-Tank Rifle: 20 mm etc
Phil, I am completely aware of the varieties of anti-tank rfiles. I dont consider those small arms, I consider those heavy weapons. I should also pointout that our discussion is comparing the TL 5 rifles (standard battle rifle) or TL5 LMG.
We are not, and have not considered the anti-material rifles in our discussions so far.
Mad Dog
.55", Boys Anti-Tank Rifle. Mark 1, Mark 1*, Mark 2 which probably had similar performance (c. 14 mm round).
Lahti L-39 Anti-Tank Rifle: 20 mm etc
Phil, I am completely aware of the varieties of anti-tank rfiles. I dont consider those small arms, I consider those heavy weapons. I should also pointout that our discussion is comparing the TL 5 rifles (standard battle rifle) or TL5 LMG.
We are not, and have not considered the anti-material rifles in our discussions so far.
Mad Dog
Since the LMG in Mercenary weighs 20kg, it's more similar to those heavy guns than an M60. The FN Minimi weighs between 6kg and 7kg, depending on the specific model. A WW2 era MG34 weighs 10kg.
...and a M2 HMG weighs some ~60 kg with tripod. The L(ight) machinegun listed in the book is far closer to the "light" machinegun of the era - the M1919 which weighs in at 14 kg (as an example).
Futhermore, the damage of the LMG is less than what a heavy machinegun round (0.50 BMG or comparable) would dictate - something along the lines of 6D6 (see the entry for the LAG in Mercenary).
Interestingly, an M134 Minigun weighs almost 20kg. So does the .50 cal XM312.
Nice try. The 20 kg is for the weapon only (M134). Add another 20 kg for the weapon mount.
The XM134 also fires an assault rifle round (5.56mm NATO), and I am all but sure the 20 kg figure you quote doesnt include a beefy weapon mount.
So what Mercenary terms an LMG clearly isn't the same kind of LMG that the US or UK military define. Now maybe that's another debate, but going by the weapon stats, that's how it is.
I could not disagree more. The TL5 (<--- having passed TL5, it ought to be readily apparent what it is) most demonstratively represents a 1940's-60's era LIGHT machinegun firing a battle rifle round. The TL, the weight, the damage and the name all point to something not a Heavy Machine Gun.
Anyway, an M60 or Minimi style LMG would use the Gun Combat skill over the Heavy Weapons skill, surely.
I would argue the minigun is a heavy weapon/assault weapon. Since the LMG uses the Assualt Weapon skill, so probably does the minigun (which seems to be oddly missing from the book).
And the TL5 rifle, and it seems I have to repeat this, which is 3d6 and not auto, cannot harm anything with AR20+, and with AR18, it's chance of doing so is around 1-2%, and that's with an expert shot rolling well, and only a single hit.
...or Aiming To Kill. Or assuming there arent TL5 rifles with burst/autofire (there are).
However you slice it, TL 5 smallarms, with the rules, are capable of knocking chunks out of high-tech tanks. THe chance may be small, but its there, and its wrong.
Mad Dog
...and a M2 HMG weighs some ~60 kg with tripod. The L(ight) machinegun listed in the book is far closer to the "light" machinegun of the era - the M1919 which weighs in at 14 kg (as an example).
Futhermore, the damage of the LMG is less than what a heavy machinegun round (0.50 BMG or comparable) would dictate - something along the lines of 6D6 (see the entry for the LAG in Mercenary).
Interestingly, an M134 Minigun weighs almost 20kg. So does the .50 cal XM312.
Nice try. The 20 kg is for the weapon only (M134). Add another 20 kg for the weapon mount.
The XM134 also fires an assault rifle round (5.56mm NATO), and I am all but sure the 20 kg figure you quote doesnt include a beefy weapon mount.
So what Mercenary terms an LMG clearly isn't the same kind of LMG that the US or UK military define. Now maybe that's another debate, but going by the weapon stats, that's how it is.
I could not disagree more. The TL5 (<--- having passed TL5, it ought to be readily apparent what it is) most demonstratively represents a 1940's-60's era LIGHT machinegun firing a battle rifle round. The TL, the weight, the damage and the name all point to something not a Heavy Machine Gun.
Anyway, an M60 or Minimi style LMG would use the Gun Combat skill over the Heavy Weapons skill, surely.
I would argue the minigun is a heavy weapon/assault weapon. Since the LMG uses the Assualt Weapon skill, so probably does the minigun (which seems to be oddly missing from the book).
And the TL5 rifle, and it seems I have to repeat this, which is 3d6 and not auto, cannot harm anything with AR20+, and with AR18, it's chance of doing so is around 1-2%, and that's with an expert shot rolling well, and only a single hit.
...or Aiming To Kill. Or assuming there arent TL5 rifles with burst/autofire (there are).
However you slice it, TL 5 smallarms, with the rules, are capable of knocking chunks out of high-tech tanks. THe chance may be small, but its there, and its wrong.
Mad Dog
MadDog said:
And I cited the NATO definition of small arms. Which includes weapons to 50 mm caliber.
On the whole if I am confronted with a choice between your personal opinion and the considered opinion of NATO's experts ... well, let's just say that your personal opinion doesn't come off well in comparison :wink:
Ergo, AT Rifles are both Rifles and Small Arms according to an authoritative source ...
Phil
So far, in our examples, we have been using the case which is looks at the effect on high-tech tanks.
So what happens if we look at lower tech tanks ?
The G-Carrier is a TL15, armor 25 tank ("A grav carrier is effectively a flying tank, and is the standard fighting vehicle of many military forces across the Imperium.").
So what happens when we fire our TL5 rifles at a lower tech tank ?
Lets take a TL7 tank - half the TL15 Imperial standard. Considering the rate of armor advancement in our own last 70 years, I dont think its unreasonable to assume our hypothetical TL7 tank has half the armor of the G-carrier, or 12.
"12". Now how hard is it for a TL5 rifle to knock holes in this tank (which would be something along the lines of a T-62 or M-60) ? With only 12 armor, the pride of TL7 is routinely damaged by schmoes with TL5 bolt-action rifles. Lets not even consider the devastating effect of the dreaded TL5 machinegun on our paper-mache -armor TL7 tank ! Armor beware !
Now how silly is that ?
Whats this ? You want to argue that a TL7 has a much better armor value than 12 ? Well then, my friend, then you have to argue that armor design has pretty much gone nowhere in thousands of years. Considering the advancement in personal armor and weapons (from equipment in the book), I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone of that.....
Mad Dog
So what happens if we look at lower tech tanks ?
The G-Carrier is a TL15, armor 25 tank ("A grav carrier is effectively a flying tank, and is the standard fighting vehicle of many military forces across the Imperium.").
So what happens when we fire our TL5 rifles at a lower tech tank ?
Lets take a TL7 tank - half the TL15 Imperial standard. Considering the rate of armor advancement in our own last 70 years, I dont think its unreasonable to assume our hypothetical TL7 tank has half the armor of the G-carrier, or 12.
"12". Now how hard is it for a TL5 rifle to knock holes in this tank (which would be something along the lines of a T-62 or M-60) ? With only 12 armor, the pride of TL7 is routinely damaged by schmoes with TL5 bolt-action rifles. Lets not even consider the devastating effect of the dreaded TL5 machinegun on our paper-mache -armor TL7 tank ! Armor beware !
Now how silly is that ?
Whats this ? You want to argue that a TL7 has a much better armor value than 12 ? Well then, my friend, then you have to argue that armor design has pretty much gone nowhere in thousands of years. Considering the advancement in personal armor and weapons (from equipment in the book), I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone of that.....
Mad Dog
MadDog said:
Strawman.
Why assume that armour progression is linear?
Of course, this all goes back to the whole concept of "Tech Levels" which are, I would argue (and do, all the time :wink: ), meaningless in any useful sense for real world arguments (as opposed to game mechanic ones
)Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of the over-valuing of smallarms or the under-valuing of armour.
As I suggested once before, perhaps if you add +1 to the armour of a target for each TL greater than the TL of the attacking weapon and subtract one from the damage of the attacking weapon for each TL less than the target you would get something that might approach believability across TLs.
Phil
And I cited the NATO definition of small arms. Which includes weapons to 50 mm caliber.
On the whole if I am confronted with a choice between your personal opinion and the considered opinion of NATO's experts ... well, let's just say that your personal opinion doesn't come off well in comparison
Ergo, AT Rifles are both Rifles and Small Arms according to an authoritative source ...
....not any of which makes a whit of difference considering (as I said before) that we are examining the effects of the TL5 rifle - not, an anti-tank rifle. If you wish to split hairs on my definition of "small-arms", thats fine, but largely irrelevant. If you wish to insist that AT rifles can penetrate WW2 APC armor (and thus WW2 APCs were not designed to defend against smallarms), then fine. I suspect you are missing the gist of the arguments here or I have been less than crystal-clear in my posts.
Once again, the TL 5 rifle (in the book, 3D6 damage - not an AT rifle by its size, weight, description and damage) can penetrate and damage high-tech tanks. A TL5 LMG can damage the Imperial standard of TL15.
Both, I claim, are simply silly in the face of armor developments in our own last 70 years.
Mad Dog
PS: we could dicker over the NATO definition of smallarm all day - does a PzB41 (28mm AT gun - crew portable) count as a smallarm for NATO ?
On the whole if I am confronted with a choice between your personal opinion and the considered opinion of NATO's experts ... well, let's just say that your personal opinion doesn't come off well in comparison
Ergo, AT Rifles are both Rifles and Small Arms according to an authoritative source ...
....not any of which makes a whit of difference considering (as I said before) that we are examining the effects of the TL5 rifle - not, an anti-tank rifle. If you wish to split hairs on my definition of "small-arms", thats fine, but largely irrelevant. If you wish to insist that AT rifles can penetrate WW2 APC armor (and thus WW2 APCs were not designed to defend against smallarms), then fine. I suspect you are missing the gist of the arguments here or I have been less than crystal-clear in my posts.
Once again, the TL 5 rifle (in the book, 3D6 damage - not an AT rifle by its size, weight, description and damage) can penetrate and damage high-tech tanks. A TL5 LMG can damage the Imperial standard of TL15.
Both, I claim, are simply silly in the face of armor developments in our own last 70 years.
Mad Dog
PS: we could dicker over the NATO definition of smallarm all day - does a PzB41 (28mm AT gun - crew portable) count as a smallarm for NATO ?
Strawman.
Armor made of straw, maybe. : )
Why assume that armour progression is linear?
based upon book values, it sure as hell isnt exponential. TL6 car = 6. TL15 tank = 25. Considering the advances in armor design from book equipment (combat armor ?), it sure cant be stalled out, either.
Heck, you tell me what a TL7 tank is. 12 ? 15 ? 18 ? Of, course, the higher you go, the more you have to justify the lack of armor development in thousands of years.
Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of the over-valuing of smallarms or the under-valuing of armour.
We agree. I would suggest either errata-ing the armor values, or simply use the same sort of mechanism for firing at AFV that is used for starships (although not necessarily the same actual divisors). Lets leave aside the problems between starship and vehicle weapons for the moment.
As I suggested once before, perhaps if you add +1 to the armour of a target for each TL greater than the TL of the attacking weapon and subtract one from the damage of the attacking weapon for each TL less than the target you would get something that might approach believability across TLs.
Phil
Thats intriguing, and strikes me as reasonable - although you would have to track the TL of the weapons and armor more carefully.
Mad Dog
Armor made of straw, maybe. : )
Why assume that armour progression is linear?
based upon book values, it sure as hell isnt exponential. TL6 car = 6. TL15 tank = 25. Considering the advances in armor design from book equipment (combat armor ?), it sure cant be stalled out, either.
Heck, you tell me what a TL7 tank is. 12 ? 15 ? 18 ? Of, course, the higher you go, the more you have to justify the lack of armor development in thousands of years.
Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of the over-valuing of smallarms or the under-valuing of armour.
We agree. I would suggest either errata-ing the armor values, or simply use the same sort of mechanism for firing at AFV that is used for starships (although not necessarily the same actual divisors). Lets leave aside the problems between starship and vehicle weapons for the moment.
As I suggested once before, perhaps if you add +1 to the armour of a target for each TL greater than the TL of the attacking weapon and subtract one from the damage of the attacking weapon for each TL less than the target you would get something that might approach believability across TLs.
Phil
Thats intriguing, and strikes me as reasonable - although you would have to track the TL of the weapons and armor more carefully.
Mad Dog
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
I'm not sure that it solves the issue of weapons of a comparable tech level being able to hurt AFVs of that TL, unless you re-jig the damage-armour values (in which case I'd suggest you might as well do the right thing and design a proper graded system across TLs using material technology progression - it isn't as if this is new or difficult, Striker did it, MegaTrav did it, FF&S did it, etc). In which case, the best people to do it are Mongoose as they know what their design rules are going to look like.
At the same time they can look at the range issues for all support weapons (page 105) and some heavy weapons (page 103), at the reason why an LMG is classed as an assault weapon for range, at the text descriptions of various weapons and vehicles (yes Magrail, I'm looking at you!), at the absence of energy weapons heavier than an FGMP or lighter than a starship bay weapon (yes, the text description of a TL15 AT-gun on page 104 says it fires plasma, but it does less damage than an FGMP, and takes far longer to reload), at the issue of minimum ranges for support weapons (why do AT-guns and mass drivers, for instance, have a minimum range of Medium?), at the lack of ammo weights and the curious design decisions like giving some support weapon ammo a cost but not saying how much ammo it buys, and not mentioning ammo cost for other support weapons at all), at the wisdom of including a Cr10,000 TL10 uber-weapon like the man-carried ARMP that makes multi-million credit battle dress and AFVs obsolete before they are deployed, at why the VRF Gauss Rifle became TL14 (TL10 in all other Traveller versions, and if this weapon is really that different from the traditional VRFGG, what happened to that weapon?), at why the LAG switches from using rifle range class to rocket range class between TL5 and 8 (and therefore suddenly becomes less useful up close), at the relative speeds of various vehicles (the hovertrack only moves at 70kph and is out-paced by a tracked AFV??), at crews of various vehicles (the hovertrack only has two gunners for its AT-gun, and so by the rules on page 104, it always fires at a -2DM to hit), etc.
At the same time they can look at the range issues for all support weapons (page 105) and some heavy weapons (page 103), at the reason why an LMG is classed as an assault weapon for range, at the text descriptions of various weapons and vehicles (yes Magrail, I'm looking at you!), at the absence of energy weapons heavier than an FGMP or lighter than a starship bay weapon (yes, the text description of a TL15 AT-gun on page 104 says it fires plasma, but it does less damage than an FGMP, and takes far longer to reload), at the issue of minimum ranges for support weapons (why do AT-guns and mass drivers, for instance, have a minimum range of Medium?), at the lack of ammo weights and the curious design decisions like giving some support weapon ammo a cost but not saying how much ammo it buys, and not mentioning ammo cost for other support weapons at all), at the wisdom of including a Cr10,000 TL10 uber-weapon like the man-carried ARMP that makes multi-million credit battle dress and AFVs obsolete before they are deployed, at why the VRF Gauss Rifle became TL14 (TL10 in all other Traveller versions, and if this weapon is really that different from the traditional VRFGG, what happened to that weapon?), at why the LAG switches from using rifle range class to rocket range class between TL5 and 8 (and therefore suddenly becomes less useful up close), at the relative speeds of various vehicles (the hovertrack only moves at 70kph and is out-paced by a tracked AFV??), at crews of various vehicles (the hovertrack only has two gunners for its AT-gun, and so by the rules on page 104, it always fires at a -2DM to hit), etc.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
MadDog said:
OK, 2 things.
1: One thing we can agree on is that some of the descriptions are a bit garbled. They'e aimed at newbs over grogs, too. And "effectively" is not the same as "is"; it is more like "one could describe it as".
2: What was the 'standard' fighting vehicle of WW2? The jeep. What is the 'standard' (as in most common, what most troops use) fighting vehicle of the USMC? The humvee.
Ergo, the Gcarrier is "effectively" a flying humvee, albeit with more firepower than an M1 Abrams.
That is just as valid an interpretation.
The closest present day comparison to a GCarrier is something like a Hind, which can also (and has been) be described as "effectively a flying tank".
MadDog said:
Patently ridiculous. No one can seriously argue that 12 is a viable armour value for a TL7 MBT!
Here's a simple formula that might make some sense.
Unarmoured: 6 up to TL.
Light Armour: up to TL x 2 (light APCs and AFVs, aircraft)
Medium Armour: up to TL x 3 (hvy APC)
Heavy Amour: up to TL x 4 (MBT)
Super-Heavy: up to TL X 5 (heavy tanks, warships)
Heavier armour reduces the max speed. Maybe true 'flying' vehicles, even grav vehicles, should be limited to x3 or x4.
By this scale...
A WW2 Sherman: 20
WW2 Tiger: 25 (but slower or less reliable)
M60: 24
T-72: 28
Challenger 1: 35 (super heavy, but slower)
M1 Abrams: 32
Frontline TL10 MBT: 40
Frontline TL12 'Hover' tank (no high altitude flight): 48
Frontline TL15 Grav Tank (full flight): 45
MadDog said:
There is progression by TL, and it is actually linear, but you have to compare like with like.
None of the MGT AFVs so far described are equivalent to an MBT, and nowhere has that been implied in the descriptions, partially garbled or not.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
OK, done another little test, based on Mac's RL example above.
A 7.62mm LMG, which for the purposes of this exercise I will regard as a belt fed ACR. 3D, +6 AUTO
A .50 cal MG, which here we will stat as the Mercenary LMG. 4D, +6 AUTO.
Will treat both as having Range (Rifle), and at 500m (I will do this twice, once at Distant, -4, and once at Very Long, -2).
Skill 1, no other factors. There is no size mod in MGT, and special actions like aiming to kill balance with movement and dodging.
Target, TL6 APC, armour = 3 x TL, therefore AR18.
Firstly, at Distant (500+m).
30 attacks 7.62mm: 2 hits, none penetrate for 0 Vehicle Hits.
30 attacks .50 cal: 2 hits, 2 penetrate for 4 Vehicle Hits.
Hmmm, reasonably similar to Mac's account...
Now, at Very Long (250-500m).
30 attacks 7.62mm: 6 hits, 3 penetrate for 3 Vehicle Hits.
30 attacks .50 cal: 6 hits, 3 penetrate for 3 Vehicle Hits.
So the 7.62 does penetrate here, but this also includes much closer distances than the RL example.
In pure damage terms, just recording actual hits (as effect can only be determined by making attack rolls, and I don't have time for all that!
):
Out of 20 hits, 7.62mm, 5 penetrate for 5 Vehicle Hits.
Out of 20 hits, .50 cal, 12 penetrate for 18 Vehicle Hits.
So, can MGT small arms damage the stated armour values more than they can in RL? Yes, arguably, but you'd have to fight a whole war to see small arms destroy a TL6 APC.
Is this worth pulling down and rebuilding the MGT damage/armour system? Nope, especially as there are much simpler ways of fixing it, if you feel the need.
1. Bursts: the above examples get a whopping +6 damage from the auto value. If you convert that to an improved chance to hit (halve the auto value and use it as a bonus), and not as a damage bonus, the perceived problem almost totally goes away. There is a vanishingly small chance of a 3D weapon doing damage to AR18 with single shot or full auto, and hardly much better for 4D weapons.
2. Vehicle Armour cannot be reduced by projectiles from weapons using the Gun Combat skill. (this slot can be used to hit exposed gunners instead, or just bounce off armour with a satisfying ricochet noise).
3. Tauten up and hone the weapon descriptions to reflect the game mechanics as stated. (Though maybe mod some of the ranges, ie: Machine Gun, range (rifle).)
Much easier than rebuilding the whole combat system, or introducing unnecessary clunkiness with different scales (and games that use this method often suffer from this very same issue).
Simpler to introduce a couple of house rules rather than having to almost rewrite the game!
A 7.62mm LMG, which for the purposes of this exercise I will regard as a belt fed ACR. 3D, +6 AUTO
A .50 cal MG, which here we will stat as the Mercenary LMG. 4D, +6 AUTO.
Will treat both as having Range (Rifle), and at 500m (I will do this twice, once at Distant, -4, and once at Very Long, -2).
Skill 1, no other factors. There is no size mod in MGT, and special actions like aiming to kill balance with movement and dodging.
Target, TL6 APC, armour = 3 x TL, therefore AR18.
Firstly, at Distant (500+m).
30 attacks 7.62mm: 2 hits, none penetrate for 0 Vehicle Hits.
30 attacks .50 cal: 2 hits, 2 penetrate for 4 Vehicle Hits.
Hmmm, reasonably similar to Mac's account...
Now, at Very Long (250-500m).
30 attacks 7.62mm: 6 hits, 3 penetrate for 3 Vehicle Hits.
30 attacks .50 cal: 6 hits, 3 penetrate for 3 Vehicle Hits.
So the 7.62 does penetrate here, but this also includes much closer distances than the RL example.
In pure damage terms, just recording actual hits (as effect can only be determined by making attack rolls, and I don't have time for all that!
):Out of 20 hits, 7.62mm, 5 penetrate for 5 Vehicle Hits.
Out of 20 hits, .50 cal, 12 penetrate for 18 Vehicle Hits.
So, can MGT small arms damage the stated armour values more than they can in RL? Yes, arguably, but you'd have to fight a whole war to see small arms destroy a TL6 APC.
Is this worth pulling down and rebuilding the MGT damage/armour system? Nope, especially as there are much simpler ways of fixing it, if you feel the need.
1. Bursts: the above examples get a whopping +6 damage from the auto value. If you convert that to an improved chance to hit (halve the auto value and use it as a bonus), and not as a damage bonus, the perceived problem almost totally goes away. There is a vanishingly small chance of a 3D weapon doing damage to AR18 with single shot or full auto, and hardly much better for 4D weapons.
2. Vehicle Armour cannot be reduced by projectiles from weapons using the Gun Combat skill. (this slot can be used to hit exposed gunners instead, or just bounce off armour with a satisfying ricochet noise).
3. Tauten up and hone the weapon descriptions to reflect the game mechanics as stated. (Though maybe mod some of the ranges, ie: Machine Gun, range (rifle).)
Much easier than rebuilding the whole combat system, or introducing unnecessary clunkiness with different scales (and games that use this method often suffer from this very same issue).
Simpler to introduce a couple of house rules rather than having to almost rewrite the game!
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Just had a Eureka moment in the bath.
The simplest fix of all, for those for whom this is an important issue.
Projectile small arms, Gun Combat (Slug __ ), do 1D less damage to Vehicles and structure.
Field Weapons do 1D more to personnel (inc. personal armour).
Support Weapons do the same as before.
Slug Weapons: -1D damage vs vehicle
Field Weapons: +1D damage vs personnel
Support Weapons /Energy Small Arms: no change.
Now all that's needed is to redefine the LMG slightly and introduce one new weapon.
The LMG becomes...
MG: 4d6, range: rifle, auto: 6, recoil: 2, 20kg (+20kg for mount).
Gun Combat (Slug Rifle)
LSW (Light Support Weapon): 3d6+2, range: rifle, auto: 6, recoil: 5 (2 if mounted), 7kg, 100 round belts.
So, yeah, I'll eat my words and propose scale of a sort, but this has to be simpler than fiddling with everything?
The simplest fix of all, for those for whom this is an important issue.
Projectile small arms, Gun Combat (Slug __ ), do 1D less damage to Vehicles and structure.
Field Weapons do 1D more to personnel (inc. personal armour).
Support Weapons do the same as before.
Slug Weapons: -1D damage vs vehicle
Field Weapons: +1D damage vs personnel
Support Weapons /Energy Small Arms: no change.
Now all that's needed is to redefine the LMG slightly and introduce one new weapon.
The LMG becomes...
MG: 4d6, range: rifle, auto: 6, recoil: 2, 20kg (+20kg for mount).
Gun Combat (Slug Rifle)
LSW (Light Support Weapon): 3d6+2, range: rifle, auto: 6, recoil: 5 (2 if mounted), 7kg, 100 round belts.
So, yeah, I'll eat my words and propose scale of a sort, but this has to be simpler than fiddling with everything?
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Infojunky said:
My main reason for joining the argument is that I disagree that MGT's damage/armour mechanic needs a radical overhaul. A couple of drop-in house rules can tweak to a Ref's satisfaction just fine.
I think, however, the biggest sticking point between 'us/we' here is defining what is exactly represented by the MGT AFV or Hovertrak, and so on, and what RL vehicles they might be equivalent to.
Therefore Gcarrier does not = Grav Tank in my eyes.
OK, 2 things.
1: One thing we can agree on is that some of the descriptions are a bit garbled. They'e aimed at newbs over grogs, too. And "effectively" is not the same as "is"; it is more like "one could describe it as".
2: What was the 'standard' fighting vehicle of WW2? The jeep. What is the 'standard' (as in most common, what most troops use) fighting vehicle of the USMC? The humvee.
Ergo, the Gcarrier is "effectively" a flying humvee, albeit with more firepower than an M1 Abrams.
That is just as valid an interpretation.
Like Hell I am going to call the jeep an armored fighting vehicle. Or a fighting vehicle. The jeep wasnt designed to be taken into combat. Sure, it had a MG mount for defense, but thats not the same.
Your interpretation supposes that for some odd reason the author decided not to put any "real" tanks in either book.
Furthermore, you will notice that in MonT, there is an "AFV", an "ATV" and the G-carrier. I have a hard time believing the author decided to list 3 "jeeps" and at the same time, not provide any "real" tanks (plus another 3 or so "jeeps" in Merc.). You will also note that the AFV is described as "a heavily armored ATV". Note emphasis on "heavily". If an armor value of 18 is "heavily armored, then it is logical to assume that the G-carrier, with an armor value of 25, is in fact a fully armored tank. Lets not even think about why the Imperium would put dual Fusion guns on the thing and pay 15 MCr for it unless it was heavily armored.
Patently ridiculous. No one can seriously argue that 12 is a viable armour value for a TL7 MBT!
Here's a simple formula that might make some sense.
You are assuming that an armor value of 25 represents something lightly armored. In fact, 25 is the heaviest armor in any book, and from the vehicle descriptions, it is plain in my opinion, that the G-carrier is a full tank.
having said that, you now have to presuppose armor technology has completely stagnated in order to give 20th century tanks an armor value >12 or so.
Mad Dog
1: One thing we can agree on is that some of the descriptions are a bit garbled. They'e aimed at newbs over grogs, too. And "effectively" is not the same as "is"; it is more like "one could describe it as".
2: What was the 'standard' fighting vehicle of WW2? The jeep. What is the 'standard' (as in most common, what most troops use) fighting vehicle of the USMC? The humvee.
Ergo, the Gcarrier is "effectively" a flying humvee, albeit with more firepower than an M1 Abrams.
That is just as valid an interpretation.
Like Hell I am going to call the jeep an armored fighting vehicle. Or a fighting vehicle. The jeep wasnt designed to be taken into combat. Sure, it had a MG mount for defense, but thats not the same.
Your interpretation supposes that for some odd reason the author decided not to put any "real" tanks in either book.
Furthermore, you will notice that in MonT, there is an "AFV", an "ATV" and the G-carrier. I have a hard time believing the author decided to list 3 "jeeps" and at the same time, not provide any "real" tanks (plus another 3 or so "jeeps" in Merc.). You will also note that the AFV is described as "a heavily armored ATV". Note emphasis on "heavily". If an armor value of 18 is "heavily armored, then it is logical to assume that the G-carrier, with an armor value of 25, is in fact a fully armored tank. Lets not even think about why the Imperium would put dual Fusion guns on the thing and pay 15 MCr for it unless it was heavily armored.
Patently ridiculous. No one can seriously argue that 12 is a viable armour value for a TL7 MBT!
Here's a simple formula that might make some sense.
You are assuming that an armor value of 25 represents something lightly armored. In fact, 25 is the heaviest armor in any book, and from the vehicle descriptions, it is plain in my opinion, that the G-carrier is a full tank.
having said that, you now have to presuppose armor technology has completely stagnated in order to give 20th century tanks an armor value >12 or so.
Mad Dog
A 7.62mm LMG, which for the purposes of this exercise I will regard as a belt fed ACR. 3D, +6 AUTO
No, thats a LMG. 4D6 damage.
A .50 cal MG, which here we will stat as the Mercenary LMG. 4D, +6 AUTO.
No, thats more like a 6D6 machinegun (~same ammo as the LAG).
Skill 1, no other factors. There is no size mod in MGT, and special actions like aiming to kill balance with movement and dodging.
+1 to hit (most) vehicles as someone pointed out to me. The target wasnt moving or dodging.
Target, TL6 APC, armour = 3 x TL, therefore AR18.
Actual armor rating, from comparisons to vehicles in Traveller books <<18.
Is this worth pulling down and rebuilding the MGT damage/armour system? Nope, especially as there are much simpler ways of fixing it, if you feel the need.
Since when are a number of different proposed fixed difficult ?
1) re-rate vehicle armor and weapons
2) use the same sort of mehcabism for vehicles that exists for starships
3) add a damage bonus/penalty for shooting at lower/higher TL vehicles.
None of this is rocket science.
Simpler to introduce a couple of house rules rather than having to almost rewrite the game!
I bought it, and I guess, in an ideal world, I would like Mongoose to fix it. I have done more than my share of house rules, and at this point in my life, I have more money than time.
Mad Dog
No, thats a LMG. 4D6 damage.
A .50 cal MG, which here we will stat as the Mercenary LMG. 4D, +6 AUTO.
No, thats more like a 6D6 machinegun (~same ammo as the LAG).
Skill 1, no other factors. There is no size mod in MGT, and special actions like aiming to kill balance with movement and dodging.
+1 to hit (most) vehicles as someone pointed out to me. The target wasnt moving or dodging.
Target, TL6 APC, armour = 3 x TL, therefore AR18.
Actual armor rating, from comparisons to vehicles in Traveller books <<18.
Is this worth pulling down and rebuilding the MGT damage/armour system? Nope, especially as there are much simpler ways of fixing it, if you feel the need.
Since when are a number of different proposed fixed difficult ?
1) re-rate vehicle armor and weapons
2) use the same sort of mehcabism for vehicles that exists for starships
3) add a damage bonus/penalty for shooting at lower/higher TL vehicles.
None of this is rocket science.
Simpler to introduce a couple of house rules rather than having to almost rewrite the game!
I bought it, and I guess, in an ideal world, I would like Mongoose to fix it. I have done more than my share of house rules, and at this point in my life, I have more money than time.
Mad Dog
Looking at all this to and froing I am left wondering, What the heck are y'all in disagreement about?
Can either side give the rest of us a brief summation of their point?
My point of view is that the vehicle armor as listed, even of the best the TL 15 Imperium has to offer is ludicrously low.
When a guy with TL5 smallarms can shoot up (and eventually destroy) TL12 and 15 tanks, the time has come to consider implementing some fixes.
There are a number of simple fixes, such as:
1) re-rating vehicle armor and weapons . The added benefit here is that you can then remove the silly cases where a guy in a flak-jacket can survive being hit by an anti-tank gun.
2) implement a fix similar to that used when firing on starships (dont bother rolling with most smallarms, and heaver smallarms have a large damage divisor)
3) add bonus damage when firing a lower tech vehicles with higher tech weapons, and v-v.
and so on.
Mad Dog
Can either side give the rest of us a brief summation of their point?
My point of view is that the vehicle armor as listed, even of the best the TL 15 Imperium has to offer is ludicrously low.
When a guy with TL5 smallarms can shoot up (and eventually destroy) TL12 and 15 tanks, the time has come to consider implementing some fixes.
There are a number of simple fixes, such as:
1) re-rating vehicle armor and weapons . The added benefit here is that you can then remove the silly cases where a guy in a flak-jacket can survive being hit by an anti-tank gun.
2) implement a fix similar to that used when firing on starships (dont bother rolling with most smallarms, and heaver smallarms have a large damage divisor)
3) add bonus damage when firing a lower tech vehicles with higher tech weapons, and v-v.
and so on.
Mad Dog
