Odd Things in the MT Weapons

[Vladika]

Do you really want me to discuss those areas? If so, I will endeavor to do so in excruciating detail.

Please, elucidate most elegantly!

As I indicated, I am looking at the validity of the MegaTraveller design sequence with respect to areas which can be cross-checked against the Real World. If the design sequence does not reflect Real World conditions, what validity does it have for any future extrapolation?

I don't really care. I doubt anyone else does either. Its a game. Repeat after me: "Fantasy" "Role Playing" "Game". If your looking for a replicator, try Star Trek.

If you should want a Panhard Et Levassor P 178* armored car, just say "I have one". Don't design one under the "rules" Nobody will care. I guarantee it.

I have no idea how long it took to design a Panhard Et Levassor P 178*. I have no idea how many engineers it took. I have no idea how many books on physics, engineering, metallurgy, Ad infinitum, etcetera ad nauseam were consulted.

To expect a book, or books, designed to entertain the imagination to "reproduce" in exacting detail every item known to man is, IMO ludicrous.

What they do is keep in internal consistency that allows the gear heads among us to enjoy** designing and doing battle with a "level playing field".

*Chosen as a random example.

**en·joy (n-joi)
v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys
v.tr.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
v.intr.
To have a pleasurable or satisfactory time. (emphasis mine)
Phrasal Verb:
enjoy oneself
To have a pleasurable or satisfactory time.
[Middle English enjoien, from Old French enjoir : en-, intensive pref.; see en-1 + joir, to rejoice (from Latin gaudre; see gu- in Indo-European roots).]

 

[McPerth]

As for ranges, where exactly in the design sequence does it give the range at which the KEAP is determined?

Nowere in the design sequence, but in the combat system (PH page 70): it's at short distance.

What lacks in the design CPRs description id the attenuation range, unless they assume that is higher than the weapons range itself (and so will be the given penetration result for its whole range).

 

[Timerover51]

Nowere in the design sequence, but in the combat system (PH page 70): it's at short distance.

What lacks in the design CPRs description id the attenuation range, unless they assume that is higher than the weapons range itself (and so will be the given penetration result for its whole range).

I sort of figured that it had to be short distance, but the high-velocity weapons actually do have penetration attenuation long before maximum range is achieved. The howitzer table does have range attenuation, but the mortar table does not, although for the 12 inch seacoast mortar, maximum penetration was achieved at mid-range rather than short-range. The penetration curve for that mortar looks a lot like a bell curve, low at short and long range, high at mid-range.

Please, elucidate most elegantly!

I have to drop the idea of discussing the effects of chlorine on military equipment, as I did a study on the for the Marine Corps during the 1st Gulf War in 1991, and that is still classified.

I did have a Marine colonel pay me a couple of the nicest compliments that I have gotten while I was working for them. First, he stated that "I had a very devious mind", and second "that he was very glad that I was not working for the Iraqis".

 

[Timerover51]

Demolition Tables

I am still working on the armor tables that are in the Referee's Manual and armor values that appear in the Player Handbook, but I did get out my copy of the US Army FM 5-25, Explosives and Demolitions, field manual. Rather than exhaustively going through the demolition tables that appear in the Referee's Manual on page 103, I will point out a couple of things.

First, at Tech Level 5, to penetrate Armor Value 1 takes 1 (one) kilogram or 2.2 pounds of high explosive. At Tech Level 5, I think that the high explosive used can safely be assumed to be TNT. In fact, those 2.2 pounds of TNT will penetrate Armor Values up to 30. To breach, i.e. put a 1 (one) meter diameter hole in Armor Value 1 will take 250 kilograms or 551 pounds of TNT. Now, checking the breaching charge table on page 98 of FM 5-25, May 1967, assuming the worse possible placement, a charge of 551 pounds of TNT is more than adequate to breach a concrete wall SIX (6) FEET in thickness. Looking at the penetration values for the various guns listed in the Referee's Manual, an Armor Value of 1 is a LOT less than 6 feet of concrete, given that a 20mm KEAP round is credited with be able to penetrate an Armor Value of 3 at close range. Anyone care to guess the likelihood that a low to medium velocity 20mm round is going to penetrate 6 feet of concrete?

I think that it is safe to say that the Demolition Table is very badly broken for conventional explosive damage.

With respect to shaped charges, it is not a whole lot better. A shaped charge is very good at penetrating a considerable thickness of material. It will however, only blow a hole in thin material that it greatly overmatches of about its own diameter. Now, that 1 kilogram or 2.2 pounds of high-explosive will again, in a shaped-charge, penetrate up to Armor Value 30. As that is the same as Tech Level 5 conventional explosive use, I am not sure why you would use a shaped charge, but that is the case here. To blow a hole, one meter in diameter, in Armor Value 1 will take a shaped charge of 18 kilograms or about 39.7 pounds of explosive. Now the US Army M-3 Shaped Charge demolition weighs 40 pounds, just about an exact match. It is also only 9 inches in diameter, so against a thin steel plate, it is going to blow a hole slightly larger than 9 inches in diameter. If you want a 1 (one) meter diameter hole, using a shaped charge, you need a shaped charge of about 1 (one) meter in diameter.

Last, but not least, you have the TDX demolition table. TDX is supposed to be a gravity polarized explosive, with the entire force of the blast being exerted in a plane perpendicular to the gravity field in which it is in. Now, our trusty 1 kilogram or 2.2 pound charge of TDX will penetrate up to Armor Value 30. Hmm, so will our 1 kilogram or 2.2 pound charge of TNT at Tech Level 5. That seems to be intuitively, very, very odd. However, it does take 55 kilograms or 121 pounds of TDX to punch a 1 (one) meter hole in Armor Value 1. Hmmm, that is about 3 times the weight of the shaped charge needed. But the weird thing is, TDX is gravitationally polarized, so how is it going to punch a hole 1 (one) meter in diameter through a wall/bulkhead/partition that is vertical, or aligned with the gravitational field? TDX would be great for slicing through vertical steel I-beams, vertical concrete columns, and trees, but for punching a 1 (one) meter diameter hole in a vertical expanse of wall board, no.

Based on this, I would say that the demolition tables as given in MegaTraveller are very badly broken. The irritating thing is, that by 1987, there were a lot of copies of FM 5-25 floating around, so to do it correctly would not have been that great a stretch.

 

[McPerth]

I sort of figured that it had to be short distance, but the high-velocity weapons actually do have penetration attenuation long before maximum range is achieved. The howitzer table does have range attenuation, but the mortar table does not, although for the 12 inch seacoast mortar, maximum penetration was achieved at mid-range rather than short-range. The penetration curve for that mortar looks a lot like a bell curve, low at short and long range, high at mid-range.

I agree with you that kinetic damage minitions lose penetrating (and probably damabing) power with distance. In any case, as MT rules stand, if the attenuation range is 5+. the penetration is the sam up to 50 km, and if it is 6+ up to 500 km.

And see that the flechette in RAM grenades and recoiless rifles (pages 78-79 PM) have the same problem, not specifying an attenuation range (that should be in any non explosive munition, IMHO).

 

[McPerth]

Another problem with MT weapons (in this case ortillery and the use of armor):

Some months ago, in another thread, there was an argument about how damage is applied to vehicles in zero penetration case.

Today, reviewing Traveller Digest nº 20 Q&A (*), I saw in zero penetration situation damage is given as NE with a note that says vehicles and robots take 10% damage as superstructure hits. So, personnel takes no damage (al long as armor is fully closed) and vehicles/robots 10% damage as superstructure (regardles if its armor is complete or it's not) if their armor is higher than penetration.

This gives us a paradoxal situation:

In a planet with standard atmosphere, we have a zone about 200 m in diameter where there are 6 Trepida Tanks (armor 40) and 15 soldiers in vacc suits (armor 5). (Trepidas took most of the budget and there was not money for better personal armor...).

A starship acting as ortillery support fires a factor 7 PA against them, hitting the center of the zone (standard hit, rolling just what is needed, so no multipliers for damage, nor automatic hits). Danger space is (factor x 15), so 105 m radius, affecting all the troops.

As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.

Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.

So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...

As much as I try, I cannot see any logic in this outcome, and I feel it's against rules spirit to allow PAs to be used as ortillery in atmosphere in first place, and making tanks more vulnerable than lighty armored infantrymen in second place. So I think something is flawed on those rules.

I know it's an extreme situation, but I've always believed extremes are the best to show the flaws in most rules/laws.

(*) EDIT: I'm not sure to which point Q&A form TD is cannon

 

[Hyphen]

Another problem with MT weapons (in this case ortillery and the use of armor):

PREVIOUS QUOTE:
As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.

Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.

So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...

OK, so maybe what's needed is an extra "Can't Even Scratch The Paint" rule, something like this:
"If the Penetration value of a weapon is 10 less than the target's armour, a Zero penetration result causes No Damage to the target. For example, even on an Impossible difficulty roll, it is highly unlikely for a handgun to scratch the paint off a tank."

Comments? (and sorry for the delay in replying)

 

[Timerover51]

PREVIOUS QUOTE:
As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.

Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.

So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...

OK, so maybe what's needed is an extra "Can't Even Scratch The Paint" rule, something like this:
"If the Penetration value of a weapon is 10 less than the target's armour, a Zero penetration result causes No Damage to the target. For example, even on an Impossible difficulty roll, it is highly unlikely for a handgun to scratch the paint off a tank."

Comments? (and sorry for the delay in replying)

Actually, it would depend on what sort of sensors and equipment the tank has external to the armor. Night vision equipment or a laser rangefinder would quite easily be vulnerable to a pistol bullet as external lenses would be exposed. Also, if the armored vehicle is a lower Tech Level one, external fuels tanks could prove to be very hazardous to the health of the tankers.

I also was able to check the armor penetration of the US Army M-3 shaped charge, and it is 60" of concrete or 20" inches of armor with no additional standoff besides that provided for with the charge. Not bad for a charge with a total weight of 40 pounds or 18 kilograms.

 

[McPerth]

PREVIOUS QUOTE:
As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.

Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.

So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...

OK, so maybe what's needed is an extra "Can't Even Scratch The Paint" rule, something like this:
"If the Penetration value of a weapon is 10 less than the target's armour, a Zero penetration result causes No Damage to the target. For example, even on an Impossible difficulty roll, it is highly unlikely for a handgun to scratch the paint off a tank."

Comments? (and sorry for the delay in replying)

The Consolidated errata fixes it:

MT consolidated errata, page 13

If the target has an armor value of 1+, a penetration 0 weapon rarely does any damage. In this case, the weapon gets a zero penetration result, giving just 10% damage. If a target is completely enclosed in armor, and if the penetration is less than one-tenth of the target’s “lightest” armor value, ignore exceptional success. Your hit cannot do any damage to the target, regardless of the type of attack (hand-to-hand, direct, or indirect fire). (This prevents a small animal attacking with just its teeth from knocking out an opponent in battle dress.)

What is perhaps not so obvious is what a weapon with a penetration value of 1 or more will do against a target with an armor value of 0. In this case, no matter what the weapon’s penetration is, it always gets a high penetration result—which means it inflicts 100% damage.
The table below clarifies the relationship between penetration and damage:
PENETRATION AND DAMAGE (%)
Pen

Level of sucess
Pen vs Armor	pen type	0	+1	+2	+4	+8
Pen<armor	zero	ne**	ne**	1pt**	2pt**	4pt**
Pen ≥ Armor	low	25	50	100	200	400
Pen ≥ Armor×2	High	50	100	200	400	800

*Pinpoint hit or target under cover, use armor +2
**ne=no effect; pt=points of hit damage, no matter what the weapon damage.
Vehicles and robots take 10% of regular weapon damage as superstructure hit.

Yet it does not make clear the issue about vehicles or robots, as it says they take 10% or regular weapon damage as superstructure hits anyway, so I'd add a line to the table to ead as:

Level of sucess
Pen vs Armor	pen type	0	+1	+2	+4	+8
Pen<0.1 armor	no	0	0	0***	0***	0***
Pen<armor	zero	ne**	ne**	1pt**	2pt**	4pt**
Pen ≥ Armor	low	25	50	100	200	400
Pen ≥ Armor×2	High	50	100	200	400	800

*** alternatively 1, 2 or 4 damage points or some damage to external equipement (antenae, sensors, etc)

 

[Hyphen]

Actually, it would depend on what sort of sensors and equipment the tank has external to the armor. Night vision equipment or a laser rangefinder would quite easily be vulnerable to a pistol bullet as external lenses would be exposed.

I think that if you are a very good shot, and can walk up ti a stationary Abrams tank (as opposed to moving and bouncing around at 60 kph), and know what you're looking for in terms of vulnerable parts, and have the time to Pinpoint that target, then *maybe* you have an Impossible chance of slightly damaging a sensor.

On the other hand, a TL 15 Trepida with diamond or otherwise hardened crystalline material in place of "glass",with and all-round AF40*, then I suggest even if you hit a vision block on an your Impossible roll, *nothing* will happen.

(*) P.S. I do not believe in MT's all-round armour: it's a simplification of _Striker_, and I even develooed a crude spreadsheet to alllow me to redistribute the armour around an MT design.

EDIT: forgot to say to McPerth, love the extra line in that table, and will probably adopt it - but do you think forcing it under 10% of AF is too much? Take a bog-standard starship with AF40, for example. Not too many weapons have Pen of 4 or less. Don't get me wrong, I like the extra line; I'd just like to play with the threshold number.

 

[Carlobrand]

MegaTrav Errata 2.2 made this change:
"If a target is completely enclosed in armor, and if the penetration is less than one-tenth of the target’s lightest armor value, ignore exceptional success. Your hit cannot do any damage to the target, regardless of the type of attack (hand-to-hand, direct, or indirect fire). "

Review of the Player's Handbook weapons tables shows most slug throwers have a penetration under 4. Exceptions are HEAP and KEAP rounds, DS rounds, gauss weapons, the 9mm and 13mm rifles, the ARL HE round, and the heavy machine gun.

Penetration halves after 50 meters in most cases. Exceptions are the ACRs, LAGs, and Heavy MG, which are good to 250 meters, and the gauss rifle and ARL, which are good to 500 meters. A couple, like the SMG and Shotgun, start dropping after 5 meters. (Why the 9mm SMG, which takes the same round as a 9mm autopistol, behaves so differently is one of the little oddities of the game.)

WW II Panther tank: hull 3?/6?, armor - 8 cm frontal, let's call it 23.

TL 6 7mm rifle: penetration 3/2, damage 3.

Panther's vulnerable to the rifle only if the rifleman's within 50 meters. Inside that range, a half-dozen rifleman would be adequate to stop a Panther. A couple of heavy MGs could do the job in a couple or three rounds as well, out to 500 meters. The tank isn't quite so fearsome in the MegaTrav universe, not up close.

TL 15 Trepida grav tank: hull 12/29, armor 40G.

TL 9 laser rifle: penetration 9/2, damage 3.
Penetration halves to 4 at 50 yards, halves again at 500 yards.

Trepida meets 1st platoon at a range of 200 yards. 36-ish laser shots ring out. At that range, infantry need about an 8 or 9 to hit (base 11, +~1-2 for dex, +~1-2 for skill). Somewhere in there's a size mod, but I don't remember ow it works and can't find it. Figure 15 hits. Pen is 4, exactly 10%.

Damage-wise, 9 hits do minimal damage, 1 point. 5 are exceptional: 2 points. 1 is very exceptional: 4 points. Trepida takes 23 points of superstructure damage. Trepida is inoperative and, "may not perform any activity for the rest of the combat session."

Except: the errata also revises the minimum damage rule, showing us a table in which ordinary hits do no damage and you need exceptional success to score even 1 point. Under that new table, 9 hits do no damage. 5 do 1 point. 1 does 2. Trepida takes 7 hits and is halfway to being taken out. One more volley ought to do it.

Armored vehicles do not fair well at all under any variant of the minimum damage rule.

 

[Hyphen]

MegaTrav Errata 2.2 made this change:
"If a target is completely enclosed in armor, and if the penetration is less than one-tenth of the target’s lightest armor value, ignore exceptional success.

Ought to be equal or less, but see below...

Armored vehicles do not fair well at all under any variant of the minimum damage rule.

...which is why I think that the 10% rule is too low. I'm just not sure of the best alternative; should it be 20%? 25%?? Or something like "A difference between Pen and AC of greater than 10, on a Zero Pen hit"??? Really needs playtesting to eliminate the silly.

 

[Carlobrand]

It would help if I understood what the rule was trying to emulate. Light superstructure hits degenerating the vehicle, what exactly are they trying to represent with this?

There were WW-II instances of bolted-on armor getting knocked off by light hits that broke the bolts, but that was a rather isolated instance related to a specific manufacture technique. Tracks would fail under odd hits, maybe grav propulsion is similarly vulnerable, but this isn't addressing propulsion or suspension - it's taking the whole tank out of the battle, even if it's a WW-I tank with a CPR gun and hand-cranked turret. I could see if the tank was immobilized and able to use its weapons, but that ain't this.

Reminds me of an old sci-fi story. Navy ship in space running an audit of equipment finds that it's missing something. Can't figure out what the code means, every piece of equipment aboard is accounted for, nobody has the foggiest idea what might be missing, so they declare the item as having fallen apart under g-forces. This triggers an all-fleet alert to stop all activity while central command tries to figure out how item XK775, the ship's dog, fell apart under g-forces.

 

[McPerth]

forgot to say to McPerth, love the extra line in that table, and will probably adopt it - but do you think forcing it under 10% of AF is too much? Take a bog-standard starship with AF40, for example. Not too many weapons have Pen of 4 or less. Don't get me wrong, I like the extra line; I'd just like to play with the threshold number.

Well, I put it at 10% because what errata says, and to be coherent with it. I understand that a TL13 laser rifle or a gaussrifle can damage a starship with this 10% rule, but even a tiny scout will sustain 90 hits on its hull before it is considered inoperable (and what does that mean? I guess breached), and at 0.4 hits per shot (or 1, 2 or 4 if you achieve exceptional success) you'll need a full company shoting at it to make it have any effect.

In any case, how to handle hits (small arms) combat with ships is another unfinished work in MT (IIRC I read somewhree they intended to fix that, as the hits value of a starship have not much sense as now).

See that using personnel/vehicle damage rules in space makes that scout destroyed with a single laser hit: penetration 70-75 , so it does one quarter to 4 times damage, depending on the roll, and Dmg is 500 to 750, so it would do 125 to 3000 hits to a ship that can withstand 90/225. And if the laser is a TL13+ pulse one, pen is 80 (so full damage) for 800 hits, enough to incapacite a mercenary cruiser (armor 40, 792/1980 hits)...

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

Well, I put it at 10% because what errata says, and to be coherent with it.

I get that - what I meant to say was, does the errata seem reasonable to you?
(INMNSHO, no it doesn't.)

I understand that a TL13 laser rifle or a gaussrifle can damage a starship with this 10% rule, but even a tiny scout will ssutain 90 hits on its hull before it is considered inoperable (and what does that mean? I guess breached)

I rule it as structurally unflyable - back broken, it will fall apart in midair. Like that big cruiser in the third (?) of the new Star Wars movies, the one that Anakin & Obi are forced to crash-land - on fire, no hope of pulling out, "Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die", that sort of thing.

In any case, how to handle hits (small arms) combat with ships is another unfinished work in MT (IIRC I read somewhree they intended to fix that, as the hits value of a starship have not much sense as now).

As someone who has wanted integrated combat rules for years, I'll be the first to admit (unless Wil beats me to it) that MT is unfinished!!

See that using personnel/vehicle damage rules in space makes that scout destroyed with a single laser hit...: penetration
70-75 , so it does one quarter to 4 times damage, depending on the roll, and Dmg is 500 to 750, so it would do 125 to 3000 hits to a ship that can withstand 90/225. And if the laser is a TL13+ pulse one, pen is 80 (so full damage) for 800 hits, enough to incapacite a mercenary cruiser (armor 40, 792/1980 hits)...

Is that with the hit points multiplied by 10 (part of the errata)? The DGP guys were planning to convert even the HG rules to hit points, but never finished it. I believe that's why the HG-style combat system feels like a rush job, tacked onto the end of the Ref's Manual. HG tables had to be reversed to fit, but some numbers don't quite work, more errata.

Aramis (Wil) went some way towards filling in the gaps; have you seen his rules? We only quibble over one thing: I believe the MT starship weapon damage values are too high by a factor of 10. I mean, the biggest battlefield energy weapon is the Z-Gun: Pen 79, Dmg 30 (remembering that's 30 DICE of damage!). The weakest starship weapon is the TL 8 Beam Laser: Pen 73, Dmg... 500???!!!

For me, that's too big a jump.

(Aside: yeah, yeah, I know all the TNE arguments about this: the scale of the weapon would be totally different, the mirrors would be 1m across rather than 10 cm, etc etc, and therefore the whole thing is at a 'nuther scale - but I'm gunning for playability, not simulation. And part of that is designing it to be a reasonable match to the results you used to get from the Book 2 and/or Book 5 combat rules. For one thing, it allows you to keep using the "standard" designs, without the munchkins wanting to hack and slash their way through the classic designs - adding on a metre of armour to this one, therefore we have to add a Big Ass Gun to this other one, and eventually they're unrecognisable. To them I say, "Go away, and play another game - maybe Warhammer 40,000/Space Hulk is more your speed.")

This is why, in my own version of the weapons tables(*), I have divided the starship weapon damage by 10. Therefore the piddling TL 8 laser "only" (!) does 50 dice of damage. Throw this against your 90 HP Scout, and you get - again, IMNSHO - a better "fit" with Bk2/HG.

(*) Repair Bays ==> House Rules ==> Weapons Tables

 

[McPerth]

I get that - what I meant to say was, does the errata seem reasonable to you?
(INMNSHO, no it doesn't.)

Any change you make to this (or for what's worth any rule) will fix some situations and will broke some others. If you use 25% threeshold, then a 1 pen weapon (let's say a 7 mm handgun) may be unable to damage someone in vacc suit (armor 5-8). I'm not sure about that.

I rule it as structurally unflyable - back broken, it will fall apart in midair. Like that big cruiser in the third (?) of the new Star Wars movies, the one that Anakin & Obi are forced to crash-land - on fire, no hope of pulling out, "Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die", that sort of thing.

Wouldn't that be once the destroyed threeshold be achieved, and not the inoperable one?

Is that with the hit points multiplied by 10 (part of the errata)? The DGP guys were planning to convert even the HG rules to hit points, but never finished it. I believe that's why the HG-style combat system feels like a rush job, tacked onto the end of the Ref's Manual. HG tables had to be reversed to fit, but some numbers don't quite work, more errata.

I used the raw tables in page 80 of PM. IMHO the main mean of those tables is if you're hit by a starship weapon (sandcasters excepted), you're dead.

Aramis (Wil) went some way towards filling in the gaps; have you seen his rules? We only quibble over one thing: I believe the MT starship weapon damage values are too high by a factor of 10. I mean, the biggest battlefield energy weapon is the Z-Gun: Pen 79, Dmg 30 (remembering that's 30 DICE of damage!). The weakest starship weapon is the TL 8 Beam Laser: Pen 73, Dmg... 500???!!!

For me, that's too big a jump.

Remember this same Z-gun uses 61 MW, while a starship laser uses 250 MW, so its potency is quite higher...

And the damage listed is equivalent to the hits a vehicle (or person) can susain, not to dice of hits. So, if you hit a vehicle with a 30 damage points weapons and the vehicle can sustain 75/188 hits, you inflict it 30 damage points, not 30 dice damage points. They are only converted to dice when checking the effect on character's stats.

 

[Hyphen]

Any change you make to this (or for what's worth any rule) will fix some situations and will broke some others. If you use 25% threeshold, then a 1 pen weapon (let's say a 7 mm handgun) may be unable to damage someone in vacc suit (armor 5-8). I'm not sure about that.

Good point. That's why I suggested playtesting - I don't know what the right answer is, either.

Wouldn't that be once the destroyed threeshold be achieved, and not the inoperable one?

...After they crash, then it's destroyed.

I used the raw tables in page 80 of PM. IMHO the main mean of those tables is if you're hit by a starship weapon (sandcasters excepted), you're dead.

Amen to that.

I'd only argue about high-tech tanks: the Tech Profile tables (and Bk 4 blurb) says that grav craft merge into spacecraft at high TL's. Certainly they have better armour than most starships, so why not improve their survivability as well? That is, make sure the rules match the blurb.

Remember this same Z-gun uses 61 MW, while a starship laser uses 250 MW, so its potency is quite higher...

I take your point, but this is one of the ares I ditch "realism" (as much as we can be realistic when arguing about the effects of fictional weapon systems!) for game balance and playability.

I guess I should re-read what Striker says about the effects of starship weapon damage on vehicles. That's what I want to mimic in MT.

And the damage listed is equivalent to the hits a vehicle (or person) can susain, not to dice of hits. So, if you hit a vehicle with a 30 damage points weapons and the vehicle can sustain 75/188 hits, you inflict it 30 damage points, not 30 dice damage points. They are only converted to dice when checking the effect on character's stats.

Agreed. I think this conversion is one of the areas that were not quite finished. I mean, you can see what they were trying to do; the direction they were heading; it just needs... polishing. More explanatory text please. I'm not afraid of a big book - hey, I ordered T5, didn't I?

 

[McPerth]

...After they crash, then it's destroyed.

Well, if a grav craft is hit to the inoperable level while flying and, as you say, it automatically crashes, that makes them quite vilnerable. I guess they should at least be given an opportunity to crash land if the damage does not reach the destroyed level...

I'd only argue about high-tech tanks: the Tech Profile tables (and Bk 4 blurb) says that grav craft merge into spacecraft at high TL's. Certainly they have better armour than most starships, so why not improve their survivability as well? That is, make sure the rules match the blurb.

I take your point, but this is one of the ares I ditch "realism" (as much as we can be realistic when arguing about the effects of fictional weapon systems!) for game balance and playability.

I guess I should re-read what Striker says about the effects of starship weapon damage on vehicles. That's what I want to mimic in MT.

IMHO, the use of starship weapons on personnel (or vehicular) combat is to represent the use or ortillery, and I see it as the naval bombardment to support landings in WWII.

And what tank could sustain a hit from this artillery, even that of light cruisers with 6" guns, not to talk about the battleships with their 14-16" ones?

Agreed. I think this conversion is one of the areas that were not quite finished. I mean, you can see what they were trying to do; the direction they were heading; it just needs... polishing. More explanatory text please.

Now is my turn to say: amen to that .

 

[Carlobrand]

...After they crash, then it's destroyed.

MT Player's Manual: "A vehicle or robot that has reached the inoperative level on structural hits may not perform any activity for the rest of the combat session. If the inoperative level has been reached on the power plant hits, the vehicle may not move, and may not use any weapons or installed devices requiring power plant energy (flying vehicles automatically crash: roll 3D on the Mishap table). If the locomotion inoperative level has been reached, the vehicle may not move. Flying vehicles which lose their locomotion must roll the following task:

"To avoid a crash landing when locomotion becomes inoperative:
"Difficult, Vehicle, Dex (fateful).

"Referee: Roll this task when the air vehicle hits the ground. In the turn following the loss of locomotion, an air vehicle continues to move forward at one-half of its current movement rate and drops at a rate of 10 meters per second."

Seems to say you crash when power goes, you might crash (or manage a hard but safe landing) when propulsion goes, but no crash noted when structure goes - you just sort of stop being able to do anything. I can see a plane crashing anyway, but maybe the grav vehicle just sort of hangs there. :devil:

I'd only argue about high-tech tanks: the Tech Profile tables (and Bk 4 blurb) says that grav craft merge into spacecraft at high TL's. Certainly they have better armour than most starships, so why not improve their survivability as well? That is, make sure the rules match the blurb.

Small craft stand a good chance of being dead-dead when hit by starship weapons. A fuel hit - 10 dT fuel lost - will tend to stop anything smaller than a 50dT cutter, which is a good deal larger than the average tank or APC. Crits are also a bit of a problem, though armor mitigates that a good deal. Other than that, they tend to absorb hits better than vehicles. Key difference between a small craft and a vehicle is that the small craft tend to have lots more space that isn't drive - fuel tanks, those big bridges if they have them, cargo. As I recall, a 10 dT fighter's about the size of a large tank; the Striker APC would come in around 12-13 dTons.

I guess I should re-read what Striker says about the effects of starship weapon damage on vehicles. That's what I want to mimic in MT.

Starship weapons in Striker:

TL8 250 Mw pulse laser: hit +1, penetration 79 at effective range, which is 166 kilometers.

TL8 250 Mw beam laser: hit +2, penetration 73 at effective range, which is 125 kilometers.

TL13 250 Mw pulse laser: hit +1, penetration 81 at effective range, which is 166 kilometers.

TL13 250 Mw beam laser: hit +2, penetration 75 at effective range, which is 125 kilometers.

TL10 250 Mw plasma gun: hit +0, penetration 83 at effective range, which is 7 kilometers. (It'll do 71 out to its 14 Km long range)

TL11 250 Mw plasma gun: hit +0, penetration 89 at effective range, which is 11+ kilometers. (It'll do 77 out to its 23 Km long range)

TL12 250 Mw plasma gun: hit +0, penetration 91 at effective range, which is 12+ kilometers. (It'll do 79 out to its 25 Km long range)

TL12 500 Mw fusion gun: hit +0, penetration 99 at effective range, which is 17+ kilometers. (It'll do 87 out to its 35 Km long range)

TL14 500 Mw fusion gun: hit +0, penetration 103 at effective range, which is 21 kilometers. (It'll do 91 out to its 42 Km long range)

The Striker vehicle penetration table employs a 1d6 roll, with an energy weapon equal to the rating of the armor being hit having a 2 in 6 chance of no effect, a 3 in 6 chance of a surface hit, and a 1 in 6 chance of a penetration. Roll gets a +1 for every point by which penetration exceeds armor rating, so a weapon 5 over the armor will always get at least a minor penetration and has a 50:50 shot at a major penetration.

Penetration results can be anything from loss of electronics to destruction of the power plant - as well as crew injuries. Major penetration hits are mainly devastating for the crew injuries, though there's a 2 in 6 chance of catastrophic destruction, a 1 in 6 chance of power plant destruction, and a 1 to 2 in 6 chance of immobilizing the vehicle.

So, the vehicles need to pretty wickedly armored to resist a ship weapon in Striker.

 

[Timerover51]

Are those beam weapon ranges in the atmosphere or in vacuum? And if in the atmosphere, how are you targeting the ground vehicles.? Also, if in the atmosphere, there is this thing called planet curvature that needs to be taken into account, along with the high likelihood of blocking material.