I'm not sure how else to title this one. One of the conceptual problems
I have had lately with Traveller is trying to figure out what future combat
would look like. It seems that the introduction of the grav vehicle ought
to increase the pace of battle so much as to make the invasion of Kuwait
look lethargic. Along the same lines, it would appear that vehicles suffer
from much the same problem that Bertil noted yesterday regarding infantry
weapons: they appear to be seriously undergunned in proportion to their
potential. We have also been informed that as the TLs go up, the distinctions
between different classes of combat craft (tanks, fighters, system defense
boats) blur until the only thing distinguishing them is size. Thinking along
these lines, I present:
Phalanx Ground Support Gunship TL15
The Phalanx was designed in 1092 and deployed in limited numbers by
corps level heavy support battalions in the Spinward Marches during the Fifth
Frontier War. While intended as a fire support vehicle for task forces of
smaller grav combat vehicles, it has a secondary role as a near orbit space
fighter relying on its dual heavy fusion gun mount. Its heavy armor gives it
near immunity against anything short of a light meson gun.
The secondary armament is arranged in four circles of turrets perpendic-
ular to the long axis of the craft, so that at least three of the turrets of
each circle can fire at any given target. Much of the fire is fully automat-
ed, with the gunner primarily serving to prioritize and designate targets
which are then engaged by the available weapons until sensors indicate that
they have been destroyed.
CraftID: Phalanx Gunship, TL15, MCr337
Hull: 72/180, Disp=80, Conf=1AF, Armor=75G, Loaded=5387t
Power: 26/52, Fusion=7290MW, Dur=29hrs
Loco: 27/54, StdGrav=20000t, MaxSpeed=2650kph, Cruise=1988kph,
NOE=190kph, MaxAccel=2.7G
Comm: Radio=System, LaserComm=System, MaserComm=System
Sensors: EMM, EMS Active(Far Orbit), EMS Jammer(Far Orbit), EMS
Passive(Interstellar), High Pen Densitometer(1km), Neutrino
Sensor(10kw), ActObjScan=Routine, ActObjPin=Routine,
PassObjScan=Routine, PassObjPin=Routine, PassEnScan=Simple,
PassEnPin=Routine
Off: Hardpoints=1 (Space Weapons=FusionGun 5*2)
Pen/ Max Auto Dngr
Attn Dmg Range Tgts Spc Sig ROF
2*Fusion Gun (ship) 103/5 900 Planet 2 45 H 60
12*4 RPY-15 Fusion Gun 71/5 30 Dist(21) 4 45 H 320
4*4 50MW Pulse Laser 51/4 60 Reg(250) 4 - H 320
Def: Point Defense Targeting for quad beam laser turrets
Control: Comp7*3, 3*HeadsUpHoloDisplay, 40*HoloLink
Accom: Crew=3 (Commander, Gunner, Pilot), Seats=ExtOccRoomy*3, Env=basic
env, basic ls, extended ls, grav plates, inertial comp
Other: Fuel=107.2kl, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate
The marginal cost of adding more weapons to an already existing platform seems
to be pretty low compared to adding additional platforms. I would expect that
armed forces would strike some balance between multi-weapon platforms and
single/small number of weapon platforms based on their perception of the risks
or benefits of concentration of firepower. I _think_ that this ought to be
able to destroy any equal cost collection of grav vehicles from the 101
Vehicles book, especially if you allow some rule as discussed a few weeks ago
to give it an advantage for its Model 7 computer system. (I should also point
out that I think the values given in Book 1 and copied above for a ship class
fusion gun are unreasonable).
I also think that it is time to rethink the 1 turret/100 tons of displacement
rule, since this bird could have easily powered 6 additional starship fusion
guns in lieu of the secondary armament.
I only put enough fuel in for a day's worth of combat--I'm thinking that the
fighting phase of a planetary assault wouldn't last long enough to require
refueling during the critical part of the operation (that is, while the enemy's
grav fighters were still contesting the invasion...once the tanks are beaten
the infantry is reduced to impotence as far as I can see...surrender or be
dug or blasted out, if necessary by infantry using things like this beast as
back-up.)
Any comments?
Rob Dean