I am going to build some forces in 6mm. Who would you suggest as far as manufactures? Mostly going to be TNE stuff. Going from around TL8 on up.
Thread: 6mm
46 posts.
I am going to build some forces in 6mm. Who would you suggest as far as manufactures? Mostly going to be TNE stuff. Going from around TL8 on up.
Charles--
My sentimental favorite would have to be RAFM, because of the TNE stuff
Jack made for us, but don't know if they do 6mm. I know they are still
selling TNE stuff under faintly camouflaged name changes. I just received
some of the Ad Astra Traveller starships, which are very pretty, but
beyond that I am not very familiar with all that might be out there. If
you can give me some pointers for what to look at, I would be happy to
look them over.
Dave
> I am going to build some forces in 6mm. Who would you suggest as far as
manufactures? Mostly going to be TNE stuff. Going from around TL8 on
up.
Yeah , I really would like some of the RAFAM starships esp the Clipper. Not to
game with but to have sitting on my book case along with My BSG and Star Wars
ships.If you could clue me whereto look on the RAFAM site that would be cool.
Also looking at a few other sites.
Also why are the Ships in the Mega Trav book Shattered Imperium broken?
I am going to start going through the usual suspects for the stuff. The one
thing I really want and i might have to have it custom made is an Abomination.
On a sort of separate note, the one thing that I did not like about TNE was the
starship missile tech. I mean one of the lynch pins of Imperial intervention is
use of Nukes. Yet all that would have to be done to trigger sending in the
Marines is one starship missile going off with that bomb pumped warhead.
________________________________
Sent: Mon, June 25, 2012 8:29:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] 6mm
Charles--
My sentimental favorite would have to be RAFM, because of the TNE stuff
Jack made for us, but don't know if they do 6mm. I know they are still
selling TNE stuff under faintly camouflaged name changes. I just received
some of the Ad Astra Traveller starships, which are very pretty, but
beyond that I am not very familiar with all that might be out there. If
you can give me some pointers for what to look at, I would be happy to
look them over.
Dave
> I am going to build some forces in 6mm. Who would you suggest as far as
manufactures? Mostly going to be TNE stuff. Going from around TL8 on
up.
Charles--
Here is a link to the RAFM 15mm line:
http://www.rafm.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=RAF&Category_Code=GRAV&offset=0
I don't see where they have the TNE starships up, though. However, if you
call or e-mail them I think they will sell them to you directly. That's
the way it worked a few years ago.
The MT book "Fighting Ships" contains a whole bunch of ship designs that
are broken largely due to the problems with the MT starship design rules,
which had some issues with multiple interpretations at least. Either the
ships were designed before the rules were finalized (which is a common
problem in game design), designed with different interpretations of the
rules, or just with plain old ordinary human error. The problem was that
since the design rules were sufficiently confusing, it was impossible to
ever "fix" the ships without rewriting the ship design rules, and since we
were working on TNE anyway it did not justify the effort.
The Imperial rule on nukes would have been re-interpreted in TNE to state
"the use of nukes on a world," since all space missiles were nukes. But
since there was no Imperium left, we probably didn't explain that. All
space missiles were nuke-pumped lasers as that was the only way to
realistically make missiles work. Getting skin-to-skin contact with HE
missiles the way earlier editions assumed was just not going to happen.
Dave
> Yeah , I really would like some of the RAFAM starships esp the Clipper.
> Not to
> game with but to have sitting on my book case along with My BSG and Star
> Wars
> ships.If you could clue me whereto look on the RAFAM site that would be
> cool.
> Also looking at a few other sites.
> Also why are the Ships in the Mega Trav book Shattered Imperium broken?
>
> I am going to start going through the usual suspects for the stuff. The
> one
> thing I really want and i might have to have it custom made is an
> Abomination.
>
> On a sort of separate note, the one thing that I did not like about TNE
> was the
> starship missile tech. I mean one of the lynch pins of Imperial
> intervention is
> use of Nukes. Yet all that would have to be done to trigger sending in the
> Marines is one starship missile going off with that bomb pumped warhead.
I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I stand on
the side of 'they can be".
In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can stop
nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles ineffectual. If
you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be able to
build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship physically.
Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
We can go into if need be.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Charles--
>
> Here is a link to the RAFM 15mm line:
>
>
> http://www.rafm.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=RAF&Category_Code=GRAV&offset=0
>
> I don't see where they have the TNE starships up, though. However, if you
> call or e-mail them I think they will sell them to you directly. That's
> the way it worked a few years ago.
>
> The MT book "Fighting Ships" contains a whole bunch of ship designs that
> are broken largely due to the problems with the MT starship design rules,
> which had some issues with multiple interpretations at least. Either the
> ships were designed before the rules were finalized (which is a common
> problem in game design), designed with different interpretations of the
> rules, or just with plain old ordinary human error. The problem was that
> since the design rules were sufficiently confusing, it was impossible to
> ever "fix" the ships without rewriting the ship design rules, and since we
> were working on TNE anyway it did not justify the effort.
>
> The Imperial rule on nukes would have been re-interpreted in TNE to state
> "the use of nukes on a world," since all space missiles were nukes. But
> since there was no Imperium left, we probably didn't explain that. All
> space missiles were nuke-pumped lasers as that was the only way to
> realistically make missiles work. Getting skin-to-skin contact with HE
> missiles the way earlier editions assumed was just not going to happen.
>
> Dave
>
>
> > Yeah , I really would like some of the RAFAM starships esp the Clipper.
> > Not to
> > game with but to have sitting on my book case along with My BSG and Star
> > Wars
> > ships.If you could clue me whereto look on the RAFAM site that would be
> > cool.
> > Also looking at a few other sites.
> > Also why are the Ships in the Mega Trav book Shattered Imperium broken?
> >
> > I am going to start going through the usual suspects for the stuff. The
> > one
> > thing I really want and i might have to have it custom made is an
> > Abomination.
> >
> > On a sort of separate note, the one thing that I did not like about TNE
> > was the
> > starship missile tech. I mean one of the lynch pins of Imperial
> > intervention is
> > use of Nukes. Yet all that would have to be done to trigger sending in
> the
> > Marines is one starship missile going off with that bomb pumped warhead.
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
We can if you want.
> I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I stand on
> the side of 'they can be".
>
> In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can stop
> nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles ineffectual.
> If
> you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be able to
> build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship physically.
> Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
>
> We can go into if need be.
>
I will start with a simple premise that we can agree or disagree on.
In human history of warfare is are cyclic events innovation.
You build a better weapon, 'eventually' someone builds a way to defeat it.
You build a better defense someone builds a better weapon to defeat it.
If this is basically true (discounting time scales required for development
however it is important over all) then I would ask the following question.
In TNE is it possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship at all?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> We can if you want.
>
>
> > I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I stand
> on
> > the side of 'they can be".
> >
> > In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can stop
> > nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles ineffectual.
> > If
> > you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be able to
> > build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship physically.
> > Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
> >
> > We can go into if need be.
> >
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
In my TNE-verse Det Nukes were crafted in such a way that any significant atmosphere around the nuke would result in the nuke warhead fragmenting/duding when the compression charge/laser/whatever tried to achieve a critical mass. Other safeties include basic densitometers to prevent detonation close to significant bodies (Earth, Vesta, Pamela Anderson...)
Of course, military-standard det-nukes didn't have the densitometers - but even then, if they wanted to nuke a world they'd use ordinance fit for the job.
Eamon
>From: "" <>
>The Imperial rule on nukes would have been re-interpreted in TNE to state
>"the use of nukes on a world," since all space missiles were nukes. But
>since there was no Imperium left, we probably didn't explain that. All
>space missiles were nuke-pumped lasers as that was the only way to
>realistically make missiles work. Getting skin-to-skin contact with HE
>missiles the way earlier editions assumed was just not going to happen.
Dave
Those safeties make good sense. Would have been a good thing for us to
think of.
On top of that, the space combat missiles are not streamlined for
atmospheric use, so should break up upon entering atmo anyway. As you
point out, TNE had lots of powered or deadfall ordnance designed for
planetary bombardment.
> In my TNE-verse Det Nukes were crafted in such a way that any significant
> atmosphere around the nuke would result in the nuke warhead
> fragmenting/duding when the compression charge/laser/whatever tried to
> achieve a critical mass. Other safeties include basic densitometers to
> prevent detonation close to significant bodies (Earth, Vesta, Pamela
> Anderson...)
>
> Of course, military-standard det-nukes didn't have the densitometers - but
> even then, if they wanted to nuke a world they'd use ordinance fit for the
> job.
>
> Eamon
>
>>From: "" <>
>
>
>>The Imperial rule on nukes would have been re-interpreted in TNE to state
>
>>"the use of nukes on a world," since all space missiles were nukes. But
>
>>since there was no Imperium left, we probably didn't explain that. All
>
>>space missiles were nuke-pumped lasers as that was the only way to
>
>>realistically make missiles work. Getting skin-to-skin contact with HE
>
>>missiles the way earlier editions assumed was just not going to happen.
>
> Dave
>
>
I concur with your premises.
(And will also point out that one of the things Traveller does is attempt
to anticipate, allow for, and design in those cycles of measure,
counter-measure, counter-counter-measure, etc., so that we don't have
people designing things that only last a couple years [like, for example
the Windjammers I mentioned yesterday], but by the same token, the design
system does allow you to try to capture that snapshot in time if you like.
It just may not stand the test of infinite innovation.)
Yes, it is possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship. Not
terribly likely, but possible.
(Also, at the risk of painting the word DICK on my forehead in even bigger
letters, I don't believe in space fighters, but we can wander into that
wonderland another time.)
So, Yes, I accept your premises. Really.
Dave
> I will start with a simple premise that we can agree or disagree on.
>
> In human history of warfare is are cyclic events innovation.
>
> You build a better weapon, 'eventually' someone builds a way to defeat it.
> You build a better defense someone builds a better weapon to defeat it.
>
> If this is basically true (discounting time scales required for
> development
> however it is important over all) then I would ask the following question.
>
> In TNE is it possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship at
> all?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> We can if you want.
>>
>>
>> > I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I
>> stand
>> on
>> > the side of 'they can be".
>> >
>> > In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can stop
>> > nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles
>> ineffectual.
>> > If
>> > you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be able
>> to
>> > build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship physically.
>> > Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
>> >
>> > We can go into if need be.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
Sounds like gun control. Many pirate types would modify/remove
the safeguards anyway...
---
from my T989
wrote:
Those safeties make good sense. Would have been a good thing for
us to
think of.
On top of that, the space combat missiles are not streamlined for
atmospheric use, so should break up upon entering atmo anyway. As
you
point out, TNE had lots of powered or deadfall ordnance designed
for
planetary bombardment.
> In my TNE-verse Det Nukes were crafted in such a way that any
significant
> atmosphere around the nuke would result in the nuke warhead
> fragmenting/duding when the compression charge/laser/whatever
tried to
> achieve a critical mass. Other safeties include basic
densitometers to
> prevent detonation close to significant bodies (Earth, Vesta,
Pamela
> Anderson...)
>
> Of course, military-standard det-nukes didn't have the
densitometers - but
> even then, if they wanted to nuke a world they'd use ordinance
fit for the
> job.
>
> Eamon
>
>>From: " <> "
< <> >
>
>
>>The Imperial rule on nukes would have been re-interpreted in
TNE to state
>
>>"the use of nukes on a world," since all space missiles were
nukes. But
>
>>since there was no Imperium left, we probably didn't explain
that. All
>
>>space missiles were nuke-pumped lasers as that was the only way
to
>
>>realistically make missiles work. Getting skin-to-skin contact
with HE
>
>>missiles the way earlier editions assumed was just not going to
happen.
>
> Dave
>
>
We don't have to call it a fighter. its just a small/disposable weapon's
platform.
If its possible but rare having 100 (arbitrary number) per wave make it
more possible?
Does that 100 platforms result in causing the target from being combat
effective?
Does that 100 platforms cost less than the target you crippled.
At the end if its yes, yes, and yes. then its efficient to use them. If any
of them is no then its not efficient to use them.
Human (or sentient species) loss in the use can have a disproportionate
effect on cost factors.
If TNE can allow for a cheap effective platform to make skin-to-skin
contact possible. It could be used effectively.
Problems as I see them. effective 'powered' approaches to 'spoof' defenses.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:41 AM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I concur with your premises.
>
> (And will also point out that one of the things Traveller does is attempt
> to anticipate, allow for, and design in those cycles of measure,
> counter-measure, counter-counter-measure, etc., so that we don't have
> people designing things that only last a couple years [like, for example
> the Windjammers I mentioned yesterday], but by the same token, the design
> system does allow you to try to capture that snapshot in time if you like.
> It just may not stand the test of infinite innovation.)
>
> Yes, it is possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship. Not
> terribly likely, but possible.
>
> (Also, at the risk of painting the word DICK on my forehead in even bigger
> letters, I don't believe in space fighters, but we can wander into that
> wonderland another time.)
>
> So, Yes, I accept your premises. Really.
>
> Dave
>
>
> > I will start with a simple premise that we can agree or disagree on.
> >
> > In human history of warfare is are cyclic events innovation.
> >
> > You build a better weapon, 'eventually' someone builds a way to defeat
> it.
> > You build a better defense someone builds a better weapon to defeat it.
> >
> > If this is basically true (discounting time scales required for
> > development
> > however it is important over all) then I would ask the following
> question.
> >
> > In TNE is it possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship at
> > all?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM, <> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> We can if you want.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I
> >> stand
> >> on
> >> > the side of 'they can be".
> >> >
> >> > In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can stop
> >> > nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles
> >> ineffectual.
> >> > If
> >> > you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be able
> >> to
> >> > build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship physically.
> >> > Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
> >> >
> >> > We can go into if need be.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> > would have been deserved.
> >
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
I think "fighters" evokes aeronautics and those concepts are ill
suited for the role they full in TNE space combat. Small sub
100dt ships work pretty good for recon, patrol, and as point
defense and mobile missile platforms
---
from my T989
John Potter wrote:
We don't have to call it a fighter. its just a small/disposable
weapon's platform.
If its possible but rare having 100 (arbitrary number) per wave
make it more possible? Does that 100 platforms result in causing
the target from being combat effective? Does that 100 platforms
cost less than the target you crippled.
At the end if its yes, yes, and yes. then its efficient to use
them. If any of them is no then its not efficient to use them.
Human (or sentient species) loss in the use can have a
disproportionate effect on cost factors.
If TNE can allow for a cheap effective platform to make
skin-to-skin contact possible. It could be used effectively.
Problems as I see them. effective 'powered' approaches to 'spoof'
defenses.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:41 AM, <
<> > wrote:
I concur with your premises.
(And will also point out that one of the things Traveller does is
attempt
to anticipate, allow for, and design in those cycles of measure,
counter-measure, counter-counter-measure, etc., so that we don't
have
people designing things that only last a couple years [like, for
example
the Windjammers I mentioned yesterday], but by the same token,
the design
system does allow you to try to capture that snapshot in time if
you like.
It just may not stand the test of infinite innovation.)
Yes, it is possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy
warship. Not
terribly likely, but possible.
(Also, at the risk of painting the word DICK on my forehead in
even bigger
letters, I don't believe in space fighters, but we can wander
into that
wonderland another time.)
So, Yes, I accept your premises. Really.
Dave
> I will start with a simple premise that we can agree or
disagree on.
>
> In human history of warfare is are cyclic events innovation.
>
> You build a better weapon, 'eventually' someone builds a way to
defeat it.
> You build a better defense someone builds a better weapon to
defeat it.
>
> If this is basically true (discounting time scales required for
> development
> however it is important over all) then I would ask the
following question.
>
> In TNE is it possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy
warship at
> all?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM, <
<> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> We can if you want.
>>
>>
>> > I have had the discussion about nukes in space being
effective. I
>> stand
>> on
>> > the side of 'they can be".
>> >
>> > In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15
that can stop
>> > nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles
>> ineffectual.
>> > If
>> > you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch
to be able
>> to
>> > build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship
physically.
>> > Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in
waves.
>> >
>> > We can go into if need be.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever
happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened
to you would have been deserved.
> Sounds like gun control. Many pirate types would modify/remove the
safeguards anyway...
Well, you want to make sure you don't nuke up and ruin the planets you are
fighting for.
Which reminds me. CT old-timers will remember all the fuss about, "why do
Traveller characters have all these stupid old-fashioned cutlass skills?
And they call themselves a science fiction game. Stoopid Traveller."
Once upon a time Traveller talked a lot about blade weapons and snub
pistols, because when you're out in space it doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to go running around blasting holes inside of the only thing (the
ship) that is keeping you all alive. IMTU I made a consistent point about
that, that you were always shooting out environmental controls, drive
controls, power conduits causing fires, depressurizing compartments, or
getting sprayed by the on-board fire-suppression system when you fired
weapons aboard a starship. I even had the principle that people would
space people on their own side that would do that for stupidly risking
everyone's life for short-term gain.
Dave
Submariners don't sound like they practice a whole lot of sword
play. Frangible ammo and shotguns, would be the rule, though
something higher tech like the Babylon 5 ppg would be cool.
That said, snake eater types would always have good knife and
machete type melee skills... Thinking gurkhas and their kukris.
---
from my T989
wrote:
> Sounds like gun control. Many pirate types would modify/remove
the
safeguards anyway...
Well, you want to make sure you don't nuke up and ruin the
planets you are
fighting for.
Which reminds me. CT old-timers will remember all the fuss about,
"why do
Traveller characters have all these stupid old-fashioned cutlass
skills?
And they call themselves a science fiction game. Stoopid
Traveller."
Once upon a time Traveller talked a lot about blade weapons and
snub
pistols, because when you're out in space it doesn't make a whole
lot of
sense to go running around blasting holes inside of the only
thing (the
ship) that is keeping you all alive. IMTU I made a consistent
point about
that, that you were always shooting out environmental controls,
drive
controls, power conduits causing fires, depressurizing
compartments, or
getting sprayed by the on-board fire-suppression system when you
fired
weapons aboard a starship. I even had the principle that people
would
space people on their own side that would do that for stupidly
risking
everyone's life for short-term gain.
Dave
IMTU I have a number of marine battledressed troopers who wield battleaxes
instead of cutlasses. The enhanced strength can come in very handy there.
(Inspired by vanBuskirk from the original Lensman novels)
Antoy
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] 6mm
> Sounds like gun control. Many pirate types would modify/remove the
safeguards anyway...
Well, you want to make sure you don't nuke up and ruin the planets you are
fighting for.
Which reminds me. CT old-timers will remember all the fuss about, "why do
Traveller characters have all these stupid old-fashioned cutlass skills?
And they call themselves a science fiction game. Stoopid Traveller."
Once upon a time Traveller talked a lot about blade weapons and snub
pistols, because when you're out in space it doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to go running around blasting holes inside of the only thing (the
ship) that is keeping you all alive. IMTU I made a consistent point about
that, that you were always shooting out environmental controls, drive
controls, power conduits causing fires, depressurizing compartments, or
getting sprayed by the on-board fire-suppression system when you fired
weapons aboard a starship. I even had the principle that people would space
people on their own side that would do that for stupidly risking everyone's
life for short-term gain.
Dave
------------
John--
You are correct in all of your points. And I want to be careful when
presenting a different point of view so that it doesn't sound like I'm
telling you you're wrong. We did the same paths of thinking and just came
up with a different answer that made sense to us. And I liked the idea of
lots of missiles with various HE, HEAT, gas, or flechette warheads, but
was eventually persuaded that nuke-pumped X-ray lasers was the answer that
would probably stand the test of time.
So PLEASE forgive me if any of this sounds snotty or superior, I'm just
laying out what persuaded me.
1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to us
is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference
between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are
effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships
can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver the
same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which you
use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,
maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more
maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the larger
you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the more
reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you
become another spaceship.
2. Closing vectors in space combat are tremendous, and to hit a
maneuvering target would require a tremendous proportion of reaction mass
to "bend" your vector in the final milliseconds to hit a maneuvering ship.
And that reaction mass makes you larger, easier target, etc, back to that
spiral. The only way to spend less reaction mass bending your vector is to
have less of a vector to begin with, which makes you slower, takes longer
to get to the target, easier to hit on the way there. Even in atmo, when
the target and missile launcher are much closer, closing vectors are so
hard to make up that the standard defence against a SAM or AAM is to
"break" into it so that it can't follow your turn and misses you. Same
would happen in space.
3. As you point out, if even one in 100 or one in 1000 hit, it's
cost-effective. But only in isolation. Compared to other possible weapons
systems, it might be less cost effective. If it took 100 or 1000 missiles
per hit, that would require X or 10X launchers to fire them, plus
magazines and fire control systems, AND you'd have to replenish those
missiles from somewhere after the battle or you're toothless. If you could
get that same one hit from a laser turret which takes up less surface
area, less space within the hull, and does not require replenishment, but
just waits for the HPG to spool back up, then ship designers will end up
using laser turrets as being more cost-effective for most purposes.
4. BUT, since missiles are useful, i.e., the ability to fire a screen of
them out in front of you, or to carry a bunch of them if you don't have
the internal power for a laser, they do have a real role. But, given the
requirements of reaction mass to get close to maneuvering target as
rapidly as possible, those missiles grow to become, as you describe, a
small/disposable weapons platform. Which is exactly what a nuke-pumped
X-ray laser is. So our reasoning brought us back full circle.
And then, as you describe, there are issues of spoofing, jamming, etc., to
add on top of the issues above.
That was our reasoning, and in my mind, I'm still persuaded by it, but I
always like to hear other good ideas.
I think that probably the reason this was jarring to long-time Traveller
players is that it is in fact the consequence of a very basic rule change
in TNE: no reactionless drives. If you have reactionless thruster plates
on missiles, as presumably they did in CT and MT, then everything I said
above is null and void, because turning is "free," comparable to using
aerodynamic control surfaces in atmo, and does not require reaction mass.
However, when we changed to no reactionless drives, the logic above
followed from it. I suspect that maybe we didn't lay out very often how
that one rule change rippled through a lot of TNE.
But please respond with additional thoughts or possibilities that I did
not consider. And I have not done the math on the cost of one laser vs.
umpteen missiles. Clearly, if we had wanted, we could have arbitrarily set
prices to make one approach preferable over the other. However, to the
extent that expendable missiles require hull additional hull volume for
additional stowed kills (larger engines, more reaction mass, etc.), and
logistical considerations as well, there are operational costs that can't
be quantified as easily.
Dave
*And because they're cool in Star Wars
> We don't have to call it a fighter. its just a small/disposable weapon's
> platform.
>
> If its possible but rare having 100 (arbitrary number) per wave make it
> more possible?
> Does that 100 platforms result in causing the target from being combat
> effective?
> Does that 100 platforms cost less than the target you crippled.
>
> At the end if its yes, yes, and yes. then its efficient to use them. If
> any
> of them is no then its not efficient to use them.
>
> Human (or sentient species) loss in the use can have a disproportionate
> effect on cost factors.
>
> If TNE can allow for a cheap effective platform to make skin-to-skin
> contact possible. It could be used effectively.
>
> Problems as I see them. effective 'powered' approaches to 'spoof'
> defenses.
Which is why IMTU I let the player's use anything they want in their ship
but those that would know I comment that shotguns work wonders on most
things inside of your ship and if it doesn't you probably made a bad
decision somewhere well before your shotgun turned out to be ineffective.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Antony Farrell <>wrote:
> **
>
>
> IMTU I have a number of marine battledressed troopers who wield battleaxes
> instead of cutlasses. The enhanced strength can come in very handy there.
> (Inspired by vanBuskirk from the original Lensman novels)
>
> Antoy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] 6mm
>
> > Sounds like gun control. Many pirate types would modify/remove the
> safeguards anyway...
>
> Well, you want to make sure you don't nuke up and ruin the planets you are
> fighting for.
>
> Which reminds me. CT old-timers will remember all the fuss about, "why do
> Traveller characters have all these stupid old-fashioned cutlass skills?
> And they call themselves a science fiction game. Stoopid Traveller."
>
> Once upon a time Traveller talked a lot about blade weapons and snub
> pistols, because when you're out in space it doesn't make a whole lot of
> sense to go running around blasting holes inside of the only thing (the
> ship) that is keeping you all alive. IMTU I made a consistent point about
> that, that you were always shooting out environmental controls, drive
> controls, power conduits causing fires, depressurizing compartments, or
> getting sprayed by the on-board fire-suppression system when you fired
> weapons aboard a starship. I even had the principle that people would space
> people on their own side that would do that for stupidly risking everyone's
> life for short-term gain.
>
> Dave
>
> ------------
John--
One last thought, because this strikes me as similar to Roger's blaster
earlier today.
One thing about Traveller is that it has a commitment to certain basic
internal principles that often prevent it from being able to visualize
things in a certain way. Hand blasters and missiles as examples from today
alone. While Traveller tried to be a broad, "all science fiction milieus"
ruleset, in fact, because it was so rules heavy, it ends up excluding some
of them because they don't fit with the rules we already said are "true."
And that is part of the "flavor" of Traveller as opposed to Star Wars or
BSG, that we really do keep throwing hunks of lead at people, but
apparently no longer at starships. :-)
And I don't know if that's helpful, but I'm just doing my best to respond
intelligently.
Dave
> We don't have to call it a fighter. its just a small/disposable weapon's
> platform.
>
> If its possible but rare having 100 (arbitrary number) per wave make it
> more possible?
> Does that 100 platforms result in causing the target from being combat
> effective?
> Does that 100 platforms cost less than the target you crippled.
>
> At the end if its yes, yes, and yes. then its efficient to use them. If
> any
> of them is no then its not efficient to use them.
>
> Human (or sentient species) loss in the use can have a disproportionate
> effect on cost factors.
>
> If TNE can allow for a cheap effective platform to make skin-to-skin
> contact possible. It could be used effectively.
>
> Problems as I see them. effective 'powered' approaches to 'spoof'
> defenses.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:41 AM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I concur with your premises.
>>
>> (And will also point out that one of the things Traveller does is
>> attempt
>> to anticipate, allow for, and design in those cycles of measure,
>> counter-measure, counter-counter-measure, etc., so that we don't have
>> people designing things that only last a couple years [like, for example
>> the Windjammers I mentioned yesterday], but by the same token, the
>> design
>> system does allow you to try to capture that snapshot in time if you
>> like.
>> It just may not stand the test of infinite innovation.)
>>
>> Yes, it is possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship. Not
>> terribly likely, but possible.
>>
>> (Also, at the risk of painting the word DICK on my forehead in even
>> bigger
>> letters, I don't believe in space fighters, but we can wander into that
>> wonderland another time.)
>>
>> So, Yes, I accept your premises. Really.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> > I will start with a simple premise that we can agree or disagree on.
>> >
>> > In human history of warfare is are cyclic events innovation.
>> >
>> > You build a better weapon, 'eventually' someone builds a way to defeat
>> it.
>> > You build a better defense someone builds a better weapon to defeat
>> it.
>> >
>> > If this is basically true (discounting time scales required for
>> > development
>> > however it is important over all) then I would ask the following
>> question.
>> >
>> > In TNE is it possible for a fighter to collide with an enemy warship
>> at
>> > all?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM, <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> **
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We can if you want.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I have had the discussion about nukes in space being effective. I
>> >> stand
>> >> on
>> >> > the side of 'they can be".
>> >> >
>> >> > In TNE you can generate a field around your ship at TL15 that can
>> stop
>> >> > nuclear fission or fusion from taking place making missiles
>> >> ineffectual.
>> >> > If
>> >> > you have that level technology it seems to be not a stretch to be
>> able
>> >> to
>> >> > build a weapon system that can actually hit another ship
>> physically.
>> >> > Especially if you can build enough of them to be launched in waves.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can go into if need be.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to
>> you
>> > would have been deserved.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
Gary--
> Submariners don't sound like they practice a whole lot of sword play.
Frangible ammo and shotguns, would be the rule, though something higher
tech like the Babylon 5 ppg would be cool.
You're right, but they don't have rules that keep giving them lots of
cutlass skills. I was just trying to bring the rules to life.
Dave
And probably comes in handy if they run into any Warhammer 40K guys.
> IMTU I have a number of marine battledressed troopers who wield battleaxes
> instead of cutlasses. The enhanced strength can come in very handy there.
> (Inspired by vanBuskirk from the original Lensman novels)
>
> Antoy
>
*1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to us*
*is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference*
*between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are*
*effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships*
*can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver the*
*same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which you*
*use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,*
*maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more*
*maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the larger*
*you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the more*
*reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you*
*become another spaceship.*
*
*
*2. Closing vectors in space combat are tremendous, and to hit a*
*maneuvering target would require a tremendous proportion of reaction mass*
*to "bend" your vector in the final milliseconds to hit a maneuvering ship.*
*And that reaction mass makes you larger, easier target, etc, back to that*
*spiral. The only way to spend less reaction mass bending your vector is to*
*have less of a vector to begin with, which makes you slower, takes longer*
*to get to the target, easier to hit on the way there. Even in atmo, when*
*the target and missile launcher are much closer, closing vectors are so*
*hard to make up that the standard defence against a SAM or AAM is to*
*"break" into it so that it can't follow your turn and misses you. Same*
*would happen in space.*
I am only going to use TL15 for my base line tech (whether its possible at
lower tech levels would depend on the math involved)
TL15 MFD computers would be able to display for commanders an 'missile
envelope' based on their own knowledge of their weapons' performance
parameters.
Missiles would only be fired when target would have a reasonable (or less)
chance of hitting the target. (I assume performance testing happens during
prototyping of a weapons system). In this sense the platforms are not
wastefully used unless a commanders deems a reason to do so. (Having not
created a TNE missile system so hence not having done the math.) I don't
know what the effective envelope for such a platform would be.
I do agree if its to small then the weapon is not effective. (I will have
to work on prototyping something in standard TNE FFS rules and compare it
to the TNE ship combat rules. Yeah! projects)
*3. As you point out, if even one in 100 or one in 1000 hit, it's*
*cost-effective. But only in isolation. Compared to other possible weapons*
*systems, it might be less cost effective. If it took 100 or 1000 missiles*
*per hit, that would require X or 10X launchers to fire them, plus*
*magazines and fire control systems, AND you'd have to replenish those*
*missiles from somewhere after the battle or you're toothless. If you could*
*get that same one hit from a laser turret which takes up less surface*
*area, less space within the hull, and does not require replenishment, but*
*just waits for the HPG to spool back up, then ship designers will end up*
*using laser turrets as being more cost-effective for most purposes.*
I agree that warships may very well have additional energy weapons on them.
Also you can't really dodge X-Rays effectively (combat distance here
matters obviously).
A laser is only more cost effective is combat if it can deal more damage
than the alternative (missiles). If more than 1 in 1000 missiles hit the
target in a single round of combat (game terms here) the potentiality for
damage escalates dramatically on your hit ratio making the missile vastly
more effective. However If you assume 1 missile per round per launcher and
1 shot from the laser turret per round the laser is likely going to be more
efficient. However at TL15 I doubt you can only fire 1 missile in the same
amount of time your HPG requires to spool for power. But again I haven't
done the math to know.
Also the rules for TNE may preclude more than 1 typical missile being fired
per round per launcher. I will have to double check. Inherent game rules
for TNE may make my point invalid from the outset because it doesn't allow
for rate's of fire on the launchers. I will need to check.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM, <> wrote:
> **
> --
>
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
John--
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Also, when it comes to calculating number of hits, remember that BL, given
its turn length, assumed multiple shots from lasers in that period, which
is why outstanding success yielded multiple hits. That's all there in the
rules somewhere, you just have to remember to allow for it.
Dave
> *1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to
> us*
> *is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference*
> *between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are*
> *effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships*
> *can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver
> the*
> *same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which you*
> *use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,*
> *maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more*
> *maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the
> larger*
> *you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the more*
> *reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you*
> *become another spaceship.*
> *
> *
> *2. Closing vectors in space combat are tremendous, and to hit a*
> *maneuvering target would require a tremendous proportion of reaction
> mass*
> *to "bend" your vector in the final milliseconds to hit a maneuvering
> ship.*
> *And that reaction mass makes you larger, easier target, etc, back to
> that*
> *spiral. The only way to spend less reaction mass bending your vector is
> to*
> *have less of a vector to begin with, which makes you slower, takes
> longer*
> *to get to the target, easier to hit on the way there. Even in atmo, when*
> *the target and missile launcher are much closer, closing vectors are so*
> *hard to make up that the standard defence against a SAM or AAM is to*
> *"break" into it so that it can't follow your turn and misses you. Same*
> *would happen in space.*
>
> I am only going to use TL15 for my base line tech (whether its possible at
> lower tech levels would depend on the math involved)
>
> TL15 MFD computers would be able to display for commanders an 'missile
> envelope' based on their own knowledge of their weapons' performance
> parameters.
>
> Missiles would only be fired when target would have a reasonable (or less)
> chance of hitting the target. (I assume performance testing happens during
> prototyping of a weapons system). In this sense the platforms are not
> wastefully used unless a commanders deems a reason to do so. (Having not
> created a TNE missile system so hence not having done the math.) I don't
> know what the effective envelope for such a platform would be.
>
> I do agree if its to small then the weapon is not effective. (I will have
> to work on prototyping something in standard TNE FFS rules and compare it
> to the TNE ship combat rules. Yeah! projects)
>
> *3. As you point out, if even one in 100 or one in 1000 hit, it's*
> *cost-effective. But only in isolation. Compared to other possible
> weapons*
> *systems, it might be less cost effective. If it took 100 or 1000
> missiles*
> *per hit, that would require X or 10X launchers to fire them, plus*
> *magazines and fire control systems, AND you'd have to replenish those*
> *missiles from somewhere after the battle or you're toothless. If you
> could*
> *get that same one hit from a laser turret which takes up less surface*
> *area, less space within the hull, and does not require replenishment,
> but*
> *just waits for the HPG to spool back up, then ship designers will end up*
> *using laser turrets as being more cost-effective for most purposes.*
>
> I agree that warships may very well have additional energy weapons on
> them.
> Also you can't really dodge X-Rays effectively (combat distance here
> matters obviously).
>
> A laser is only more cost effective is combat if it can deal more damage
> than the alternative (missiles). If more than 1 in 1000 missiles hit the
> target in a single round of combat (game terms here) the potentiality for
> damage escalates dramatically on your hit ratio making the missile vastly
> more effective. However If you assume 1 missile per round per launcher and
> 1 shot from the laser turret per round the laser is likely going to be
> more
> efficient. However at TL15 I doubt you can only fire 1 missile in the same
> amount of time your HPG requires to spool for power. But again I haven't
> done the math to know.
>
> Also the rules for TNE may preclude more than 1 typical missile being
> fired
> per round per launcher. I will have to double check. Inherent game rules
> for TNE may make my point invalid from the outset because it doesn't allow
> for rate's of fire on the launchers. I will need to check.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>> --
>>
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
John--
I just realized something that is going to throw a wrench into your
calculations. When I agreed it is "possible" for a fighter or other
platform to hit an enemy ship, that meant theoretically possible.
I just realized, however, that there is no rule in TNE for how to
calculate whether something like a ship or missile rams another ship. (Am
I right guys? I don't think so) Off the top of my head, I would say that
would be a competitive task roll between the two, using G-rating and pilot
skill as modifiers.
On that basis, it will be perhaps impossible for you to calculate that
actual probability rate of a missile hit, without a missile hit rule to
help you do so.
Am I wrong? Other suggestions?
Dave
> *1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to
> us*
> *is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference*
> *between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are*
> *effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships*
> *can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver
> the*
> *same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which you*
> *use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,*
> *maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more*
> *maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the
> larger*
> *you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the more*
> *reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you*
> *become another spaceship.*
> *
Honestly I think I will fail before I get to that step of the analysis but
when in a pinch I think you are correct and if nothing else I can
extrapolate collision of vehicles.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> John--
>
> I just realized something that is going to throw a wrench into your
> calculations. When I agreed it is "possible" for a fighter or other
> platform to hit an enemy ship, that meant theoretically possible.
>
> I just realized, however, that there is no rule in TNE for how to
> calculate whether something like a ship or missile rams another ship. (Am
> I right guys? I don't think so) Off the top of my head, I would say that
> would be a competitive task roll between the two, using G-rating and pilot
> skill as modifiers.
>
> On that basis, it will be perhaps impossible for you to calculate that
> actual probability rate of a missile hit, without a missile hit rule to
> help you do so.
>
> Am I wrong? Other suggestions?
>
>
> Dave
>
> > *1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to
> > us*
> > *is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference*
> > *between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are*
> > *effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships*
> > *can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver
> > the*
> > *same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which
> you*
> > *use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,*
> > *maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more*
> > *maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the
> > larger*
> > *you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the
> more*
> > *reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you*
> > *become another spaceship.*
> > *
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
I wouldn't want you to fail because of the Catch-22 that you can't
calculate the odds because the rules presume that it doesn't happen.
> Honestly I think I will fail before I get to that step of the analysis but
> when in a pinch I think you are correct and if nothing else I can
> extrapolate collision of vehicles.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough fuel to
cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for in
the ship combat resolution sequence.
I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to end up
to be too small but we'll see.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I wouldn't want you to fail because of the Catch-22 that you can't
> calculate the odds because the rules presume that it doesn't happen.
>
>
> > Honestly I think I will fail before I get to that step of the analysis
> but
> > when in a pinch I think you are correct and if nothing else I can
> > extrapolate collision of vehicles.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, <> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
I had forgotten about the abstract version in the core rulebook that you
are using.
> No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough fuel
> to
> cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for in
> the ship combat resolution sequence.
>
> I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to end up
> to be too small but we'll see.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
I had a concept a long tine ago for a solomani system that was basically a stealthed satellite you'd dump near a gas giant or planet with passive sensors and a big mass driver. It just sat there looking for ships coming in to refuel and if they didn't transmit the proper codes it'd lob a whack of 1kg objects at where it figured the ship and objects would come together based on an unchanging fueling run. I forget how fast these things were moving.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
On 2012-06-25, at 9:57, wrote:
> John--
>
> You are correct in all of your points. And I want to be careful when
> presenting a different point of view so that it doesn't sound like I'm
> telling you you're wrong. We did the same paths of thinking and just came
> up with a different answer that made sense to us. And I liked the idea of
> lots of missiles with various HE, HEAT, gas, or flechette warheads, but
> was eventually persuaded that nuke-pumped X-ray lasers was the answer that
> would probably stand the test of time.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
That would definitely work, as it is based on the assumption of a pure
ballistic course, rather than combat maneuvering.
>From that standpoint, carrying skin-to-skin contact missiles DOES make
sense in order to finish off cripples and other non-maneuvering targets.
Dave
> I had a concept a long tine ago for a solomani system that was basically a
> stealthed satellite you'd dump near a gas giant or planet with passive
> sensors and a big mass driver. It just sat there looking for ships coming
> in to refuel and if they didn't transmit the proper codes it'd lob a whack
> of 1kg objects at where it figured the ship and objects would come
> together based on an unchanging fueling run. I forget how fast these
> things were moving.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-06-25, at 9:57, wrote:
>
>> John--
>>
>> You are correct in all of your points. And I want to be careful when
>> presenting a different point of view so that it doesn't sound like I'm
>> telling you you're wrong. We did the same paths of thinking and just
>> came
>> up with a different answer that made sense to us. And I liked the idea
>> of
>> lots of missiles with various HE, HEAT, gas, or flechette warheads, but
>> was eventually persuaded that nuke-pumped X-ray lasers was the answer
>> that
>> would probably stand the test of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>
Iirc missles had something like a 10 for movement which basically says if you're within 10 hexes you're done. They also did a F'ton of dmg, I recall my players gutting a merc cruiser with 2 of them.
While there we're rules regarding launch rates my players would typically deploy them way before combat became even remotely likely. Iirc the Tl12 missles had passive sensors so my players came into the habit of deploying them in orbit before landing or skimming so they'd have them ready judt in case.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
On 2012-06-25, at 10:40, John Potter <> wrote:
> .
>
> Also the rules for TNE may preclude more than 1 typical missile being fired per round per launcher. I will have to double check. Inherent game rules for TNE may make my point invalid from the outset because it doesn't allow for rate's of fire on the launchers. I will need to check.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM, <> wrote:
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you would have been deserved.
>
Don't worry it won't stop me from making a kinetic kill missile and the
launcher. We'll see how it turns out.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I had forgotten about the abstract version in the core rulebook that you
> are using.
>
>
> > No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough fuel
> > to
> > cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for in
> > the ship combat resolution sequence.
> >
> > I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to end up
> > to be too small but we'll see.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
IIRC the main issue with KKM is that anti-missile lasers are guaranteed to
be able to shoot them down within a hex range with a specified rate of
fire. Don't remember the exact math but I want to say between 400 and 800
shots in a 30-minute round. Any battle fleet squadron would have a couple
Aegis analogues bristling with these.
The reality is the prep for them is contingent on their being used, so it's
a bit of circular logic. if the KKM's are possible, the anti-missile lasers
will be equipped to deal with them but if they're not, then the lasers
aren't there, so makes the missiles viable again.
As far as nukes/missiles, seems more likely if the Imperium was going to
ban them, launchers would be banned entirely. Of course, certain
lawbreakers are going to equip them anyway but seems to easy to tamper with
the warhead or swap them out on any mid TL world (for primitive fission) on
up. I did like the idea of civilian chemically pumped lasers, though.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM, John Potter <> wrote:
>
>
> Don't worry it won't stop me from making a kinetic kill missile and the
> launcher. We'll see how it turns out.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I had forgotten about the abstract version in the core rulebook that you
>> are using.
>>
>>
>> > No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough fuel
>> > to
>> > cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for in
>> > the ship combat resolution sequence.
>> >
>> > I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to end
>> up
>> > to be too small but we'll see.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> **
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
>
I think you could be possibly making an untrue assumption. Missile combat
on fleet scales are not about throwing powered boulders into space hoping
the target stays still.
You are correct in your defensive understanding of the situation but give
no credit to the ingenuity of those employing the missiles. EW is a
critical factor into which all those point defense weapon must face.
Intermixing your missiles with EW makes that task infinitely more complex
(and an opposed skill task for MFD operators when computer technology is
even).
As I said weapons technology is cyclic in nature. If your going to field a
weapon platform you usually have put some thought into how to get around
the 'known' defensive counter-measures.
If an Aegis like system is employed than logically saturation and EW are
the keys to overpowering it. However its not a given the defender wins when
done as a thought experiment.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Master Uxi <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> IIRC the main issue with KKM is that anti-missile lasers are guaranteed to
> be able to shoot them down within a hex range with a specified rate of
> fire. Don't remember the exact math but I want to say between 400 and 800
> shots in a 30-minute round. Any battle fleet squadron would have a couple
> Aegis analogues bristling with these.
>
> The reality is the prep for them is contingent on their being used, so
> it's a bit of circular logic. if the KKM's are possible, the anti-missile
> lasers will be equipped to deal with them but if they're not, then the
> lasers aren't there, so makes the missiles viable again.
>
> As far as nukes/missiles, seems more likely if the Imperium was going to
> ban them, launchers would be banned entirely. Of course, certain
> lawbreakers are going to equip them anyway but seems to easy to tamper with
> the warhead or swap them out on any mid TL world (for primitive fission) on
> up. I did like the idea of civilian chemically pumped lasers, though.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM, John Potter <>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don't worry it won't stop me from making a kinetic kill missile and the
>> launcher. We'll see how it turns out.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I had forgotten about the abstract version in the core rulebook that you
>>> are using.
>>>
>>>
>>> > No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough
>>> fuel
>>> > to
>>> > cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for
>>> in
>>> > the ship combat resolution sequence.
>>> >
>>> > I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to end
>>> up
>>> > to be too small but we'll see.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> **
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
>> would have been deserved.
>>
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.
True. Then there's asymmetric warfare. Current Aegis systems can be
jammed... or just overwhelmed with saturation (See the 2002 Millennium
Challenge, where the Red Force commander playing Iran was able to take out
a US carrier and about 20 ships using a massive barrage of relatively
primitive ballistic missiles. Then he hit the rest of the task force with
speed boats and dingies packed with explosives, etc).
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM, John Potter <> wrote:
>
>
> I think you could be possibly making an untrue assumption. Missile combat
> on fleet scales are not about throwing powered boulders into space hoping
> the target stays still.
>
> You are correct in your defensive understanding of the situation but give
> no credit to the ingenuity of those employing the missiles. EW is a
> critical factor into which all those point defense weapon must face.
>
> Intermixing your missiles with EW makes that task infinitely more complex
> (and an opposed skill task for MFD operators when computer technology is
> even).
>
> As I said weapons technology is cyclic in nature. If your going to field a
> weapon platform you usually have put some thought into how to get around
> the 'known' defensive counter-measures.
>
> If an Aegis like system is employed than logically saturation and EW are
> the keys to overpowering it. However its not a given the defender wins when
> done as a thought experiment.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Master Uxi <> wrote:
>
>>
>> IIRC the main issue with KKM is that anti-missile lasers are guaranteed
>> to be able to shoot them down within a hex range with a specified rate of
>> fire. Don't remember the exact math but I want to say between 400 and 800
>> shots in a 30-minute round. Any battle fleet squadron would have a couple
>> Aegis analogues bristling with these.
>>
>> The reality is the prep for them is contingent on their being used, so
>> it's a bit of circular logic. if the KKM's are possible, the anti-missile
>> lasers will be equipped to deal with them but if they're not, then the
>> lasers aren't there, so makes the missiles viable again.
>>
>> As far as nukes/missiles, seems more likely if the Imperium was going to
>> ban them, launchers would be banned entirely. Of course, certain
>> lawbreakers are going to equip them anyway but seems to easy to tamper with
>> the warhead or swap them out on any mid TL world (for primitive fission) on
>> up. I did like the idea of civilian chemically pumped lasers, though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM, John Potter <>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't worry it won't stop me from making a kinetic kill missile and the
>>> launcher. We'll see how it turns out.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had forgotten about the abstract version in the core rulebook that you
>>>> are using.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > No I think I am going to fail because the missile won't have enough
>>>> fuel
>>>> > to
>>>> > cover the average distance in range bands that is randomly rolled for
>>>> in
>>>> > the ship combat resolution sequence.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think the overall performance envelope on ship scale is going to
>>>> end up
>>>> > to be too small but we'll see.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 PM, <> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> **
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
>>> would have been deserved.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
>
Dear Folks -
Hi Dave! Thanks for dropping into this forum and answering so many questions.
You wrote:
>I think that probably the reason this was jarring to long-time Traveller
>players is that it is in fact the consequence of a very basic rule change
>in TNE: no reactionless drives.
Actually, I think the jarring thing was the NUKE-pumped Xray lasers. As someone put it, "what happens if a bad-tempered grizzeled o'-timer comes out of jump and decides to start blasting away at everyone?" With the "ordinary" shipboard weapons of CT, lots of civilian would get killed, and eventually the Imperial Navy, local navy, or even nearby civvie would take him out.
With nukes aboard, however, the equation changes. It wouldn't take too many thrown at civilian population centres to have a megadeath situation at hand. You don't even need to target the missiles' laser at anything, just tell it to explode over the top of a city. How do you play this one?
For me personally, the second issue I had was this: I could understand that naval vessels would have point defence fire control and thus shoot down conventional missiles aimed at them. But given the MCr prices for PD, I didn't think it would be installed on most _civilian_ ships. This makes contact missiles viable for player-character sized encounters, while allowing the _military_ to retain the nukes (which was the original premise, anyway).
(My final nit - and it's just that, a personal preferencelikes/dislikes sort of thing - was that bomb-pumped xray laser missiles said "Traveller: 2300" to me. And that's a different game, y'know? Hey, I didn't even like the idea of arqubusses in AD&D, it was too... jarring. In a bad Warhammer way. But as I said, just a personal nit. ;-) ;-)
Were these the sorts of discussions kicked around in the Workshop? And if so, what conclusions did you all come to?
Nothing stopping a free trader in CT from going to some TL5 or 6
world and retrofitting their kkm launchers with primitive nukes
in exchange for some widgets a few TL higher... To say nothing of
some of the despots winked at by the 3I.
Or simply using their ship as a wmd. 9/11 style hijacking of a
ship or three plowing into a downport could be tricky without a
CAP with very heavy coverage of the mainworld.
---
from my T989
Hyphen_DJW wrote:
Dear Folks -
Hi Dave! Thanks for dropping into this forum and answering so
many questions.
You wrote:
>I think that probably the reason this was jarring to long-time
Traveller
>players is that it is in fact the consequence of a very basic
rule change
>in TNE: no reactionless drives.
Actually, I think the jarring thing was the NUKE-pumped Xray
lasers. As someone put it, "what happens if a bad-tempered
grizzeled o'-timer comes out of jump and decides to start
blasting away at everyone?" With the "ordinary" shipboard weapons
of CT, lots of civilian would get killed, and eventually the
Imperial Navy, local navy, or even nearby civvie would take him
out.
With nukes aboard, however, the equation changes. It wouldn't
take too many thrown at civilian population centres to have a
megadeath situation at hand. You don't even need to target the
missiles' laser at anything, just tell it to explode over the top
of a city. How do you play this one?
For me personally, the second issue I had was this: I could
understand that naval vessels would have point defence fire
control and thus shoot down conventional missiles aimed at them.
But given the MCr prices for PD, I didn't think it would be
installed on most _civilian_ ships. This makes contact missiles
viable for player-character sized encounters, while allowing the
_military_ to retain the nukes (which was the original premise,
anyway).
(My final nit - and it's just that, a personal
preferencelikes/dislikes sort of thing - was that bomb-pumped
xray laser missiles said "Traveller: 2300" to me. And that's a
different game, y'know? Hey, I didn't even like the idea of
arqubusses in AD&D, it was too... jarring. In a bad Warhammer
way. But as I said, just a personal nit. ;-) ;-)
Were these the sorts of discussions kicked around in the
Workshop? And if so, what conclusions did you all come to?
How do I address you, Mr. Hyphen_DJW?
Those are good questions. I am discovering on this list that there are
things that I wrote that I don't remember until people point them out to
me, so some of my memory is suspect, but here goes.
> Actually, I think the jarring thing was the NUKE-pumped Xray lasers. As
> someone put it, "what happens if a bad-tempered grizzeled o'-timer comes
> out of jump and decides to start blasting away at everyone?" With the
> "ordinary" shipboard weapons of CT, lots of civilian would get killed, and
> eventually the Imperial Navy, local navy, or even nearby civvie would take
> him out.
>
> With nukes aboard, however, the equation changes. It wouldn't take too
> many thrown at civilian population centres to have a megadeath situation
> at hand. You don't even need to target the missiles' laser at anything,
> just tell it to explode over the top of a city. How do you play this one?
I think that's where the Traveller's eternal attempt to straddle, "generic
SFRPG, you don't have to play in our background" and "Traveller storyline,
play within it" sometimes overlapped, or in this case, underlapped. This
is especially the case because the storyline part was post-Imperial, but
to the extent that players could retrofit the TNE equipment onto a 3I
background, we maybe didn't talk enough about it.
First, the combat system was designed to capture the high end, military v.
military, and scale down from there, rather than low-end and scale up. So
things like X-ray missiles came out of that "here is the best military
solution" thinking, rather than, "here's how people with two hands tied
behind their backs fight, I wonder how the big guys do it?"
Also, the TNE background was a life-or-death background, not a sneaking
around hoping to avoid the notice of the Imperial Navy with your
"Ethically-Challenged Merchant Crew" (ECMC). There was real shit out there
trying to kill you, and you had to kill it first. So the background was
not focused on the 3I scenario, it was focused more on military and
para-military who were looking over their shoulders NOT for the local
police, but for Vampire fleets.
And with all that had happened leading up to TNE, if you've got players
running around nuking people or rooting for people who nuke people, WTF,
over? People who nuke worlds in TNE are the bad guys, and on top of that,
they're stupid. As slim as the living is in TNE, you're not going to find
a lot of edible food or useable tech in a city you've just nuked. If
you've got a ref who wants to allow that, a rule saying, "PCs shouldn't
own nukes" won't help.
So it's background-focused more than anything. And in the background we
showed that there were lots of missiles that were designed for planetary
bombardment, that fit in missile sockets, that were not nukes.
The gap, as I think you might be getting at, or Derek got at earlier, is
that there is a niche for non-nuke space missiles, that we might not have
published stuff for, and the reason was in the campaign setting, it didn't
really appear up at the top of the list for things to develop, because
that niche was really pretty small as I will explain.
For space combat, the matrix would be:
High-end v. high-end, which the rules cover.
High-end v. low-end, in which case the conclusion is foregone. Even if you
do have a "point defense" laser, it doesn't matter if he's shooting
nuke-pumped X-rays or a gazillion skin-to-skin missiles with custard pies
on the end of them, you're still dead.
Low-end v. low-end is the niche I think we are maybe talking about, where
my free trader is fighting your far trader, each with one laser turret and
one missile turret. In TNE, you're going to want a nuke-pumped X-ray,
because he's Virus or something else just as bad. But let's say you're in
the Regency, ECMC v. ECMC. You are not going to be overwhelming him with
missile saturation attacks, because you don't have it, and neither does
he, and you can shoot down the incoming skin-skin missiles.
Where it all began is in the fire control solution model which was based
on lasers. Given sensor signature time (C) and laser return fire time (C)
and target size and G-rating, there are certain ranges at which you simply
cannot miss. In the time it takes you to get the data and send the laser
shot back, the guy can only move so far, and there is an iron logic to
this. The closer you get, the more impossible it is to miss you. There
were one or two Challenge articles that went into this in great detail,
and that was from whence all else derived. Contact missiles by definition
do nothing but get closer to you. If you have any lasers the fire control
solution gets easier and easier and easier, and in this scenario, without
a battlecruiser dumping magazine loads of missiles on you, any laser is a
"point defense" laser. So skin-skin missiles don't do you any good here
either.
So the one place where concentrating on low-end non-nuke missiles makes
sense was first, a niche event, and a niche event where in TNE you
wouldn't want to take a knife to a gunfight, so we didn't pay a lot of
attention to it, to the best of my recollection.
Something that if we had decided to focus on, "these are the rules for
missile combat in this civilized area with these laws" we could have
covered, but that wasn't what we were focusing on developing. With the
discussion today, however, I would like to have added a sidebar saying,
"here are some conventional skin-skin missiles used for various
specialized situations..."
And even in 3I it's very easy to make the distinction, "did they use that
nuke missile in space combat where no ecosystem got irradiated, or did
they drop it on a city?" It's not illegal to own a car, it's just illegal
to get drunk and smash your car into a crowd of people.
> For me personally, the second issue I had was this: I could understand
> that naval vessels would have point defence fire control and thus shoot
> down conventional missiles aimed at them. But given the MCr prices for PD,
> I didn't think it would be installed on most _civilian_ ships. This makes
> contact missiles viable for player-character sized encounters, while
> allowing the _military_ to retain the nukes (which was the original
> premise, anyway).
I think I got at this above, with the Challenge article, where in Free
Trader vs. Far Trader scenarios, all lasers are PD lasers, so skin-skin
missiles still don't buy you that much.
> (My final nit - and it's just that, a personal preferencelikes/dislikes
> sort of thing - was that bomb-pumped xray laser missiles said "Traveller:
> 2300" to me. And that's a different game, y'know? Hey, I didn't even like
> the idea of arqubusses in AD&D, it was too... jarring. In a bad Warhammer
> way. But as I said, just a personal nit. ;-) ;-)
It was absolutely 2300, and I think inevitably so. Depending on who you
talk to, "Traveller 2300" was intended to replace or supplant CT as GDW's
latest, state-of-the-art SFRPG, based on newer thinking. At some point
this thinking was reversed, the "Traveller" got removed from 2300, and MT
came out and stuck with its classic weapons suites. But the thinking and
logic of nuke-pumped laser missiles as well as "no reactionless drives!"
that first saw light in 2300 continued on into TNE.
> Were these the sorts of discussions kicked around in the Workshop? And if
> so, what conclusions did you all come to?
God yes, as I hope the discussion above gives you some taste.
Dave
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Charles P <> wrote:
> I am going to build some forces in 6mm. Who would you suggest as far as
> manufactures? Mostly going to be TNE stuff. Going from around TL8 on up.
By 6mm I am assuming you mean ground forces.
The best place to start would Be Ground Zero Games (
http://shop.groundzerogames.net/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=40 )
6mm Futures wars line.
Adler has some nice stuff as well. (
http://home.clara.net/adlermin/SCIFI/SCIFIRANGE.htm )
Though I should point out that there never has been a Traveller specific
set of miniatures in 6mm. So you will have to mix and match.
Another good place to ask this question is The Miniatures Page (
http://theminiaturespage.com/ ) which one of the centers of miniatures
discussion on the web.
--
Evyn
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Eamon Watters <>wrote:
> In my TNE-verse Det Nukes were crafted in such a way that any significant
> atmosphere around the nuke would result in the nuke warhead
> fragmenting/duding when the compression charge/laser/whatever tried to
> achieve a critical mass. Other safeties include basic densitometers to
> prevent detonation close to significant bodies (Earth, Vesta, Pamela
> Anderson...)
>
> Of course, military-standard det-nukes didn't have the densitometers - but
> even then, if they wanted to nuke a world they'd use ordinance fit for the
> job.
I always assumed major population centers where protected by
Nuclear Dampeners a'la CT with enough range to protect said center from
most primary and secondary effects of nuclear blasts.
--
Evyn
IMTU I found it was possible at TL9 to put a 50kt Nuclear Pumped laser
warhead in a 1 cubic meter/1 metric ton missile and still get an 8/8
performance. Obviously not as fast as the larger missiles but still quicker
than virtually any ship. Also don't forget to add the launching ships vector
to that of its missiles at the time of launch. In a 4cubic meter/4 metric
ton missile you can get 10/10 with a 500kt warhead. More of these can be
carried than the standard 7 cubic meter/7 metric ton missiles so allowing
for more intense swarm attacks. Even the small 'fighters' can carry a
reasonable number of these to add in to the basket. At higher tech levels
the missile velocities will also increase. The TL9 ones all used solid
rocket fuel at higher tech levels other propellants become possible.
Antony
Dear Folks -
Dave wrote:
> How do I address you, Mr. Hyphen_DJW?
"Hyphen" or David will do, we don't stand on ceremony at Tavonni.
;-)
[snip excellent exposition]
> So it's background-focused more than anything.
This makes more sense than any discussion I've ever read on the topic - THANK YOU! :-)
So one possible approach, one that allows both the before-and-after scenarios, is to say that prior to TNE only the Navy had such weapons, but afterwards the "rules" (Imperial, Of War) either disappeared (in the RCES area of ops) or were relaxed (in the Regency), allowing PCs to tote nukes aboard ship.
Although I admit to allowing some trusted starmerc bands the possibility of having them as part of a Letter of Marque, even back in 1105. "Trusted" wasn't that onerous to prove either, since there was ALWAYS the threat of the real Impies coming down on you if you f---ed up:
<http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/adifux/marque_a.htm>
Here's a blank one:
<http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/maint/marque.htm>
> Low-end v. low-end is the niche I think we are maybe talking about
I think you're right. But when I went back and read earlier in this thread, Derek reminded me that chemically-pump XRay laserheads were also developed in TNE, and they'll do just fine for the Regency or the CT-era.
> I think I got at this above, with the Challenge article, where in Free
> Trader vs. Far Trader scenarios, all lasers are PD lasers, so skin-skin
> missiles still don't buy you that much.
Got it. Rules change. I was still thinking of Striker's horribly high-priced PD.
> God yes, as I hope the discussion above gives you some taste.
Good to know it's not just list grognards, then. ;-) ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"
David--
Good name! My parents gave me mine.
> [snip excellent exposition]
Thank you. I hope it didn't come out as too pedantic, but seriously, we
went around and around and around those issues for a significant amount of
time, so whenever the question comes up, the WHOLE furball gets summoned
out of my brain.
>> So it's background-focused more than anything.
>
> This makes more sense than any discussion I've ever read on the topic -
> THANK YOU! :-)
You're very welcome, and I am glad to have been able to, what, help
clarify some of that.
While I am talking about this, I must point out that John, Gary, Antony,
and the other guys' excellent FF&S efforts even as we speak remind me that
there are actually TWO issues about missiles, and I only discussed one of
them.
My discussion was based on the "classic" Traveller understanding of
missiles as something in the Terrier/Talos/Tartar/Nike/Hawk vein, rather
than the torrents of kinetic-kill grapeshot model, which is really a
separate issue.
First, in original Traveller, a missile rack had, as I recall, one missile
plus two or three reloads, so 3 or 4 missiles per rack for a total of 9 or
12 missiles per triple turret. After that the turret had to be replenished
through some more-or-less laborious process. So this was very much the
model of the single- or dual-armed missile launchers of the 50s, 60s, and
70s, before VLS came along. And as, face it, Traveller and classic SF
space fleet combat was modelled on 20th century naval warfare, that was
the model that we stayed with. These missiles were things that were in
relatively short supply and were used to make sure that each one (okay,
two, they usually fire them in pairs) counted, rather than big blasts of
dumb or terminally-guided grapeshot. Brooke-class FFGs had only 13
Tartars, C. F. Adams and Perrys had 40-42, the Talos ships had 40-some per
launcher, the double-ended Terrier ships had 80, and so on.
Second, the idea of firing big sheafs or torrents of individually cheap
slugs/projectiles/missiles, while it is clear you could make it work,
would have fundamentally changed the feel of Traveller space combat from
what had been established, so we stayed away from that completely. Just as
you noticed the "2300-like" quality of TNE, going to the torrents of KKMs
model would have drastically changed the feel of Traveller starship
combat. So we simply "looked the other way" and put out FF&S to allow
players who like that sort of thing to create it without saying,
"Everything you know about Traveller starship combat is wrong." (And we
went to great lengths to keep that feel. Gravitic-focusing was necessary
to allow lasers to do damage out at the established ranges. Also, the KKM
swarms model would make space travel MUCH more dangerous, as every single
grapeshot blast from every space battle in history would still be out
there, shredding Free Traders every time you looked up.) And this goes
back to the inescapable tension in Traveller between published background
and how we say things are, and the ability of the game to allow you to
create things that call that into question. While that is a little
confusing perhaps, we didn't like the idea of the "If your female dwarves
don't have beards, you're not playing AD&D" route (In Gary's defense, I
think he was kidding when he wrote that, but I don't think most readers
realized that). Instead, "The basic, traditional visualization of the game
says this, but if you want to try other things, we've got these design
rules."
So we have both TNE's understanding of "here is how relatively valuable
individual missiles work" as well as people exploring other possibilities,
and hopefully both groups are having fun.
> So one possible approach, one that allows both the before-and-after
> scenarios, is to say that prior to TNE only the Navy had such weapons, but
> afterwards the "rules" (Imperial, Of War) either disappeared (in the RCES
> area of ops) or were relaxed (in the Regency), allowing PCs to tote nukes
> aboard ship.
Exactly. That is the way I would look at it.
> Although I admit to allowing some trusted starmerc bands the possibility
> of having them as part of a Letter of Marque, even back in 1105. "Trusted"
> wasn't that onerous to prove either, since there was ALWAYS the threat of
> the real Impies coming down on you if you f---ed up:
> <http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/adifux/marque_a.htm>
Absolutely.
>> Low-end v. low-end is the niche I think we are maybe talking about
>
> I think you're right. But when I went back and read earlier in this
> thread, Derek reminded me that chemically-pump XRay laserheads were also
> developed in TNE, and they'll do just fine for the Regency or the CT-era.
Yeah, and that's maybe where we did allow for the "don't let everyone have
nukes" thing, but I didn't remember it.
>> I think I got at this above, with the Challenge article, where in Free
>> Trader vs. Far Trader scenarios, all lasers are PD lasers, so skin-skin
>> missiles still don't buy you that much.
>
> Got it. Rules change. I was still thinking of Striker's horribly
> high-priced PD.
Yeah, that's why I was putting "point defense" in quotes, as I didn't
recall PD being something you put on a starship, the thing you put on a
starship was the MFD.
>> God yes, as I hope the discussion above gives you some taste.
>
> Good to know it's not just list grognards, then. ;-) ;-)
To a large extent, we designers were like the worst of the grognards, with
the important exception that we had to keep pumping this stuff out to keep
the lights on, so made the best decisions we could at the time, and
expanded later.
Nice to meet you, David.
Dave
David--
By the way, I really like your letters of marque:
> Although I admit to allowing some trusted starmerc bands the possibility
> of having them as part of a Letter of Marque, even back in 1105. "Trusted"
> wasn't that onerous to prove either, since there was ALWAYS the threat of
> the real Impies coming down on you if you f---ed up:
> <http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/adifux/marque_a.htm>
>
> Here's a blank one:
> <http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/maint/marque.htm>
I had a long-running letter of marque campaign in my Traveller universe,
and often hoped to eventually publish it in some form. Think WW2 submarine
force at Pearl Harbor, with subs returning all the time with brooms lashed
to their periscopes. The NPC privateers were named things like Trout,
Trigger, Wahoo, Flasher, just to keep the flavor (I didn't play in 3I).
There were a lot of echoes of that sort of thing in the RC, with the
free-lancers, Auction and stuff, but we never got to go into that in the
level of detail that I would have liked.
Dave
I've always been of the opinion that TNE starships and mil ships in general should be more like subs than lux liners. Hot bunking, napping on the xray dets doing maint by hanging upside down through a small pannel next to the air-raft, acrobatics roll to reduce the difficulty. Ammo and cargo stored in the halls
Off the top of my head our team was Voodoo, Crunch, Milk Shake, Stinger and Cup Cake.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
On 2012-06-27, at 8:57, wrote:
> David--
>
> By the way, I really like your letters of marque:
>
> > Although I admit to allowing some trusted starmerc bands the possibility
> > of having them as part of a Letter of Marque, even back in 1105. "Trusted"
> > wasn't that onerous to prove either, since there was ALWAYS the threat of
> > the real Impies coming down on you if you f---ed up:
> > <http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/adifux/marque_a.htm>
> >
> > Here's a blank one:
> > <http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/maint/marque.htm>
>
>
>
> I had a long-running letter of marque campaign in my Traveller universe,
> and often hoped to eventually publish it in some form. Think WW2 submarine
> force at Pearl Harbor, with subs returning all the time with brooms lashed
> to their periscopes. The NPC privateers were named things like Trout,
> Trigger, Wahoo, Flasher, just to keep the flavor (I didn't play in 3I).
> There were a lot of echoes of that sort of thing in the RC, with the
> free-lancers, Auction and stuff, but we never got to go into that in the
> level of detail that I would have liked.
I always wondered where RCS Trigger came from- an homage, Dave? Don't tell me you're a submarine fan too.
-JTD
"Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."
- Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon
> and often hoped to eventually publish it in some form. Think WW2 submarine
> force at Pearl Harbor, with subs returning all the time with brooms lashed
> to their periscopes. The NPC privateers were named things like Trout,
> Trigger, Wahoo, Flasher, just to keep the flavor (I didn't play in 3I).
> There were a lot of echoes of that sort of thing in the RC, with the
> free-lancers, Auction and stuff, but we never got to go into that in the
> level of detail that I would have liked.
I always wondered where RCS Trigger came from- an homage, Dave? Don't tell me you're a submarine fan too.
-JTD
"Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."
- Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon