Re: (4152) Re: Proposed Alternate Starship Combat in Traveller

2G Scott Kellogg writes:

> }From: bryan borich [email removed]
> }Subject: (4095) Alternate Starship Combat System
>
> Hmm, according to the design tables in the Referee's Guide, this should NOT
> be a problem until Tech Level 24.  (Max armor is TL *5)  So the max armor
> available in the Imperium (That *I* wanna deal with) is Armor=75G at TL 15).
> But then again, Shattered Ships of the Squabbling Imperium is chock full of
> the things and other assorted errors.

As far as I am concerned, this intention of this rule has always been an
open question.  For starships, should that be 40 + 5*TL?  If not, then a
'legal' TL7 spacecraft is impossible.  (Tell the Apollo crew to give it up
boys--we can't build the command module thick enough!)

> }  First, we will compute the damage points each type of weapons does.
> }  Turret mounted weapons do 10*UCP in damage. A bay weapon does 20*UCP in
> }damage. Spinal mounts do 100*UCP in damage.
> }  Nuclear and anti-matter do four times the precalculated damage. Example:
> }a UCP-3 turret firing nuclear missiles does 120 points of damage ((3*10)*4).
>
> I like it.  A way we can actually USE those damage point numbers we've been
> patiently calculating and recording and never using.  Sounds like a good
> idea.

I don't.  At least not yet.  Look at it like this.  For smaller weapons
operating over a _short_ turn, a laser does MW damage if pulse, or 2*MW
damage if beam.  A ship sized beam laser should do 500 points of damage in
combat--more if the turn length is considered.  If it doesn't, then I'll
design my ships with the smaller weapons, nyet?  The principle is good, but
the math is bad.  This reminds me--have we _ever_ come to any agreement on
whether lasers actually shoot at their targets at far orbit range or whether
they just slash around hoping for a random hit?  If the latter, then a low
damage might be justifiable (but it should increase as range decreases, not
from differing beam strength but from increasing time on the target).  If
the former, then the damage should be larger (or the damage from vehicle
mounted weapons should be smaller.)


> And if you are interested in solutions to particular problems with Trav and
> MegaTrav, I would point you to the archives to find the numerous discussions
> on problems percieved and solutions proposed.  If you have any particular
> problems in mind, I suggest you address them yourself so that discussion may
> ensue.  I think you will find this preferable rather than waiting for others
> to bring them up if you find the wait so disturbing.

Agree with Scott here.  A lot of stuff has been chewed over (and over and over)
and if a topic interests you, might as well ask.

Rob Dean