Laser weapons
- Thread starter slyen2002
- Start date
Military lasers are banned via the geneva convention among other reasons[1]. The other reason is that bascially laser rifles aren't efficient enough in the feild compared to chem-slug. We've had a lot of time to refine the basic slug-thrower.
Lasers are already used for industrial cutting among other things. Nothing gets a clean edge like a laser press (for cutting sheet metal).
Lasers are TL7 I beleive. That's about right.
The main reason that lasers are banned is that generally they are used to blind, rather then kill. A laser rifle as such could therefore be used, but the temptation is to have an eye-wiper that blinds your enemy permanently
Lasers are already used for industrial cutting among other things. Nothing gets a clean edge like a laser press (for cutting sheet metal).
Lasers are TL7 I beleive. That's about right.
The main reason that lasers are banned is that generally they are used to blind, rather then kill. A laser rifle as such could therefore be used, but the temptation is to have an eye-wiper that blinds your enemy permanently
A laser carbine isn't going to be killing tanks and APC's. An assault rifle firing a burst is more effective (at least under T20 - 3d8 vs 3d10). As for the larger weapons, (such as vehicle/installation mounted lasers) they are in development as well.
Never underestimate the tendency of humans to be scared of change. We have only been at TL8 for a short period of time, handheld laser rifles are still a near future thing. If traveller is at all accurate we will never have laser weaponry as efficient as a chem-slug weapon, and they will always be less efficient then a rail weapon.
Anyway on to the citations.
http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=304
was the only potentially working small arm class laser device I could find online. Still in the concept/prototype stage, and does have massive drawbacks.
Something a little larger, and well into prototype stages:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
Never underestimate the tendency of humans to be scared of change. We have only been at TL8 for a short period of time, handheld laser rifles are still a near future thing. If traveller is at all accurate we will never have laser weaponry as efficient as a chem-slug weapon, and they will always be less efficient then a rail weapon.
Anyway on to the citations.
http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=304
was the only potentially working small arm class laser device I could find online. Still in the concept/prototype stage, and does have massive drawbacks.
Something a little larger, and well into prototype stages:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
If laser technology exceeds Traveller expectations of lethality by as much as computer technology has exceeded Traveller's 'predictions', you'll be able to stop an MBT with a thing the size of a remote control... TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Take a look at the computer systems controlling a typical nuclear power plant or better those experimental fusion reactors.
Purpose related perdicted sizes and costs are quite ok.
Purpose related perdicted sizes and costs are quite ok.
The computer systems are not that deviated from what I would expect. I have to strongly agree with TheEngineer in this case.
What you look at as a "massive advance" is purely incremental. A PC today does what a PC 20 years ago did. Embedded systems are somewhat smaller, but that is balanced by less reliability in a lot of cases. An example in point is that a minicomputer from 1980 and a modern minicomputer are pretty much the same size, and do the same things. While the more modern machine (A Sun E25K for example) will have more refinement, and its results will have more clarity, the services and technologies it runs will be similar to what its predessesor did. The specs for an E25K are here:
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire_e25k/specs.xml
I need to point out that the kerb weight of the system is 1122 kg (2468 lb.) well in line with what traveller places as a TL9 miniframe rated as M5, though the E25K mentioned would be better thought of as many M0 rated computers in most normal configurations.
Going up to current day supercomputers the Cray X1 weighs in at 895 Kg (1973 lb.) per cabinet, and starts at a minimum of one cabinet. You can have as many cabinets in the one machine as you like, though needing more the 128 is unlikely. That's a computer system weighing in at over 100 tons, without its own power, though with intergral climate control.
Going back to my original point. An Apple II vs a 3GHz Pentium IV. Both run the same types of software, such as games (Ultima vs Ultima Online) word processing (wordstar vs Microsoft word) spreadsheets (visicalc vs Excel) databases (dBaseII vs mySql) programming (Fortran 77 vs visual basic) control printers (Lineprinter vs Laser printer) and connect to the internet (BBS vs the interweb). In each case the tools and abilities are more refinied, in a lot of cases more reliable and faster, but are basically the same things at a slightly higher tech level.
Enough Rant
What you look at as a "massive advance" is purely incremental. A PC today does what a PC 20 years ago did. Embedded systems are somewhat smaller, but that is balanced by less reliability in a lot of cases. An example in point is that a minicomputer from 1980 and a modern minicomputer are pretty much the same size, and do the same things. While the more modern machine (A Sun E25K for example) will have more refinement, and its results will have more clarity, the services and technologies it runs will be similar to what its predessesor did. The specs for an E25K are here:
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire_e25k/specs.xml
I need to point out that the kerb weight of the system is 1122 kg (2468 lb.) well in line with what traveller places as a TL9 miniframe rated as M5, though the E25K mentioned would be better thought of as many M0 rated computers in most normal configurations.
Going up to current day supercomputers the Cray X1 weighs in at 895 Kg (1973 lb.) per cabinet, and starts at a minimum of one cabinet. You can have as many cabinets in the one machine as you like, though needing more the 128 is unlikely. That's a computer system weighing in at over 100 tons, without its own power, though with intergral climate control.
Going back to my original point. An Apple II vs a 3GHz Pentium IV. Both run the same types of software, such as games (Ultima vs Ultima Online) word processing (wordstar vs Microsoft word) spreadsheets (visicalc vs Excel) databases (dBaseII vs mySql) programming (Fortran 77 vs visual basic) control printers (Lineprinter vs Laser printer) and connect to the internet (BBS vs the interweb). In each case the tools and abilities are more refinied, in a lot of cases more reliable and faster, but are basically the same things at a slightly higher tech level.
Enough Rant
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Whoa slyen2
Not precisely, see pg. 151 for the rules on Burst Fire. What he has there is a +2 dice of damage for a 4 round burst from the slug thrower.
As for what do laser weapons have going for them over slug throwers well a few things:
Zero recoil. Yes the book says that Gauss weapons are also No recoil but that has to assume some counter (probably grav tech) recoil damping.
Armor piercing capability that beats just about any slug (IMTU at least). In my interpretation the only armors that count vs lasers are Reflec, Combat Armor, and Battle Dress. Everything else might as well be tissue paper.
Logistics. Being able to resupply your ammo at any standard power tap or even fire plugged into a tap is a major plus over having to stop by your local shootist store for reloads.
And (again IMTU at least) all laser weapons are capable of the full range of burst fire options up to the limit of the design's standard power supply by setting the dial. I'll match my Laser Rifle dialed up to 100 against any man portable slug thrower on the table.
"Let's see should I go for +10 to hit or +10 dice of damage?"
I'd love to see the cooling system for that ROF100 Laser Rifle/Carbine.
Scary thing is that at ROF100 a laser rifle does MORE damage then a Starship mounted Pulse Laser, though at a greatly reduced range.
The problem is that 100 shots from a laser rifle weighs arround 5-10kg (Backpack battery pack) meaning that if your blast misses you need to hunt for another battery real quick
Scary thing is that at ROF100 a laser rifle does MORE damage then a Starship mounted Pulse Laser, though at a greatly reduced range.
The problem is that 100 shots from a laser rifle weighs arround 5-10kg (Backpack battery pack) meaning that if your blast misses you need to hunt for another battery real quick
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Oh yeah it'd be hot, real hot. The cooling relies on the power pack and a purge cycle. At normal fire rates of 1 or 4 there's not much worry. Firing at full means you don't get the full purge effect. Probably no need to worry about finding a power pack for it since the rifle might be dripping slag when you finish. So double the "better kill what you're shooting or you'reOriginally posted by veltyen:
I'd love to see the cooling system for that ROF100 Laser Rifle/Carbine.
Scary thing is that at ROF100 a laser rifle does MORE damage then a Starship mounted Pulse Laser, though at a greatly reduced range.
The problem is that 100 shots from a laser rifle weighs arround 5-10kg (Backpack battery pack) meaning that if your blast misses you need to hunt for another battery real quick
More damage? Well, marginally I guess. The Laser Rifle burst of 100 shots will be 13d10 crit 20x2 while the ship's Pulse Laser will be 1d10 crit 19x2. For comparison either add 10d10 to the Pulse Laser or subtract 10d10 from the Laser Rifle for scale effect. A difference of 2d10. Significant, but the Pulse Laser as you note has the range, and a computer advantage, and an area blast effect (pg. 155) of 5 meters per USP rating so even a close miss is a hit
Oops, I make small goof in earlier post about damage comparison. Edited above
I see now that I have the book open what you were comparing was a four round slug burst to a single laser shot. For some reason I was misrecalling lasers as single dice damage.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
That is a loaded question. There was a grav powered high TL (15 iirc) MMU (manned maneuvering unit) in MT so the tech there at least could support a space capable grav tech in a man portable size which would give you a stabalized weapons platform. I'd think with the right software any man portable weapon could be made recoil damped at high enough TL. Heck there's recoil damping explicity stated in the heavy man portable energy weapons (I think
)On the other side of the line MT I think was also the one to differentiate between Thruster plate tech (big, 20ton vehicle size minimum big) which didn't need a gravity field to work and Anti-grav tech (small, really small at high TL, grav belts and such) which only worked in a gravity field.
So you see why it's no easy question since the same rules edition threw the Grav MMU into the game. That would have to be Thruster plate tech to work in space but it had the size and power requirement of Anti-grav
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I think so. Vehicle grav (anti-grav) such as in grav-belts, air-rafts, g-carriers, and such are only good to low orbit. Basically the performance is directly tied to the gravity field they push against. Space ship grav (thrusters) are a related but different application of the same tech and work off some universal dark matter grav or something so they have the same power no matter if they are in a strong gravity well or not. Something like that.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, basically, barring some other type of space thruster, like a rocket, which has nowhere near the performance of maneuver drives. I think TNE/FF&S even required a seperate thruster drive for grav vehicles, the grav part just being a lifter, but I could be confused on that myself, it is a bit of a mess
"... computer systems are not that deviated from what I would expect..."
"...weight...1122 kg...in line with...a TL9 miniframe...current day supercomputers the Cray X1 weighs in at 895 Kg (1973 lb.) per cabinet..."
So an early TL8 supercomputer is lighter than a TL9 mini? I strongly dispute your statement that computers of today do 'the same things' as computers of 20 years ago. Sure, they're put to the same use, but they do a lot more of it and faster. One desktop chassis is capable of supporting the same number of users doing more than a whole cabinet-full of minicomputer from two decades ago. My PDA has better word processing and spreadsheet functions than an Apple II. Its display's better (and not much smaller).
Sure it's 'all incremental', but it's incremented by orders of magnitude.
Most power station controls were *designed* 20 years ago; it's the nature of the timescales involved in building that sort of infrastructure. Add the 'proven reliability' and lack of any driver whatsoever towards scaling things down, and it's hardly surprising that those beasts remain cyclopean. The computers running experimental fusion reactors are just that: experimental (not in their technology, but in their purpose). The engine management system of your car is a very reliable thing the size of a paperback or smaller.
I'll have to get books out to precisely illustrate the reasons for my exasperation. And life's too short.
"...weight...1122 kg...in line with...a TL9 miniframe...current day supercomputers the Cray X1 weighs in at 895 Kg (1973 lb.) per cabinet..."
So an early TL8 supercomputer is lighter than a TL9 mini? I strongly dispute your statement that computers of today do 'the same things' as computers of 20 years ago. Sure, they're put to the same use, but they do a lot more of it and faster. One desktop chassis is capable of supporting the same number of users doing more than a whole cabinet-full of minicomputer from two decades ago. My PDA has better word processing and spreadsheet functions than an Apple II. Its display's better (and not much smaller).
Sure it's 'all incremental', but it's incremented by orders of magnitude.
Most power station controls were *designed* 20 years ago; it's the nature of the timescales involved in building that sort of infrastructure. Add the 'proven reliability' and lack of any driver whatsoever towards scaling things down, and it's hardly surprising that those beasts remain cyclopean. The computers running experimental fusion reactors are just that: experimental (not in their technology, but in their purpose). The engine management system of your car is a very reliable thing the size of a paperback or smaller.
I'll have to get books out to precisely illustrate the reasons for my exasperation. And life's too short.
A couple of points in reply.
The Cray X1 and the Solaris E25K are both current machines of a similar class and design (equivalent TL). The X1 isn't generally considered a supercomputer unless you have a bunch of nodes. With enough money you could go out and buy a couple of them tommorow, though you may need to wait a while for delivery.
Look carefully at your desktop supporting 32 users and ask yourself " am I willing to trust my life on this". Look past the shiny but volatile technology in your PC, and consider what is actually done, and at what speed.
15 years ago I used to install 64 user systems, that used as a core machine a single X86/286/386. They relied on serial board terminals for communications, but all 65 machines were connected and could communicate. The system ran a accounting/product tracking system and was somewhat reliable. Was it more clunky then a modern system, yes. Does a modern system have features that it did not, yes. Is it fantastically less powerful in its primarily designed purpose then a modern system.... I would say yes, but utility wise it is nearly the same system.
A more complete reply later
The Cray X1 and the Solaris E25K are both current machines of a similar class and design (equivalent TL). The X1 isn't generally considered a supercomputer unless you have a bunch of nodes. With enough money you could go out and buy a couple of them tommorow, though you may need to wait a while for delivery.
Look carefully at your desktop supporting 32 users and ask yourself " am I willing to trust my life on this". Look past the shiny but volatile technology in your PC, and consider what is actually done, and at what speed.
15 years ago I used to install 64 user systems, that used as a core machine a single X86/286/386. They relied on serial board terminals for communications, but all 65 machines were connected and could communicate. The system ran a accounting/product tracking system and was somewhat reliable. Was it more clunky then a modern system, yes. Does a modern system have features that it did not, yes. Is it fantastically less powerful in its primarily designed purpose then a modern system.... I would say yes, but utility wise it is nearly the same system.
A more complete reply later
