Missiles and Governments and Stuff

Bertil Jonell [email removed] writes:
>   Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1.

>   (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be bad
> for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so only the
> actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to withstand it. But if
> you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type fireball *just aft of the
> drives* that will return entirely too much of the thermal radiation to your
> ship. Likewise for hosing a space station at 200m)

Hmmm.  That sounds like a reasonable way to limit the effectiveness of
drives as weapons.  I'd make that about 100 major hits to the aft of
your ship for running the drive in an atmosphere.

As far as attacking a ship, space station, or vacuum world with the
drive exhaust, as a referee I'd probably come up pilot or astrogation
task to aim the drive, and assign an amount of damage based on how well
the roll was made (anywhere from 1 minor hit out at 10km or so, all the
way up to a couple of hundred major hits for firing the drive while in a
docking bay of a spaceport).  For any damage over about 2 major hits,
I'd make the firing ship talk about half damage.  (Note that I don't
have any physics to back this up; this is just what I'd do as a
referee).

John H Bogan [email removed] writes:
> Regarding the two different GOV codes, I agree it must be fixed.
> To me, the simplest solution seems to be:
> Modify the 'Wilds GOV' table on page 191. Add another column.
> The existing "Code" column is renamed "Roll"
> The new column is "Code", and lists the standard UWP code for the
> gov type listed.

I posted a fix along these lines a couple of days ago (probably just
before you started getting TML).  I decided that "tribal" was an
interesting idea, but effectively "no government" (the entry for no
government mentions "family" authority as a likely ruling body; I
generized this to "family, tribe, or clan").

My fix also placed the TED code in the world's "Allegiance" field (on
the theory that TEDs can only occurr in the wilds, where the idea of a
world's allegiance to an interstellar state is, by definition,
non-existant).

> List TEDs as Non-charismatic Dictators (code B) with the note 'TED'

The other thing I did was that I realized that Non-charismatic Dictators
are not the only possible form of a TED government.  Many common
Imperial-Era Governments would be classified by the RCES as "TEDs"
(including the government of Pallique in the Spinward Marches - the
religious dictatorship that is the setting for the "Divine Intervention"
Classic Traveller Double Adventure).

So I added a "TED Government Type" table, to generate the type (which
could possible include Charismatic Dictators and Oligarchies,
Non-Charismatic Dictators, Totalitarian Oligarchies, Feudal
Technocracies, and and Religious Dictatorships and Oligarchies, in
varying probabilities).  This "TED Government Type" goes in the UWP,
while the Td (for TED) Allegiance Code  indicates a TED.

The TED Code could conceviably be put in the Trade Classifications,
Travel Zone (which isn't used in the Wilds), or the Alliegance.

> A review of all GOV codings I can find shows:
Ah.  Thanks.  Tis is one thing I didn't have, and so was reluctant to
"create" a new code.  At this point, I'm not sure if it's really needed.
Placing the TED code outside of the UWP may be the best solution to the
problem.

> All notes on determining Wilds Gov stand, except if a TED, then
> code for TED, and if balkanized, gov code is 7, "dominant" gov
> is for whatever the GM wants for that world.

Currently, you can't determine which worlds in the Wilds are balkanized
(because the code of the "dominant" government is in the UWP).  My
original fix restored Government code 7 to these worlds.

Bertil has pointed out to me that Balkanized worlds are going to be very
common in the Wilds (probably why GDW didn't use a Balkanized code in
the first place).  So his suggestion was to generate a government code
for these balkanized worlds and place it in the trade classification as
an aid to the referee.  As the T:TNE rules point out, the first and best
resort for world generation is to have the referee do it manually; the
rules and codes are there as an aid to the imagination, not a
replacement for it.

> Let's get this cleared up _NOW_, while the only one table and
> 3 subsectors have to be corrected/clarified.

Agreed.

[email removed] (Hans Rancke) writes:
> Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch
> planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
> force screens.

Please, No!  This opens far too many cans of worms than it solves.

> Item: I don't want ship combat to be simply a missile
> counter-measure, counter-counter-measure oneupmanship, but with nuclear
> missiles being capable of vapourising any concievable metal what can we
> do? How about force screens that deflect 99% (or 99.9 or whatever is
> needed) of even a contact explosion? Make the generators really expensive
> and we solve the problem of making warships much more expensive than
> merchant ships too.

No, no, no.  First of all, the missiles we have been talking about
aren't more effective than the det-laser missiles described in the T:TNE
rules; they are just *different* - slightly more advantagous under some
circumstances, different costs, slightly less useful under other
circumstances.

THe reason I got started on this was that I felt that the det-laser was
certainly not the *only* kind of missile available for T:TNE space
combat.

Secondly, to make these "new" missiles useful, you really want to have a
MFD (Master Fire Director) which allows you to ignore some or all of the
increased difficulty levels associated with the new missiles.  Bertil
suggested (and I agree) that MFDs should be restricted-purchase items,
and normally found only on warships.

Finally, nukes - even big nukes - just aren't that effective in space;
see my previous posting on the gross effects of the inverse-square law.
You will need to get pretty close to even attempt a hit with one of
these "new" missiles - which translates to plenty of chances for
successful anti-missile laser fire.  And finally, the requirements for a
hit aren't easy to meet:  you've got to get the missile into the same
range band as the target *with enough fuel left over to exceed the
target's G-rating* before you can even attempt a hit.  And when you do
make the attempt, it is at one to three difficulty levels higher than a
"normal" det-laser missile.

[email removed] (Bruce) writes:
> One thing perhaps overlooked is that all of your crew on a star vessel may
> not be strapped into acceleration couches at the moment the pilot wants
> the ship to dance on it's tail and flip out of harms way.  During combat
> in space are we assuming that all crew are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits
> and remain in acceleration couches to do all their work?  Are acceleration
> couches factored into crew space for all crew in starship construction
> rules?

I don't know about the others, but for myself I've been assuming that
high G ratings like this will be restricted to special-purpose ships
with small crews (for whom the required accelleration couches, G-suits,
and so forth will be provided). Ships like SDBs, fighters, and the like.

Presumably accelleration couches will be able to be specified in the
ship design (just like you could in Classic Traveller's High Guard and
in MegaTraveller).  I personally would say that ships with a crew of
more than a dozen are too large for overthrust to be practical

> Anyone know what kill range you would have with a missile equiped with
> an anti-matter warhead (either impact, proximity or 2300'ish DET Laser)?

A det-laser is a det-laser is a det-laser; the source of the excitation
x-rays will make the thing lighter or cheaper or be able to pump more
beams, but has no effect on the range or accuracy of the beams
themselves.  Although presumably a high-tech det-laser would have
improved lasing elements as well as an improved source of excitation
energy.

As far as Impact goes, the answer is probably a kill, just like it is
for a large enough nuke.  Proximity depends on the amount of energy in
the warhead, the fraction that is emitted as radiation, and the distance
the warhead is from the target when it goes off.  At more than a few
hundred meters, the energy required gets to be pretty high.

> How can a missile with a small computer hit a fast ship with a large
> computer when you factor in computer differences on the High Guard to-hit
> tables etc.  Surely you can build ships that can't be hit especially
> when you have self guiding missiles that don't use the firing ship's
> computer rating.

Well, the High Guard DMs are all out the window with T:TNE.  In a more
general sense, hitting the target ship isn't a hard problem if you
can manage to keep a sensor lock on it.  The missile can compute the
target's accelleration and velocity from successive sensor observations,
and plan the maneuvers it must make to intercept.  Every time it takes a
sensor observation, it updates it's course, and takes another
observation as fast as it can.  With some knowledge of the target's
capabilities, the launching ship can figure out whether or not the
missile even has a chance to hit before firing it.

Missiles will have to have an accelleration advantage over their targets
in order to achieve an impact hit.  The bigger the advantage, the easier
the hit.  In T:TNE, missiles can have a big accelleration advantage over
their targets; in Classic Traveller, less so.

Back to High Guard for a moment.  Presumably even an autonomous missile
is programmed with the parameters expected of the target ship.  A
powerful computer in the launching ship can produce better guesses of
the target's behavior.  Another possible explanation is to treat the
High Guard computer DM as representative of the electronic
countermeasures and electronic warfare support available to each ship.
Either way, its a case of rationalizing something which was
fundamentally arbitrary.


[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era