Porting weapons between Vehicle and Starship

[robject]

GOAL 1: Design a VehicleMaker weapon that does more than 10 Dice of damage, has a Range of 7 (50,000 km),
and masses 1,000 kg or less.

GOAL 2: Design an ACS weapon that displaces less than 1 ton that might be suitable for mounting on a vehicle.


This one comes close for Goal 1:

Code  : StVhOsFGV-15
Name  : Std Vh Os Fusion Gun Vehicle Mount-15
Range : 6
Damage: (32D) Pen-24 Burn-8 
Mass  : 660 kg
Burden: 3
Cost  : Cr 300,000

I can't get to Range=7. Maybe my code has a bug?

I don't have the rules with me, but this looks more bulky than a Firmpoint weapon. So as a starship weapon, it's sub-optimal, which doesn't bother me. It acts like a short-ranged "Dual Turret Fusion Gun".

 

[Reban]

It looks like any Anti-Flyer Artillery and Machine guns in a Vehicle Mount will come out as R=7.

Fixed Mounts would also work in the above cases depending on what mass the weapons are.

AFMissile Launchers are also R=7 Without modification.

 

[Reban]

Goal 2

I'm most interested in Goal 2.

The Slug Thrower is the one I'd tackle.

Slug Thrower TL9 Turret Mount R=7 0.2MCr

Lets stick to a single turret to prove our case.

Name: Slug Thrower 
TL9 
Mount: Single Turret 
Volume: Tons=1 
Mod-2 
Hits=1D (10D on the Vehicle combat scale)
Cost: 0.4MCr

As it stands that should fit on a vehicle. However we're missing lots of information useful for Combat. Damage Type, Burden and Mass are all missing. Slug Thrower in ACS is undifferentiated between cannon, machine guns and Gauss weapons. We could probably look at the entries for each in GunMaker and assign them.

The weapon could probably be better created using GunMaker. Actually it might be possible just to make a list of equivalent weapons in this class.

However, there's nothing to stop it being used in ACS combat and that's the important idea, that a planet based or vehicle carried weapons system could engage a ship as part of ACS Combat.

We can used the World Range Effects Table to make it smaller too, sacrificing range to get a 0.5ton or 0.34ton mount.

 

[pendragonman]

Since these are either vehicle weapons or ship weapons, have you thought about making them OverSized or Titan weapons?

Just toyed my way thru a titan sized machine gun that did 24 dice, and 200 kg is bound to be way under 1 dton:

Adv Heavy Ti Assault Gun Turret-13, 200 kg, R=6, B=0, Bang-18 Blast-6 , Cr 90,000

Code : AHTAGT-13
Name : Adv Heavy Ti Assault Gun Turret-13
Range : 6
Damage: (24D) Bang-18 Blast-6
MgT R : to 25 km
MgT D : 6D+3
Mass : 200 kg
Burden: 0
Cost : Cr 90,000

Code        Name                      Damage and Hits      Mass  R Bu     Cost 
----------- ------------------------- -------------------- ----- - -- -------- 
AHTAGT-13   Ti Assault Gun            (24) Bang-18 Blast-6  200 6 0    90,000

 

[robject]

...we're missing lots of information useful for Combat. Damage Type, Burden and Mass are all missing. Slug Thrower in ACS is undifferentiated between cannon, machine guns and Gauss weapons. ...

The weapon could probably be better created using GunMaker. Actually it might be possible just to make a list of equivalent weapons in this class.

However, there's nothing to stop it being used in ACS combat and that's the important idea, that a planet based or vehicle carried weapons system could engage a ship as part of ACS Combat.

Since we're spitballing, I'd say that the Slug Thrower's damage type is most similar to "Bullet", and I suspect the T5 book mentions somewhere how big that slug is likely to be.

Mass is probably equal to tons. Although I know Marc has quoted different scales before, for example he has quoted a 1:10 conversion for solid machinery: 1 displacement ton is 10 mass tons. Whereas a mostly empty container, such as the hull of a small craft, is closer to 1:1. All that to say: I don't know where Marc's mind is here.

I think it's very satisfying to think that GunMaker and ACS weapons come close to each other in numbers, even if they're not efficient when ported to the other side.

But you're right, the important thing is that weapons bear against anything, regardless of where the weapon was designed, in a consistent way.


I think you may have hit on a key principle with Burden. ACS Burden is known to default to +0, when installed in starships. You're right, we don't know if that changes when moving to personal. If Burden scales in the same way Damage and Armor does, that could translate to a significant variation. In fact, that sounds vaguely like Burden(personal) = Burden(ACS) x 10 + Flux.

 

[Reban]

ACS Missiles on Vehicles

So in the above example we can see that porting an ACS weapon into a vehicle isn't straight forward as they lack some of the neccessary information for TCS combat.

However Missiles are different.

Imagine an MLRS system built by dropping a Salvo Missile Rack onto a tracked vehicle, or an ICBM launcher by putting a missile mount on a truck.

Salvo Rack is a Bay weapon*, so we have a choice of 50, 25, or 17 ton bays.

*I still see nothing that says i can't apply World Range Effects to missiles although the range effects themselves won't apply, the TL and volume modifications will.

The Size 6 Missile is also a Bay weapon (the missile is about 5tons). Put the 17ton Bay on a trailer pulled by a mover and you have something between a Patriot and a SCUD missile system.

The good thing about Missiles from ACS is that the various warheads come with PEN, EMP and Massive Explosion details that can be used in TCS combat.

 

[Reban]

Other limiting factors

We talked about the VehicleMaker Weapons Mount as being a limiting factor based on volume.

We also talked about the Hardpoint and Firmpoint rules being there for game balance.

Now consider this example of something that is possible under the RAW.

I build a ship:

AdvVhShip: TL10 Tons=2998 Load=604


I fit it with Boarding range Meson Guns which are TL10 and come in 50ton Mounts So I have space for 12 and 4 ordinary weapons mounts too

A ~3000ton spaceship would have 30 hardpoints so its reasonable to assume a wet navy ship would too. As far as I can see all the above is legal.

Now Boarding range is only 1000m so its not the smartest weapons system ever, but my point was to show how you can get an ACS weapon into a VehicleMaker vehicle without breaking too many rules.

So what are the other limiting factors?

Sensors
To attack using ACS weapons you must detect a target with sensors. Most sensors have no volume requirement so are easy to port over to Vehicles*

You might also place a turret mounted sensor on another vehicle, which I think should probably require a CommCaster.

Consoles
ACS Weapons do have on mount computers so i think they can be manned, but all I see is that they are usually controlled from a console.

* here's another important aspect of this work, all sensor start as Surf mounts with R=7 but if we want longer or S ranges we might have reason to allow for bigger turret mounts, barbettes and bays on Vehicles.

 

[Reban]

Multiple weapons mounts

Above I've discussed some limiting factors but what if.....


What if you were able to drop a 1ton ACS turret mount into a VehicleMaker Weapons Mount (lets assume Fixed Mounts because they are rated for the greatest mass)?

What if you installed three Fixed mounts on your vehicle and dropped in a barbette?

Or if you install 50 Fixed Mounts and drop in a Small Bay mount?

Or if you fill your ship or aircraft with 200 fixed mounts and drop in a main weapon mount?

How do you preserve game balance?

1.) Cost. A Fixed Mount has no cost in VehicleMaker but the ACS Mount will cost the same as for a spacecraft. Maybe make that cost x10 for fitting in a veicle?

2). Sensors. You need sensors to detect and acquire targets for ACS weapons but not necessarily for GunMaker built weapons (infact I think only Artillery can be fitted with sensors).

3). Console requirement. Unless you put a gunner on the mount, which I think is possible, you'll need a console to fire your ACS weapon.

4). Skill requirement. The skills required to man ACS weapons are different from those used in Personal Combat.

 

[robject]

How do you preserve game balance?

1.) Cost.

That would be my last option, and would still worry me.

2). Sensors. You need sensors to detect and acquire targets for ACS weapons but not necessarily for GunMaker built weapons (infact I think only Artillery can be fitted with sensors).

Sensors should be just as portable as weapons; I assumed the same when the portable sensors showed up in the Equipment List (also ThingMaker could inform here).

3). Console requirement. Unless you put a gunner on the mount, which I think is possible, you'll need a console to fire your ACS weapon.

Just a half-ton console. No problem, I'd think.

4). Skill requirement. The skills required to man ACS weapons are different from those used in Personal Combat.

In particular, Gunner, and its children. But surely that's not much of an obstacle.

 

[Reban]

Then perhaps the route to go is to find an arbitrary rule like the Hardpoint/Firmpoint rule to cover transferring ACS Weapons into Vehicles and vice versa.


I highlight that last part because one of the things I'd like to do is build a series of 30ton Modules for the Cutter that mount ground support weapons i.e. weapons designed with GunMaker and therefore requiring Vehicle Mounts, Turrets or Fixed Mounts.

I'm allowed 1 Firmpoint in a 30ton pod which accepts a half-ton ACS Mount.

But in a 30ton pod there are several tons of payload that would take the other type of mounts.

Lets compare:
VGMmount = Vehicle and GunMaker mounts just for clarity

A Firmpoint is 0.5ton
A VGMmount is 1ton

A Firmpoint is R=
A VGMmount is R=

A Firmpoint may mount 1ton external ordnance (with agility penalty)
A VGMmount I assume can do the same (Speed penalty?)*

A Firmpoint may drop 1ton or ordnance per turn (per 15 minutes)
A VGMmount I assume can do the same (per 15 second round?)*

You may have 1 Firmpoint per 35ton.
You may install 1 VGMmount per ton of Load available.


The only thing really separating the two are the volume requirements. Half a ton for the Firmpoint and one ton for the VGMmounts.

*VehicleMaker doesn't have a rule equivalent to this but I assume that since a eapons mount is a dedicated space for weapons it can be used to model bomb bays and external pylon/hardpoints for stores. Otherwise and cargo plane can be a bomber.

Firmpoints are assumed to be "dropping" or discharging ordnance in space so I can rationalize it being an order of magnitude slower by the need to depressurize the bay (handwave at maximum waviness).

 

[Reban]

Spit balling this one but.....


There needs to be more overlap.

If the Firmpoint could take up to a 1 ton mount, and it was made equivalent to a Fixed mount in terms of the mass of the GunMaker Weapons installed....

Could you then say; anything that fits in a Firmpoint also fits in a Fixed Mount for VehicleMaker installation?

And then use the Mass figures on p.217 to limit the amount of Vehicle mounts and Vehicle Turrets in ACS craft?

Lets see that would work out as:

You may install:
1 Fixed Mount per 35tons
100 Vehicle Mounts per 35tons..... ah thats where it breaks down:rant:

Vehicle Mount maximum mass =1000Kg
Fixed Mount maximum mass = 100,000Kg
I tried 100,000/1000 = 100 but 100 Vehicle mounts have a volume of 100ton which obviously won't fit in 35tons.

Maybe we can be a bit more arbitrary and say:

You may install:
1 Fixed Mount per 35tons
2 Vehicle Mounts per 35tons
4 Vehicle Turret Mounts per 35tons

Completely arbitrary, but I think the main point is Firmpoints and Fixed Mounts should be a point of overlap between the two design sequences.

 

[Timerover51]

It looks like any Anti-Flyer Artillery and Machine guns in a Vehicle Mount will come out as R=7.

Fixed Mounts would also work in the above cases depending on what mass the weapons are.

AFMissile Launchers are also R=7 Without modification.

Just curious. what distance does R=7 equate too? On page 690, R=7 is listed as a distance of 50 Kilometers, with a range between 25 kilometers and 250 kilometers.

If that is the range that R=7 equates too, then per your comment on Anti-Flyer Artillery and Machine Guns, along with what is presumably Anti-Flyer Missile Launchers, any weapon in that category has a range of 50 kilometers.

Does that include 7.62MM/0.30 caliber machine guns and a man-portsble weapon on the order of either Redeye, Stinger, Blowpipe, or Javelin?

 

[Licheking]

The Missile Size table, i forget which page its on, but when i get to a copy will post it, tells us the following:-

Size 1 = Slugs/Bullets (P.364 identifying missiles 5.09)
Size 2 = (Page 366 Slugthrower 5.09)
Size 3 = (P.368 Salvo Rack)
Size 4 = 1/10th damage in Starship combat (P.367 missiles and Ortillery)
Size 5 = Starship Missiles (Benchmark)
Size 6 = x2 damage
Size 7 = KK Missile (P.367)

Page 369 has the table with them all on.

Personally i use Size 1 to represent all personal Firearms made with GunMaker.
Size 2 i have representing all the Artillery category weapons. Size 3 is the size of the salvo bay ordnance so i use it to represent all Launcher category weapons and grenades. Sizes 4, 5 and 6 all remain missile sizes with Size 5 around 1.5m long (Human Size 5). So for me my table looks like this:-

Size 1 = 2mm - 12.7mm (0.07 - .50) Caliber
Size 2 = 20mm - 200mm (0.7 - 7.9") Caliber
Size 3 = Launcher Category Rockets, Missiles and Grenades
Size 4 = Small ACS Missiles (1m length)
Size 5 = Standard ACS Missiles (2m length)
Size 6 = Large ACS Missiles (4m length)

 

[Reban]

Just curious. what distance does R=7 equate too? On page 690, R=7 is listed as a distance of 50 Kilometers, with a range between 25 kilometers and 250 kilometers.

If that is the range that R=7 equates too, then per your comment on Anti-Flyer Artillery and Machine Guns, along with what is presumably Anti-Flyer Missile Launchers, any weapon in that category has a range of 50 kilometers.

Does that include 7.62MM/0.30 caliber machine guns and a man-portsble weapon on the order of either Redeye, Stinger, Blowpipe, or Javelin?

Yes I spotted this.

Anti-flyer options set the range to R=6

R=6 is 5km or "Distant" with a range band with of 3km to 25km.

However if you make the weapon large (massive) enough to require a Vehicle or Fixed Mount the weapon receives a +1 bonus to range.

I may be wrong in adding that bonus if the = sign is used in the table because that may become a hard upper limit.


An Anti-Flyer Machinegun is TL10 and 48Kg Range=6. Looking at other weapons in the same mass range makes me think of 20mm weapons although there's nothing strictly equvalent to a TL10 weapon probably using ETC rounds.

The Light Anti-Flyer Machinegun is TL9 R=4 and is 10Kg and reflects a GPMG in an AA role although a bit light in comparison to current in service weapons.

Certainly the starting R=6 for Anti-Flyer may need addressing if it's easy to bump up to orbital ranges for personal combat weapons. Adding it to the Errata discussion next.

 

[Reban]

Pasting this here for reference:

GunMaker Installations. Any weapon less than 500 kg created by GunMaker can be installed in a weapon Mount (less than 1 ton) on a Firm Point.

GunMaker weapons damage inflict one-tenth damage inthe Starship Combat environment: divide damage by 10 and round down; less than 1D has no combat effect; 1D fits in a T1; 2D fits in a T2; 3D fits in a T3.

p.277 BBB

 

[robject]

So an implication of the above is that space weapons are considered abstract forms of 'guns'. I suspect that price doesn't mesh quite as well as damage, TL is close, and range appears to mesh. But what are the edge cases?

 

[robject]

I did find this, which (if valid) could represent a generational change in lasers:

Code : PrHOsLDT-19
Name : Prec Heavy Os Laser Designator Turret-19
Range : 9
Damage: (16D) Burn-10 Pen-6
Mass : 490 kg
Burden: 4
Cost : Cr 240,000

A TL19, single turret, "Precision Laser Designator" with a default range of R=9, instead of the typical R=7.

 

[Timerover51]

Yes I spotted this.

Anti-flyer options set the range to R=6

R=6 is 5km or "Distant" with a range band with of 3km to 25km.

However if you make the weapon large (massive) enough to require a Vehicle or Fixed Mount the weapon receives a +1 bonus to range.

I may be wrong in adding that bonus if the = sign is used in the table because that may become a hard upper limit.


An Anti-Flyer Machinegun is TL10 and 48Kg Range=6. Looking at other weapons in the same mass range makes me think of 20mm weapons although there's nothing strictly equvalent to a TL10 weapon probably using ETC rounds.

The Light Anti-Flyer Machinegun is TL9 R=4 and is 10Kg and reflects a GPMG in an AA role although a bit light in comparison to current in service weapons.

Certainly the starting R=6 for Anti-Flyer may need addressing if it's easy to bump up to orbital ranges for personal combat weapons. Adding it to the Errata discussion next.

Hmm, an Anti-Flyer Machinegun is Tech Level 10, and a Light Anti-Flyer Machinegun is Tech Level 9. I guess that means that the Tech Level 6 guys are throwing rocks at Flyers.

 

[Reban]

Hmm, an Anti-Flyer Machinegun is Tech Level 10, and a Light Anti-Flyer Machinegun is Tech Level 9. I guess that means that the Tech Level 6 guys are throwing rocks at Flyers.

No it means that at TL6 they are shooting at aircraft with with the same 50cal M2's they use in the ground and naval role just on a high elevation mounting.

The description for Anti-Flyer weapons suggests high rate of fire, ballistic characteristics (+1 Mod to Hit Flyers) and fragmentation and blast damage from the projectile.

Show me a machinegun in the US arsenal during the 1950s that fired a fragmentation round under 20mm specifically for the anti-aircraft role....

An Anti-Flyer Machinegun and a Machinegun in the AA role are similar but different things.

 

[Timerover51]

No it means that at TL6 they are shooting at aircraft with with the same 50cal M2's they use in the ground and naval role just on a high elevation mounting.

The description for Anti-Flyer weapons suggests high rate of fire, ballistic characteristics (+1 Mod to Hit Flyers) and fragmentation and blast damage from the projectile.

Show me a machinegun in the US arsenal during the 1950s that fired a fragmentation round under 20mm specifically for the anti-aircraft role....

An Anti-Flyer Machinegun and a Machinegun in the AA role are similar but different things.

Would you care to try and visualize just how small fragments from a 20MM would be? The maximum effective range of the fragments from the 40MM grenade fired by the M79 grenade launcher or the M203 is 5 meters, and that is against an unprotected human being.

Edit Note:

1. I do have in one of my reference books a photo of a 20MM round from World War 2 exploding, along with a very similar image from the 1990s of an exploding 20MM round. I would have to scan in the photo, and then post it somewhere.

2. Tech Level 6 is cited as being 1950 equivalent, or Korean War. At that time, the standard US Light Automatic Anti-Aircraft weapon was a powered quad 0.50 caliber mount, also used in World War 2, with a computing gunsight and a rate of fire of 1800 rounds per minute. The mount was both trailer-towed, and also on a half-track for a self-propelled mount. It was backed up by a twin 40MM Bofors mount on a M24 Light Tank chassis with a rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute. For static defense, the 75MM Sky Sweeper was in development, which basically was a automatic 75MM gun firing proximity-fuzed ammunition at the rate of 45 rounds per minute. There was also a single barrel 40MM towed mount, with a rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute.

3. One problem that the US Army had with the proposed Sergeant York twin 40MM self-propelled anti-aircraft gun in the late 1970s and early 1980s was the insufficient lethality of the proximity-fuzed 40MM round, among other problems. The smallest effective proximity-fuzed round when it comes to fragmentation is around 75MM or 3 inch.

4. As for blast from a 20MM round, that is essentially nil. A 20MM rounds weighs about 4 ounces or 113 grams, with an explosive content of maybe a third of an ounce. Blast effect from projectiles is a highly over-rated damage factor, unless you are looking at High Explosive Plastic or High Explosive Squash Head rounds hitting a hard object, where you get a more concentrated blast effect.

5. Lastly, an aircraft coming under even light anti-aircraft fire, so long as the aircraft is dropping "dumb", as in unguided bombs, looses considerable accuracy, about a factor of 2, doubling the number of aircraft needed to achieve a specified result.