Weapons Playtest - Second Round

[Nerhesi]

Gentlemen, I want to clarify a few key points about my stance.

A) I am in complete agreement with all of you in that, realistically, based on what we see today in the real world, armor/hard defense has not been a viable defence pretty much since the Renaissance. I think we are in complete agreement regarding what is realistic based on what we see today.

B) My argument stems from the fact that unlike what we have today ( A - above ), the traveller setting (and I'm speaking based on OTU), that there exists (hard science) magic armor. Magic in that we don't know why it so damn good, but hard in that it exists and is functional against everything except meson attacks, whether you are in a suit of this armor, or in a Fleet Battleship. This allows traveller universe vehicular combat (from battledress to spacecraft) to slug it out. Slug it out like ships in starwars/star trek or mechs in battletech etc.

C) I accept the above because I accept the fact that, poof - we have magic jump drives. Poof! We have somehow the need to still use personal intelligence and dexterity to influence gunnery/evasion in space (3000 years from now, when I'm sure a military combatant will be doing nothing more than saying "engage", and two computers will dictate who wins).

D) Keep with that hardscifi aspect and consistency, if we start changing the direction to allow for 1-shotting, and moving the "viable" defenses away from armor, into more of avoidance (stealth, jamming, evasion, whatever) - then that is a big big change from what the current model is. Currently, the ability to hit/lock on/attack becomes trivial as tech and skill move up. Armor is what stands between you and the great afterlife.

That is the basis for my arguments. It is based on what we have currently in Traveller and what has historically been in Traveller.

 

[Infojunky]

Well, see now we get to the meat of it. The line of reasoning that I took with Mr. Sprange was when Smallcraft can wield Tank destroying weapons and be immune to response, then Tanks start to look like Smallcraft. With that I can see the heaviest armored vehicles having starship equivalent armor, also note in the history of Traveller Tanks are all contragravity by the time Destructive weapons start being prevalent. So the difference between a Tank and a Smallcraft is?

That is exactly my point.

Why does a 70-space (35 ton grav tank) that costs 30+ Million Credits exist? How come it's TL 14 armor and armor mods are useless vs a TL12 Tank weapon or a TL14 man-portable weapon that costs a fraction of the cost?

Why am I not using the same technology, for less than half the price using small craft rules? I get a tank - that can fly to other planets, with armor that can withstand the DD weapons? I can easily build a a craft like this that completely invalidates the existence of every Tank - and this is with TL11 or so technology, maybe even lower.

1st off at 35 displacement tons you are no longer talking about a Tank but a Smallcraft.

2nd we are getting ahead of ourselves here, in that while these are new proposed rules a lot of the backend hasn't built yet. (Which probably will be a second look at ship construction and available weapons based on the discussions ans decisions here) With that the options for "Spacecraft" grade armor on ground vehicles hasn't been proposed yet.

3rd the supposition that Smallcraft beat Tank has already been asked, answered, and included the base model.

The craziest thing I've noticed though, is now I want to mount vehicle based weaponry on spacecraft! I'd like some of those distant range fusion Z guns please! 3d6 space damage? can I put them on turrets? We start running into vehicle weaponry that is actually superior to space weaponry even though vehicles are inferior to TL11+ smallcraft in every way?

Me too, but some of these weapons have already wandered in to ship combat Turreted Plasma weapons are include as part of Trillion Credit Squadron. Yet another Note, while this discussion is in support of the Mercenary rewrite and a future edition possibly, there is a need for a ship's book where all the extraneous bits are collected and cleaned up, thus this discussion is a step in that direction.

I snipped your options not that they weren't valid, but in the fact to acknowledge that currently there is a mish-mash of potential rules and one set of changes cascades changing other things. This is kinda the standard for Traveller. And if I was the one doing the thinking I probably would have kiped the armor values and penetration from Striker and made a run with that.

 

[Nerhesi]

1st off at 35 displacement tons you are no longer talking about a Tank but a Smallcraft.

You can actually have grav tanks that are upto 50 dtons. There are actually cannon designs of 45 and 47 dton tanks right off the top of my head (Zhodani and Darrian). 25 ton Vargr, 37.5 ton Aslan, etc etc. These are all tanks from TL 12 to TL 15.

2nd we are getting ahead of ourselves here, in that while these are new proposed rules a lot of the backend hasn't built yet. (Which probably will be a second look at ship construction and available weapons based on the discussions ans decisions here) With that the options for "Spacecraft" grade armor on ground vehicles hasn't been proposed yet.

See - I was under the impression that Matt has indicated that there will be no core-rule changes. The problem as we both agree now is that, if we introduce DD weaponry as per the current Destructive rules, we have to:

a) Change vehicle design rules (at least 2 books, book 5-6 and the special supplement for books).
b) Revisit all the previous designs of vehicles that don't make sense, like the above mentioned MBTs which are more expensive then some smallcraft and are now utterly inferior in all ways.

Without even changing A or B, Destructive is a core rule (and super significant change) - so perhaps Matt can weigh in here?

3rd the supposition that Smallcraft beat Tank has already been asked, answered, and included the base model.

This is based on the fact that now, I can make a small craft that can carry something like 3 PGMPs which are considered personal, and have it flying around with 8 G acceleration and 12 spacecraft armor, a particle turret - all for half the price of any comparable vehicle.

I realise you're saying I can't make that assumption because construction rules and other rules may be changing, but to me, thats base rules that Matt has indicated are not changing. If we're redoing Vehicle supplement 5-6, then yes that is a completely invalid assumption!

Me too, but some of these weapons have already wandered in to ship combat Turreted Plasma weapons are include as part of Trillion Credit Squadron. Yet another Note, while this discussion is in support of the Mercenary rewrite and a future edition possibly, there is a need for a ship's book where all the extraneous bits are collected and cleaned up, thus this discussion is a step in that direction.

I did a quick comparisson before my original post and the plasma seems a bit in-line (medium range - 10k etc etc).

But that Fusion.. Turret mounted 3d6 with 25km range! What about some of that slug destructive weaponry?

I am seriously the first person to say "hey! Lets add more space-craft weapons!" but I want to make sure we do so in the correct book/resource

 

[Sigtrygg]

Go back to the equipment section of LBB4.

The term grav tank is not used above TL12, armoured grav vehicles merge with aircraft (think Apache helicopter with an Abrams tank level of armour).

TL15 armoured vehicles are indistinguishable from smallcraft and are known as gunships.

 

[locarno24]

The AP values are nice and simple to read; I can instantly see which things are going to be of use against heavy armour, and it leaves more 'mechanical' space in the rules for weapons with AP values out of whack to their damage values - should you want to put in a needle-beam disintegrator with 2D AP50 or something similar.

I do like the increased DD weapons, too. I understand Nerhesi's point, and I'm not wild about tank armour being on a different scale to shuttle armour, but I see my players firing on or being fired on whilst in small craft far more often than I see them up against a tank - and even then, Tank main guns flattening an equivalent sized tank seems right to me, ditto proper equivalent-tech Antitank weapons like the PGMP.

Besides which, the lighter, 1 die Destructive weapons will struggle to one-hit anything you might call a 'tank'; your average rolls will net you 1-2 each of triple, double and single hit. ATGTs and G/Carriers both rock 8 hull and 8 structure, and that's assuming none of those hits cause armour, weapon or sensor damage rather than structural.

As before, we are looking for all comments, especially on the weapons themselves - is there anything you would like to see changed, from Range to Damage to Cost, on any weapon?

Comments:

First
PGMP - Central Supply Catalogue and PGMP - Traveller Core Rulebook: 3
I realise that there is a difference between the two: ammo, auto rating, etc, but if this is a 'master update', the same weapons should only appear in the list once.

Accelerator rifle, Assault rifle laser pistol appear twice but is identical.

ACR only appears once - there are light, heavy and rapid fire versions, none of which match the original
Autopistol - identical to the 9mm autopistol although other calibres exist. Body Pistol is similar
Gauss Pistol only appears once, although Army and Navy versions exist.

Autorifle, Gauss rifle, plasma rifle appear twice and are different.
Grenade launcher appears twice. The CSC grenade launcher lists a range of "Personal" and a skill of "Gun Combat (Slug)", both of which sound unlikely.
RAM grenade launcher is also different both times it appears.


Second
The plasma C lists its damage as 12DD. I assume that's a typo?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, chaps...

Arguments for and against on the current Destructive rules. However, as these are/will be core rules, we like to see if we can accommodate both.

Suppose we keep the scaling up of DD weapons into spacecraft scale as it is. We may need to discuss which weapons are allowed to do this; and a _very_ important factor here is not damage but range - I have few issues with relatively small weapons being able to hurt spacecraft if they have to effectively be at point blank range (when the spacecraft is at rest - and should be vulnerable).

The majority of concerns seem to be how DD weapons affect things on the personal level.

Suppose we said that instead of ignoring armour at this level, each die of DD ignores 50 points of armour. So, most DD weapons ignore 50 points, but the really powerful 2DD weapons ignore 100.

This would allow us to create vehicles that can one-shot one another in some settings, and can still slug it out in others, simply by varying armour scores and what weapons are available.

Best of both worlds?

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Comments on "Weapons Second Round"

Personally I am not a fan of only two specialisations, at the moment anyone with, say, slug pistol 1, has 0 in slug rifle, energy pistol, energy rifle and shotgun, which works fine as a basic level of competency, and seems "realistic". Also thinking about those characters who end up with slug pistol 2 and slug rifle 2. Under this arrangement, they will end up with slug weapons 4, making them much more dangerous.

On the lists of weapons, putting out the CRB weapons and the CSC weapons in the same table is a little confusing, so, e.g., there are two, different, sets of stats for some weapons. This could do with being edited to present a version with one set of stats for each weapon. For what it is worth, I think the CRB stats are usually better, e.g. the ACR with a 40 round magazine looks more likely than the 100 round light ACR in the CSC (what's it firing, peas?), and the Gauss Rifle at 80 rounds looks more convincing than the equivalent in the CSC (when we say "gauss needles", we mean a substantial, pointy, slug, not a sewing needle). Now might be the time to ditch some of the weapons introduced in CSC (see earlier threads about the CSC!)

Someone else has pointed out anomalies with gauss weapons, I think the gauss rifle should retain AP ability, at AP4. Not so convinced about the gauss pistols, their slugs are smaller anyway, and the barrels shorter so would not have enough time to accelerate to the same velocity, so would drop AP for them.

Rules for improved ammunitions, AP, DSAP, HEAT etc need to be looked at again.

Like the idea of FGMP as a "2DD" weapon, and PGMP as a "1DD" weapon.

7.62mm issues, the "full bore rifle", presumably something like a WW1 Lee Enfield, is given dam 3d6+3, and AP5. Personally, I think 3d6 dam and AP3 would do fine for this, and similar weapons, e.g. "autorifles" and LMGs. You will need to think through which TL5-7 weapons should have 7.62 equivalent, and which 5.56 equivalent, and apply it consistently.

Sub-machine guns, there are quite a variation on this last list. The "standard" mid 20th century sub-machine gun fired 9mm pistol type ammo, so should do a dam of 3d6-3. Giving them the same range as an "assault rifle" is too much, pistol range would be better.

And, on a pet bugbear, shouldn't the AP of kinetic weapons decline with range to target?

Egil

 

[locarno24]

On the lists of weapons, putting out the CRB weapons and the CSC weapons in the same table is a little confusing, so, e.g., there are two, different, sets of stats for some weapons. This could do with being edited to present a version with one set of stats for each weapon. For what it is worth, I think the CRB stats are usually better, e.g. the ACR with a 40 round magazine looks more likely than the 100 round light ACR in the CSC (what's it firing, peas?), and the Gauss Rifle at 80 rounds looks more convincing than the equivalent in the CSC (when we say "gauss needles", we mean a substantial, pointy, slug, not a sewing needle). Now might be the time to ditch some of the weapons introduced in CSC (see earlier threads about the CSC!)

Personally, I would agree. I'm fine with introducing fundamentally different weapons - accelerator carbines and pistols, the 'splinter weapon' class, flamer pistols, the duck-foot pistol, etc.

Feeling the need to add the "slightly-heavier-than-a-medium-gauss-rifle-but-not-as-heavy-as-a-heavy-gauss-rifle-gauss-rifle" is my main dislike with the Central Supply Catalogue. Traveller combat doesn't have enough detail for three slightly different makes of assault rifle to need a meaningful rules difference between them.

If you want DD to ignore a big chunk of armour, but not flat-out ignore armour, I'm not too bothered. As long as the 'chunk' is enough to punch through personal armour (and I'm including stuff up to and inclusive of Artillery Battle Dress as 'personal') then I don't mind - as I said, my main concern is that the Destructive trait is the bridge between 'ship' and 'normal' scale, and hence PGMP/FGMP weapons can with sustained fire knock holes in light fighters, shuttles and other civilian spacecraft.

I get the issue with tanks. Ultimately, this is a core rule mechanic problem - the fact that vehicles are 'drawn' on a different scale to spacecraft, which would be fine if you only saw >100dTon ships. However, 'shennanigans in a ship's boat' are a big part of Traveller, and far more likely to be encountered than a tank. As noted, I would have thought most high TL military units are more likely to be small craft configured as atmospheric gunships than something on tracks.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Suppose we said that instead of ignoring armour at this level, each die of DD ignores 50 points of armour. So, most DD weapons ignore 50 points, but the really powerful 2DD weapons ignore 100.

This would allow us to create vehicles that can one-shot one another in some settings, and can still slug it out in others, simply by varying armour scores and what weapons are available.

That should do the trick, and reduce those huge handfuls of dice when a FGMP hits.

Of course, looking the other way, large space ship weapons many need to go up to 3DD (particle beam), or 6DD if a bay. How many DD for a spinal mount meson?

Egil

 

[GypsyComet]

Feeling the need to add the "slightly-heavier-than-a-medium-gauss-rifle-but-not-as-heavy-as-a-heavy-gauss-rifle-gauss-rifle" is my main dislike with the Central Supply Catalogue. Traveller combat doesn't have enough detail for three slightly different makes of assault rifle to need a meaningful rules difference between them.

In setting, the developmentally conservative Vilani and the competitively inventive Solomani tendencies are going to always be at odds. A short and standard weapons list is very Vilani, while a wildly customized list is very Solomani

From the generic "black cover" point of view, each generation of weaponry should eventually evolve to cover combat and sport uses of all sorts, not that there are a lot of sport uses for a fusion gun. Yet.

The rules are also covering options that other races and/or settings would prefer. Just because a 10kg drum magazine on a gauss rifle sounds silly and unwieldy to us doesn't mean the Sydites (7 feet tall and four-armed) won't find it useful.

 

[Nerhesi]

The majority of concerns seem to be how DD weapons affect things on the personal level.

Suppose we said that instead of ignoring armour at this level, each die of DD ignores 50 points of armour. So, most DD weapons ignore 50 points, but the really powerful 2DD weapons ignore 100.

This would allow us to create vehicles that can one-shot one another in some settings, and can still slug it out in others, simply by varying armour scores and what weapons are available.

Best of both worlds?

Absolutely. The only minor change that I MAY suggest, is that you may want to keep DD as 50 AP regardless of the dice of damage (See below).

Effective Damage Range:
a) 1DD = 60 to 110, average ~80.
b) 2DD = 70 to 170, average ~120.
c) 3DD = 80 to 210, average ~160.
etc...

It depends on the prevalence of 3DD weapons Matt. If there wont be any 3DD weapons (because we have to remember, thats the equivalent of a Particle Beam Triple Turret on a spacecraft!), then we should make 2DD = 100 AP. If there are going to be some new 3DD weapons that are vehicle mountable, then we should just keep DD as static 50, because they will be clearing 150 armor (max allowed) on most shots - aka ignoring armor.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Suppose we said that instead of ignoring armour at this level, each die of DD ignores 50 points of armour. So, most DD weapons ignore 50 points, but the really powerful 2DD weapons ignore 100.

How about instead, all destructive weapons treat every 10 points of armor as 1 point of armor. Correct me if I am wrong (its been a while since I've converted ship stats to vehicle stats so I may be wrong), but doesn't 1 point of hull/structure at ship level counts as 10 points of hull/structure at vehicle level. So it would make sense that armor and weapons should have a similar conversion. So 2DD would be a 20 to 1 ratio.

 

[Infojunky]

How about instead, all destructive weapons treat every 10 points of armor as 1 point of armor. Correct me if I am wrong (its been a while since I've converted ship stats to vehicle stats so I may be wrong), but doesn't 1 point of hull/structure at ship level counts as 10 points of hull/structure at vehicle level. So it would make sense that armor and weapons should have a similar conversion. So 2DD would be a 20 to 1 ratio.

See I could go with this idea as well.... It might go some distance to solve Nerhesi objections as well...

 

[Infojunky]

How many DD for a spinal mount meson?

Forty! but I am not saying anything more.....

 

[Infojunky]

Dipping into Specifics of DD class weapons most notably how to differentiate the same weapon series as it is improved through tech advance.

Say PGMPs start at 1DD-1 at introduction TL adding a +1 with 1st improvement at least in the Man Portable guns.

With all the Letter classes of Plasma and fusion weapons I don't a problem with them having similar damages across their ranges as they get lighter as they go up in TL.

Though I would like to see a Laser with a DD rating at around TL9...

 

[Nerhesi]

I assume if each point of DD damage ignored 10 points of personal armor, then we are not multiplying left over damage by 10 right?

So 2DD, rolls 10 for example. Target has 90 armor. That means 10 damage penetrate causing a double hit and a single hit (I think?) for example...

If so, then yes, I can definitely live with that too - we'd just need to run some tests

 

[locarno24]

You'd still be multiplying damage by ten - if you fire at a lightly armoured or unarmoured infantryman, or a civilian groundcar with an PGMP, then the result should be, as you put it, "pew - vaporized".

A PGMP throwing down an average of 30-40 damage should achieve this against most targets.

I have no problem with tanks having similar damage to traveller small-craft, and proper military small-craft have the ability to take several hits from 2-3 dice starship-scale weapons.

(I admit to ignorance of the vehicle design rules as to how tough 'tanks' get).


Agreed with the comment above: a 3-4DD weapon is the equivalent of starship particle artillery. If the weapon is of similar power, fair enough - but you're only going to get that for emplaced weapons - aerospace defence batteries, etc. I don't see anything vehicle mounted reaching that level of power.

...not that there are a lot of sport uses for a fusion gun...

You've clearly not been hunted mature Chamax before....

 

[MongooseMatt]

Agreed with the comment above: a 3-4DD weapon is the equivalent of starship particle artillery. If the weapon is of similar power, fair enough - but you're only going to get that for emplaced weapons - aerospace defence batteries, etc. I don't see anything vehicle mounted reaching that level of power.

40k style super heavy tanks and titans...

 

[Nerhesi]

So you'd be multiplying the damage that goes through armor, by 10. Not the damage prior to armor subtraction right?


a) PGMP 1DD. Rolls 5 for damage for example. Target has 40 armor. So the left over 1 point means 10 damage.
or
b) PGMP 1DD. Rolls 5 for damage for example. Target has 40 armor. Multiply damage to 50, ignore up to 500 armor?

I'm going to assume A?

 

[Condottiere]

Ground pressure must be tremendous for Titans.

Always thought that kneecapping them would be the most effective antidote, much like taking out the cockpit of battlemechs is the cleanest way to salvage them afterwards.