As I recall the description of how nuclear dampers work they project a
series of nodes and anti-nodes on the target which effect the strong and
weak nuclear forces depending on which nodes strike the target. Probably
this eventually leads to the disintegrator weapons in MT.
>From the construction notes in FF&S it is a bit confusing whether ND
projectors are point defence weapons (they need a beam pointer) and
therefore can only take out one missile each per combat round (two for a
critical success) or are area defence weapons which attack everything within
their range. Any clarifications on this? In the past we house ruled this so
that the ND projector projected a cone with the beam pointer at its axis
allowing a simultaneous attack on every missile in the target hex.
Before TL13 all nuclear pumped lasers have a 0 hex range, I have always
taken this to mean a range of 15,000km (or half a hex) as the range at which
they detonate, though in theory it can be closer to the target. ND
projectors are designed for a range of 30,000km (1 hex), which coincidently
is the maximum detonation range for some TL13+ warheads.
Incidentally has anyone any thought on how powerful a chemical or dei laser
you could fit into a standard sized missile at various tech levels?
I'm sorry, Antony, I don't recall. Anyone else know?
> As I recall the description of how nuclear dampers work they project a
> series of nodes and anti-nodes on the target which effect the strong and
> weak nuclear forces depending on which nodes strike the target. Probably
> this eventually leads to the disintegrator weapons in MT.
>
> From the construction notes in FF&S it is a bit confusing whether ND
> projectors are point defence weapons (they need a beam pointer) and
> therefore can only take out one missile each per combat round (two for a
> critical success) or are area defence weapons which attack everything
> within
> their range. Any clarifications on this? In the past we house ruled this
> so
> that the ND projector projected a cone with the beam pointer at its axis
> allowing a simultaneous attack on every missile in the target hex.
>
> Antony
>
>
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:20 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Re: nuclear dampener
>From the construction notes in FF&S it is a bit confusing whether ND
projectors are point defence weapons (they need a beam pointer) and
therefore can only take out one missile each per combat round (two for a
critical success) or are area defence weapons which attack everything within
their range. Any clarifications on this? In the past we house ruled this so
that the ND projector projected a cone with the beam pointer at its axis
allowing a simultaneous attack on every missile in the target hex.
Now that two of you say it, that sounds right. I recall thinking that its
hands were tied by about an order of magnitude compared to what it should
have been, but we never issued a fix. It should have behaved like an area
screen, but instead was written up so you had to shoot it at things one at
a time, which was not at all the way it had been in High Guard.
> As the official rules stand, the ND is the worst piece of starship
> hardware available. It is outperformed by the laser in every way.
> The fix Antony mentions are discussed here
> http://www.travellerfreeport.com/houserules/51-improving-tne-nuclear-dampers.html
>
>
> --
> Roger Malmstein
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
> From: Antony Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:20 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Re: nuclear dampener
>
>
> From the construction notes in FF&S it is a bit confusing whether ND
> projectors are point defence weapons (they need a beam pointer) and
> therefore can only take out one missile each per combat round (two for a
> critical success) or are area defence weapons which attack everything
> within
> their range. Any clarifications on this? In the past we house ruled this
> so
> that the ND projector projected a cone with the beam pointer at its axis
> allowing a simultaneous attack on every missile in the target hex.
>
> Antony
>
>
>
>
>
it needs fixing, but you made it even worse when you introduced ROF on the ND. I think most of us just at that point just put our fingers into our ears and chanted âlalalalalala!!!â =0) ROF did not make much sense for that screen.
--
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: nuclear dampener
Now that two of you say it, that sounds right. I recall thinking that its
hands were tied by about an order of magnitude compared to what it should
have been, but we never issued a fix. It should have behaved like an area
screen, but instead was written up so you had to shoot it at things one at
a time, which was not at all the way it had been in High Guard.
> it needs fixing, but you made it even worse when you introduced ROF on the
> ND. I think most of us just at that point just put our fingers into our
> ears and chanted âlalalalalala!!!â =0) ROF did not make much sense for
> that screen.
>
>
> --
> Roger Malmstein
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
> From:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:41 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: nuclear dampener
>
>
> Now that two of you say it, that sounds right. I recall thinking that its
> hands were tied by about an order of magnitude compared to what it should
> have been, but we never issued a fix. It should have behaved like an area
> screen, but instead was written up so you had to shoot it at things one at
> a time, which was not at all the way it had been in High Guard.
>
>
>
>
The bay/barbette/turret versions modified as discussed. This also allows them to be used to help cover other vessels nearbye, so a true area defence system becomes possible especially if you allow ranges greater than 30,000km.
Then you can have a proper nuclear damper field â perhaps use the same mechanics as for designing meson screens. The ND screen is what would protect from contact and proximity nuclear warheads as well as ND projectors being used against your powerplant systems.
Since it is a node/antinode system for an intruding ND projection to penetrate would be a matter of I imagine, frequency matching. So it either penetrates causing the effects previously discussed or it does not penetrate.
Another reason for having this type of screen. Nuclear dampers do not care where the ND warheads are (I donât remember ay ship design transporting them in a ND box) so you could destroy the warheads on a target vessel before it has even launched them.
Also the more systems a ship has to carry the more trade offs you will have to make in its design. Always a good thing for designers in TNE.
That lower-capability version might be the civilian version. The military grade would have the better capabilities. This would be either through legality (civilian settings are restricted) or through access/expense of repair materials.
I.e. in normal situations, the civilian grade model is good enough. In really bad situations, the military version is needed. For most PCs, those really bad situations hardly ever happen (time-on-target multi-dozen Tsar-Bomba pumped X-Ray or Gamma ray lasers for example)
I'd see 3 models:
1) civilian grade - 30 kkm range aimed ND, used to deal with 1-2 missiles at 1 hex away
2) Guard version - 15 kkm range spherical ND, used to protect a specific location against nukes - effectively treat it as a targeting penalty for nuclear warheads only
3) Military version - 30 kkm range spherical ND
#3 will be much more expensive/maintenance hungry than #1.
Todd Kes
--- On Tue, 6/26/12, wrote:
> Now that two of you say it, that
> sounds right. I recall thinking that its
> hands were tied by about an order of magnitude compared to
> what it should
> have been, but we never issued a fix. It should have behaved
> like an area
> screen, but instead was written up so you had to shoot it at
> things one at
> a time, which was not at all the way it had been in High
> Guard.
>
> > As the official rules stand, the ND is the worst piece
> of starship
> > hardware available. It is outperformed by the laser in
> every way.
> > The fix Antony mentions are discussed here
> > http://www.travellerfreeport.com/houserules/51-improving-tne-nuclear-dampers.html
> > --
> > Roger Malmstein
> > www.travellerfreeport.com
Remembering, of course, that those of us who prefer terrestrial combat were actually very grateful for the Striker-II additions because now we could use nuke dampers as god intended them: to deflect incoming nuclear tac missiles aimed at our troops.
Because under the Striker-II rules nuke dampers ignore target speed and only have TL difficulty modifiers they are far better against hypervelocity tac missiles than most point defence gun systems you can design.
But, back to your regularly scheduled starship programme after that digression!
--- In , "Roger Malmstein" <starwolf@...> wrote:
>
> it needs fixing, but you made it even worse when you introduced ROF on the ND. I think most of us just at that point just put our fingers into our ears and chanted âlalalalalala!!!â =0) ROF did not make much sense for that screen.
>
>
> --
> Roger Malmstein
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
Now I know what the Galactica had in the original series when it disabled a
planets entire arsenal of nuclear missiles fired at her, a spinal nuclear
damper.