Weapons Playtest - Second Round

[Nerhesi]

No, you just can't mount it in the first place in a "personal-mount".

That' what I meant by illogical (arbitrary nonsense) rules popping up because of figuring from bottom to top. Rather than the other way 'round. Going to be MANY more illogics before done.

Which is why the solution, can fix some of these illogics. These illogics ALREADY existed.

Example:

Small-craft personal weapons range from mounting a 5kg battle rifle to a 1000 kg plasma/fusion/gauss weapon.
I can mount 4 of these on a 40 ton fighter. For free. 20 kg to 4 tons...

Matt is not actually introducing illogic in this case, it is just now clearly highlighted - so we should address it.

 

[Infojunky]

I think we will need another control in there Matt, as it stands now the Fusion and PGMPs from personal scale are making it to medium range and longer in Space (since 25km is very long and so on)

We could use a little bit of science...
In that as charged weapons both PGMPs and FGMPs will have significantly reduced ranges in vacuum.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think we will need another control in there Matt, as it stands now the Fusion and PGMPs from personal scale are making it to medium range and longer in Space (since 25km is very long and so on)

We could use a little bit of science...
In that as charged weapons both PGMPs and FGMPs will have significantly reduced ranges in vacuum.

Sure!

We also need just some rule so that mounting 10 PGMPs/FGMPs is not the same as mounting 6 revolvers or battle axes (just for the hell of it) on your Small craft

 

[mr31337]

A TL7 starship beam laser, MCr.1, MRB pp111 will effectively do 10 x 1d6 with DD attribute.

However...

1) Vehicle mounted, TL9, laser cannon, 8d6, MCr.1, CSC pp124
2) Vehicle mounted, TL9, laser cannon, 8d6, MCr.1, Vehicle Handbook pp32
3) TL9, laser cannon, 8D AP10, MCr.1 Mercenary II Playtest pp8

I'm guessing the explanation is that these similar sized, more modern laser cannons are a different type of laser ..somehow. :roll:

I suspect the x10 is just to reduce the crunchiness. I've been using x8 for some time in my own campaign, it works okay and fits better, but I yearn for a superior solution.

 

[Infojunky]

I suspect the x10 is just to reduce the crunchiness. I've been using x8 for some time in my own campaign, it works okay and fits better, but I yearn for a superior solution.

Without a fix I really liked the x8 solution myself, as it was easily justified for different range bands by just assuming different aperture sizes. (Note one of the long standing assumptions was that starship lasers used gravitic lensing to achieve a larger effective aperture.)

 

[Condottiere]

If small arms PGMPs are effective on ship hulls, the temptation will be to armour up and get real close and personal (or more precisely, that's what I would do), which I presume would also fall under strafing runs.

 

[MongooseMatt]

We also need just some rule so that mounting 10 PGMPs/FGMPs is not the same as mounting 6 revolvers or battle axes (just for the hell of it) on your Small craft

I like the idea of Battle-axes appearing on fighters...

Just to let everyone know that while this particular issue is better served being addressed in High Guard 2 and/or a revised Core, Merc 2 will have a placeholder at least to stop the greater excesses.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hey guys,

Bearing in mind that, at some point, High Guard will be revised, how would you feel about this as a placeholder;


Destructive Weapons and Spacecraft
Book 2: High Guard allows for the placement of several anti-personnel weapons upon spacecraft and, with the new Destructive rules, this could allow relatively small fighters to mount enough spacecraft scale weaponry to cause damage out of all proportion with their size!

However, these weapons are designed for use within an atmosphere against targets on the ground or in the air, not spacecraft in the void of space. They may therefore only be used on targets at Adjacent range when engaging targets on spacecraft scale.

 

[Old timer]

Nice simple solution, i like it.

 

[mr31337]

Would anti-personnel weapons work in low or very low atmosphere worlds? What's the cut-off point? If these specific weapons were mounted in a sealed hull grav vehicle would they then work in a vacuum or low atmosphere world? :?

So perhaps there ought to be cost multiplier to harden such weapons for use in a vacuum, also there should be a better definition exactly what can be an "anti-personnel weapon" such as any Light Support Weapon, (ie: CSC pp104) or smaller.

Personally I think small ship using both ship's weapons AND anti-personnel weapons is wrong. They're pretty much the same size anyway. I think it should be ship's weapons OR anti-personnel weapons on small ships. Removing the distinction between weapon types altogether is the way forward as ship's and vehicles are merged closer together. Then qualifiers like "can be used in a vacuum" won't be needed. You'll end up with small ships that tend to fill a role, although still remain versatile.

The next question is if it is possible to mount anti-personnel weapons to a sub 100 ton ship why can't players add them to their larger starships, since it is only a matter of scale? There is no reasonable argument to forbid that, and then we start to get into a huge level of complexity where larger starships routinely get armed with vast quantities of anti-personnel weapons. It really needs to be one or the other, not both.

 

[Nerhesi]

While that is a simple solution attempt matt, there are issues around it:

A) what about spacecraft?
B) how does this effect fleet actions and barrage when fighter make in close and unleash hell?
Etc...

Matt, is it possible to simply limit anti-personal mounts by weight? Logically it wouldn't make sense that mounting a rifle is the same as mounting a 5 ton fusion Z or so. So like no weapon that weighs greater than 200 kg or so?

Or an even simpler options? DD weapons count as ship weapons due to power/size/whatever constraints - AND they have adjacent range. Hmm?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt, is it possible to simply limit anti-personal mounts by weight? Logically it wouldn't make sense that mounting a rifle is the same as mounting a 5 ton fusion Z or so. So like no weapon that weighs greater than 200 kg or so?

Or an even simpler options? DD weapons count as ship weapons due to power/size/whatever constraints - AND they have adjacent range. Hmm?

All reasonable suggestions. I would also point out that the definition of anti-personnel in High Guard is... fuzzy. I believe the author was intending relatively light weapons (man portable), _not_ the likes of a Fusion Z.

This is something that obviously needs looking at in light of the proliferation of vehicle-based weaponry that appeared in CSC and the Vehicle Handbook (both subsequent releases to High Guard, which specifically mentions PGMPs and rocket launchers - both Core Rulebook weapons - as anti-personnel).

So, for now, I would suggest we apply common sense and accept a Fusion Z is not the same as a rocket launcher, and not mount them on small craft. If you have a player who insists one mounting 72 PGMPs on fighters and then flying them, suicide style, into Adjacent ranges, ban them (the fighter, not the player - well, not unless he is seriously annoying you...). Consider this part of the rules a construction site that we have ringed with yellow tape. You can go in there, but don't muck about.

Come High Guard 2, we will fully integrate all vehicle weapons into spacecraft design, but that is not something for Merc 2.

 

[Nerhesi]

Excellent, thanks Matt.

May I also ask that you gents take into account the following for your master weapons list update:

Supplement 5-6 combined - Vehicles. I think you missed some battle-dress weapons (they probably need some correction as one or two should be destructive).

And the special supplement 2: Vehicle options has further weaponry.

I've been able to test ur new proposed AP values on destructive weapons - but I will get to it by Sunday.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[MongooseMatt]

Gentlemen,

I just wanted to give you all a big thank you for your comments on this thread and others, on these forums and COTI. They have really been a big help and altered the course Mercenary 2 has taken, as I hope you will soon find out. There have been too many of you to thank individually but, collectively, you all have credits in the book itself!

We have been busy this week compiling all the last minute comments and applying them as the book is laid out (we even had a couple of 'emergency' sessions of playtesters coming to our offices to make sure nothing we were doing was breaking anything else!).

I am personally very proud of this book, and can't wait to get it into your hands. The last tweaks on the layout are being done right now, and we are on course (barring any issues) to get it up on Drivethru this afternoon, and out as a printed release in August (heralding a new wave of printed Traveller releases - if you have been waiting for a PDF book to become physical, it is on its way). As we have done up to now, we will be watching your comments on the entire book very closely.

So, what is next for Traveller? Well, we have oodles of new books being worked on right now, from Third Imperium setting books, to new core books (career book for Pirates!), to brand new settings.

The next major shift will be, I think, to take a look at spacecraft construction again, compiling everything that has been developed over the years and ironing out the resulting wrinkles. However, to my mind, to do that properly will involve working on a new High Guard, Core Rulebook and, by extension, Central Supply Catalogue.

However, we are not ready for that I have a couple of miniatures games to work on first but, at some point, we will start taking a look at this Grand Revision, and I hope you chaps will be on board with your comments and suggestions when the time comes. Which will likely be 2015 at best

Once again, thank you all for your efforts, support, arguments, debates, and suggestions. I sincerely hope you are happy with the results.

 

[Nerhesi]

Mattias Sprange, I can't wait for Mercenary 2.

Testing several scenarios with friends last night. We only have 1 piece of feedback really.

Fusion Z, Y, X.

The AP values for fusion Z are "ignore armor" pretty much. Against an advanced sphere tank it is like you're firing at a wooden canoe.

To account slightly for that Matt, we found that following AP values for Fusion worked better:

X/Y/Z - 50,70,70 if Fusion Z remains 3DD.
Or
X/Y/Z - 50,70,100 if Fusion Z becomes 2DD. We were a bit apprehensive with a 3DD vehicle mounted weapon.

 

[MongooseMatt]

To account slightly for that Matt, we found that following AP values for Fusion worked better:

X/Y/Z - 50,70,70 if Fusion Z remains 3DD.
Or
X/Y/Z - 50,70,100 if Fusion Z becomes 2DD. We were a bit apprehensive with a 3DD vehicle mounted weapon.

Well, remember that the Fusion Z is supposed to be _the_ weapon. However, we have the playtesters round here again, so I'll drop your stats in to them and see what they say!

 

[Nerhesi]

Oh it will most definitely by Zee weapon (haha, terrible) - it will penetrate armor 90% of the time.

3DD with 150 AP though is just ignoring max armor possible and doing 3DD. Technically, it's like Meson now you're doing 110 damage on average to a Darrian TL15 tank! (and particle weapon dmg to a ship!)

3DD with 75 AP is guaranteed to penetrate but to deal small to critical hits - rather than just catastrophic hits 24/7. (or 2DD with 100 APish)

Ok ok - I'm done.