Not forgetting that. On the other hand does your average merchant want to spend 5 x planet size hours on liftoff / reentry?
T5.09 Errata Discussion Thread
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
hits versus protection
From page 178:
If an attack inflicted Blast-7 (rolls= 6 6 6 6 6 6 6) totalling
42, the Armor would absorb six of the 6’s for a total of
36; the remaining 6 would continue to injure the target within
the Armor.
What if the dice are 6 6 6 5 5 5 5? In what order are dice applied?
What is the purpose of this rule? Why not simply subtract the dice from the AV and move on?
From page 178:
If an attack inflicted Blast-7 (rolls= 6 6 6 6 6 6 6) totalling
42, the Armor would absorb six of the 6’s for a total of
36; the remaining 6 would continue to injure the target within
the Armor.
What if the dice are 6 6 6 5 5 5 5? In what order are dice applied?
What is the purpose of this rule? Why not simply subtract the dice from the AV and move on?
ArmorMaker clarifications
Don I have a few things that I'd like you to bring to Marc's attention for the next review.
These are things that I think he either included but hasn't explained in the text or simply overlooked.
Starting with ArmorMaker:
All Armors/Dresses/Suits/Units are self explanatory with Armor and Protections defining their use, except for the following two cases:
Sapper
The Sapper descriptor makes a specialist Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit. Question; is there a bonus to a PC with the Sapper Skill from wearing a Sapper armor? Does it act like a wearable tool (as per p.101 under Universal Task format that speak about Tools). Or is it just a random armor with the name Sapper applied.
Weapons Carrier
How big a weapon? The idea with Dress is that the wearer can brace against the high recoil of a Portable weapon. Does a Weapon Carrier Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit go beyond this? The strength enhancement built into all of these would allow a PC to "carry" many weapons but not use them because of their bulk or recoil, does a Weapon Carrier Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit allow a PC to "use" a weapon that would normally require a vehicle mount or turret?
Two short notes at the bottom of the table are all thats needed to explain any special qualities they have.
Don I have a few things that I'd like you to bring to Marc's attention for the next review.
These are things that I think he either included but hasn't explained in the text or simply overlooked.
Starting with ArmorMaker:
All Armors/Dresses/Suits/Units are self explanatory with Armor and Protections defining their use, except for the following two cases:
Sapper
The Sapper descriptor makes a specialist Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit. Question; is there a bonus to a PC with the Sapper Skill from wearing a Sapper armor? Does it act like a wearable tool (as per p.101 under Universal Task format that speak about Tools). Or is it just a random armor with the name Sapper applied.
Weapons Carrier
How big a weapon? The idea with Dress is that the wearer can brace against the high recoil of a Portable weapon. Does a Weapon Carrier Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit go beyond this? The strength enhancement built into all of these would allow a PC to "carry" many weapons but not use them because of their bulk or recoil, does a Weapon Carrier Armor/Dress/Suit/Unit allow a PC to "use" a weapon that would normally require a vehicle mount or turret?
Two short notes at the bottom of the table are all thats needed to explain any special qualities they have.
GunMaker clarifications and suggestions
In the same vein for Marc's consideration:
Mortars Suggestion
One weapon type that is missing is "mortar". Is there a case to include a mortar line under Artillery? They could be designed as Guns or another solution would be to design a Mortar as a Grenade Launcher. I’m not sure if the range characteristics match up. I’d probably substitute Artillery as the skill required.
Assault Rifles Clarification
Once and for all can we have an explanation of whether the Blast under the Assault descriptor represents an integral grenade launcher? I really don't like the idea that every assault rifle would be assumed to include a grenade launcher.
Which leads me to the following suggestion:
Weapon Attachment Suggestion
I've run into problem when trying to design double barrelled weapons, combining two or more weapons in one package or adding an under barrelled grenade launcher.
I'd like to suggest the following addition under User
Weapon Attachment
TL: 0
R= 0
Mass: x0.5
qreBs: +1
Note: May only be added to a larger weapon.
The effect here is the Weapon Attachment halves the mass of the weapon by stripping away the stock and other furnishings allowing the weapon to be added to a larger weapon.
For example a Light Grenade Launcher given the User code "Weapons Attachment" could be added to a Combat rifle to represent an under barreled grenade launcher.
Likewise the range of underbarreled attachments such as shotguns etc. can be modeled this way. Also double barreled and multi-barreled weapons might be modeled in this way.
The original thread from 2013 is here. However there's been no update in the meantime.
In the same vein for Marc's consideration:
Mortars Suggestion
One weapon type that is missing is "mortar". Is there a case to include a mortar line under Artillery? They could be designed as Guns or another solution would be to design a Mortar as a Grenade Launcher. I’m not sure if the range characteristics match up. I’d probably substitute Artillery as the skill required.
Assault Rifles Clarification
Once and for all can we have an explanation of whether the Blast under the Assault descriptor represents an integral grenade launcher? I really don't like the idea that every assault rifle would be assumed to include a grenade launcher.
Which leads me to the following suggestion:
Weapon Attachment Suggestion
I've run into problem when trying to design double barrelled weapons, combining two or more weapons in one package or adding an under barrelled grenade launcher.
I'd like to suggest the following addition under User
Weapon Attachment
TL: 0
R= 0
Mass: x0.5
qreBs: +1
Note: May only be added to a larger weapon.
The effect here is the Weapon Attachment halves the mass of the weapon by stripping away the stock and other furnishings allowing the weapon to be added to a larger weapon.
For example a Light Grenade Launcher given the User code "Weapons Attachment" could be added to a Combat rifle to represent an under barreled grenade launcher.
Likewise the range of underbarreled attachments such as shotguns etc. can be modeled this way. Also double barreled and multi-barreled weapons might be modeled in this way.
The original thread from 2013 is here. However there's been no update in the meantime.
Dice for penetrating armour are assigned by the attacker, the leftover dice that get through are assigned by the target. Any dice that are partly used to penetrate armour don't count for damage.
So in your example above no damage would get through to the target. But don't forget under the official rules that armour now doesn't protoct the wearer for the rest of the combat, so your next shot is likely to rip them a new one.
There is some tactics to assigning effect dice with this system, do you use big dice to get through the armour and leave all the little numbers to nick at the characteristics which are assigned by the victim, or do you use all your smaller dice numbers to get through armour and leave the big numbers for the attribute damage as assigned by the victim. In the games i have been running various players use them depending on circumstances, later in the fight they tend to go for the bigger dice for damage, while early doors they use the lots of little dice, and were finding the same tactics can apply to space combat as well.
Personal Combat Suggestions and Clarifications
The Observer Process Suggestion
To me 50meters seems like a huge distance. A 50m deviation assumes that every weapon has a Circular Error Probability of 100m Diameter.
In the military science of ballistics, circular error probable (CEP) is a measure of a weapon system's precision. It is defined as the radius of a circle, centered about the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds.
A normal present day 155mm artilleray shell has a CEP of ~200m.
A GPS guided free fall bomb has a CEP of ~15m.
A Guided artillery shell (for example Excalibur) has a CEP of 20m.
All the above are TL7-8 technology.
My point is that the Deviation Scale is tailored to the concept of the 155mm shell. But Traveller is a game of improving technology.
Suggestion: Incorporate a method for reducing the Deviation Scale through the use of technology.
Also there is a mis-match between the description of the Indirect Fire process as described in the Forward Observer Skill on p.130 and the process outlined in the Combat chapter on p.192. The Skill refers to deviations of 100m and the Combat process refers to deviations of 50m.
Ortillery Shot Clarifictaion
See p.193
What is an Ortillery Shot? What weapons system from ACS does it come from? And my biggest question; Why does dropping something from orbit have only the same effect as a hand grenade?
Looking at real world studies such as Project Thor i find the following:
Now the Thor projectile was envisaged as a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten rod, which is of course much larger than a hand grenade but the point is that the kinetic energy of a projectile from orbit (designed as a weapon) should surely be greater than a hand grenade.
What is an Ortillery Shot?
What launches/fires them?
Does it really do only as much damage as a hand grenade?
Should it not be based on ACS Railguns or Ortillery?
The Observer Process Suggestion
To me 50meters seems like a huge distance. A 50m deviation assumes that every weapon has a Circular Error Probability of 100m Diameter.
In the military science of ballistics, circular error probable (CEP) is a measure of a weapon system's precision. It is defined as the radius of a circle, centered about the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds.
A normal present day 155mm artilleray shell has a CEP of ~200m.
A GPS guided free fall bomb has a CEP of ~15m.
A Guided artillery shell (for example Excalibur) has a CEP of 20m.
All the above are TL7-8 technology.
My point is that the Deviation Scale is tailored to the concept of the 155mm shell. But Traveller is a game of improving technology.
Suggestion: Incorporate a method for reducing the Deviation Scale through the use of technology.
Also there is a mis-match between the description of the Indirect Fire process as described in the Forward Observer Skill on p.130 and the process outlined in the Combat chapter on p.192. The Skill refers to deviations of 100m and the Combat process refers to deviations of 50m.
Ortillery Shot Clarifictaion
See p.193
What is an Ortillery Shot? What weapons system from ACS does it come from? And my biggest question; Why does dropping something from orbit have only the same effect as a hand grenade?
Looking at real world studies such as Project Thor i find the following:
Now the Thor projectile was envisaged as a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten rod, which is of course much larger than a hand grenade but the point is that the kinetic energy of a projectile from orbit (designed as a weapon) should surely be greater than a hand grenade.
What is an Ortillery Shot?
What launches/fires them?
Does it really do only as much damage as a hand grenade?
Should it not be based on ACS Railguns or Ortillery?
Effects of Damage during combat?
On T5.09 p.179 & p.181 we have the following text:
My knowledge of older versions of Traveller suggest the traditional zeroing of stats leads to those conditions, and I also know there is a section in T5.09 for evaluating injury and wound severity after combat, but what about during combat? The charts on p.109, 176, & 189 do not specify.
Presume you are a newbie and have never played any version of Traveller before and you have just read this section. You know how to assess damage to characteristics. But what actual effect does that have? When am I unconscious or dead/dying? Either some text needs to be added here, or a cross-reference and page number needs to be added that points to the information.
On T5.09 p.179 & p.181 we have the following text:
Perhaps I have just missed it, or it is in another section (in which case it definitely needs a cross-reference note here), but there still is no specific description of what effect injury has beyond subtracting points from characteristics. In other words, at what point is a character incapacitated, unconscious, dead/dying, etc.
My knowledge of older versions of Traveller suggest the traditional zeroing of stats leads to those conditions, and I also know there is a section in T5.09 for evaluating injury and wound severity after combat, but what about during combat? The charts on p.109, 176, & 189 do not specify.
Presume you are a newbie and have never played any version of Traveller before and you have just read this section. You know how to assess damage to characteristics. But what actual effect does that have? When am I unconscious or dead/dying? Either some text needs to be added here, or a cross-reference and page number needs to be added that points to the information.
Thank you. I guess that's implied at different points in the text, but I had not put it all together, particularly that the attacker gets to assign penetration dice.
P.505 - Additional Drive Columns
With the addition of various additional sublight drives in the T5.09 document, perhaps some columns should be added under Space Travel on p.505 that list the TL minimums and/or progression for Thruster (T), HEPlaR (H), and Orion (O1, O2, O2bis, O3).
With the addition of various additional sublight drives in the T5.09 document, perhaps some columns should be added under Space Travel on p.505 that list the TL minimums and/or progression for Thruster (T), HEPlaR (H), and Orion (O1, O2, O2bis, O3).
The assignment of damage to the victim is written 2 ways, within the combat step by step it says its done randomly, while in the damage to characters section it says that it is assigned by the victim. Being part of the team that is going through the combat errata the victim assigning the damage is the correct way and brings it more in line with previous versions.
Just reading the latest T509 Errata Review and there's some great suggestions for additions.
I've just got a few comments on the following GunMaker suggestions:
I'm not sure Launcher is the right concept for these additions. T5 says "Launchers: A Launcher is a device which ejects or launches self-propelled projectiles which then proceed to the target."
A plasma or meson Projector might fit the concept better. "Projectors: A Projector is a weapon which utilizes non-traditional technology not ordinarily or otherwise encountered."
Other versions have had Plasma and Fusion Bazookas (single shot simplified plasma guns). Plasma and Fusion Projectors would shoot a stream towards a target.
I agree that there is a need for a Meson option in GunMaker.
Currently the smallest Meson weapon available is a 67ton Meson Main weapon in ACS.
Assuming that Meson weapons are hard to miniaturize the Meson option would go best under Artillery making "Battlefield Meson Guns" an available option in T5.
There would also be Meson Gatllings/Cannon/Autocannon representing different rates of fire and output. The Meson Cannon actually fill the niche of early traveller version's Battlefield Meson Gun.
Meson weapons are TL13 in ACS, but the battlefield version should come in at a higher TL (say starting with a TL+8 modifier).
A VLite Meson Gun would be around 5-6Kg and around TL16+ using this method. This effectively creates a Meson rifle type weapon (something that FF&S could do).
I agree with the addition of Neural, Disruptor, and Relativity to selected weapon types.
However I don't think there's a need for a Gauss option under Handguns. Here's my reasoning. In real life, Gauss weapons are always going to be heavier than rifle or pistol equivalents.
in GunMaker you can make a Gauss Carbine that can be used one handed like a pistol, does damage as a gauss weapon but is that little bit more massive and bulky than a normal pistol.
I've just got a few comments on the following GunMaker suggestions:
I'm not sure Launcher is the right concept for these additions. T5 says "Launchers: A Launcher is a device which ejects or launches self-propelled projectiles which then proceed to the target."
A plasma or meson Projector might fit the concept better. "Projectors: A Projector is a weapon which utilizes non-traditional technology not ordinarily or otherwise encountered."
Other versions have had Plasma and Fusion Bazookas (single shot simplified plasma guns). Plasma and Fusion Projectors would shoot a stream towards a target.
I agree that there is a need for a Meson option in GunMaker.
Currently the smallest Meson weapon available is a 67ton Meson Main weapon in ACS.
Assuming that Meson weapons are hard to miniaturize the Meson option would go best under Artillery making "Battlefield Meson Guns" an available option in T5.
There would also be Meson Gatllings/Cannon/Autocannon representing different rates of fire and output. The Meson Cannon actually fill the niche of early traveller version's Battlefield Meson Gun.
Meson weapons are TL13 in ACS, but the battlefield version should come in at a higher TL (say starting with a TL+8 modifier).
A VLite Meson Gun would be around 5-6Kg and around TL16+ using this method. This effectively creates a Meson rifle type weapon (something that FF&S could do).
I agree with the addition of Neural, Disruptor, and Relativity to selected weapon types.
However I don't think there's a need for a Gauss option under Handguns. Here's my reasoning. In real life, Gauss weapons are always going to be heavier than rifle or pistol equivalents.
in GunMaker you can make a Gauss Carbine that can be used one handed like a pistol, does damage as a gauss weapon but is that little bit more massive and bulky than a normal pistol.
Also from the T509 Errata Review:
Since these are sophontform robots shouldn't it follow a similar pattern as the SophontMaker that has four size classes:
p.566 Sophont Size classes:
Small 3D
Standard 6D
Oversize !2D
Titan 14D+
Running that through the Typical Size calculation for Robots typical size on p.577 we get
Small 36 Units
Standard 72 Units
Oversize 144 Units
Titan 168+ Units
Would it not be better to peg the robot skeletons to this. We know how many total units we have. Different types of skeletons for each size class would therefore take up X units in the body.
In VehicleMaker there are five Bulk "classes":
VLight
Light
Standard
Heavy
Very Heavy
You could make the two match by allowing the following:
Small Robots may have a Vlight or Light Skeleton
Standard Robots may have a Light or Standard Skeleton
Oversized Robots must have a Heavy Skeleton
Titan Robots must have a VHeavy Skeleton
Since these are sophontform robots shouldn't it follow a similar pattern as the SophontMaker that has four size classes:
p.566 Sophont Size classes:
Small 3D
Standard 6D
Oversize !2D
Titan 14D+
Running that through the Typical Size calculation for Robots typical size on p.577 we get
Small 36 Units
Standard 72 Units
Oversize 144 Units
Titan 168+ Units
Would it not be better to peg the robot skeletons to this. We know how many total units we have. Different types of skeletons for each size class would therefore take up X units in the body.
In VehicleMaker there are five Bulk "classes":
VLight
Light
Standard
Heavy
Very Heavy
You could make the two match by allowing the following:
Small Robots may have a Vlight or Light Skeleton
Standard Robots may have a Light or Standard Skeleton
Oversized Robots must have a Heavy Skeleton
Titan Robots must have a VHeavy Skeleton
Last edited:
Full and P1-P2-P3
Page 220: Laser weapons are indicated to optionally posses both P1-P2-P3 and full auto settings. Are these settings additive, or multiplicative? P3 (double damage) multiplied by full auto (triple damage), combined with a laser's PEN-2, provide a weapon that snickers quietly at Battle Dress.
Page 220: Laser weapons are indicated to optionally posses both P1-P2-P3 and full auto settings. Are these settings additive, or multiplicative? P3 (double damage) multiplied by full auto (triple damage), combined with a laser's PEN-2, provide a weapon that snickers quietly at Battle Dress.
Artwork Suggestion
Just a suggestion:
When the T5.09 document is finally and fully vetted and ready to go for publication as v5.10: If there are any "spaces" left in the document (such as there are currently on p.351, 365, 368, etc), these would be some great places to add in some additional small artwork illustrations (line-art, grey-scale, or full-color / hand-drawn or CGI).
Good eye-candy is always inspirational.
Just a suggestion:
When the T5.09 document is finally and fully vetted and ready to go for publication as v5.10: If there are any "spaces" left in the document (such as there are currently on p.351, 365, 368, etc), these would be some great places to add in some additional small artwork illustrations (line-art, grey-scale, or full-color / hand-drawn or CGI).
Good eye-candy is always inspirational.
David Johansen
SOC-12
I'm not sure full auto is cumulative. The "roll hit dice three times" comment would indicate this. Also, I have my doubts that full auto should be cumulative against armor if you can't put every last bullet right on top of the last one. The rule needs clarification.
Dear Folks -
I posted my actual errata list to the other thread earlier. Now I'm posting my list of Discussion Topics.
Sorry to deliver them in one hit - Don, should I split them into separate posts with their own titles?
Anyway, off we go...
Page 124, Craftsman: what does a craftsman actually build? Tables & chairs, artwork, classic air/rafts, what?
Page 309, top: Captain is denoted by Captain America's shield - is that just a little homage?? ;-)
Page 493, column headings - what does the red text signify?
Page 531, right-hand column containing example: I agree with the errata suggestion to swap 531-right with 532-left. In addition, it would make more sense if the examples were set off either by horizontal rulers or by adding headings such as "Example 1 - Phase 1 Training", etc.
Page 535, The FIFTH Stage: should this be 5th or 6th stage? There is no explanation or mention of 6th outside of the table on page 540.
Page 593, Reactions: This should say something about sequencing the reaction rolls (aggressive animals check Attack first, then check Flee; passive ones check Flee first, then check Attack), and if they do not attack or flee, what happens?
Page 603, Events chapter: this could be expanded to become an actual Eventmaker by the inclusion of tables and more info; basically like Supplement 1.
Page 604, chapter title: should this be Bestiary as per JTAS and the dictionary, rather than Beastiary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bestiary
Page 604, all the beasts: this section could be greatly enhanced by creating a Beastmaker notation for each creature. It would have the added benefit of showing Beastmaker examples.
Page 670, C + S table headings: Recommend swapping the heading sequence to Hasty, Normal, and Cautious (and calling the middle one Normal). It makes it easier to understand, IMHO.
;-)
I posted my actual errata list to the other thread earlier. Now I'm posting my list of Discussion Topics.
Sorry to deliver them in one hit - Don, should I split them into separate posts with their own titles?
Anyway, off we go...
Page 124, Craftsman: what does a craftsman actually build? Tables & chairs, artwork, classic air/rafts, what?
Page 309, top: Captain is denoted by Captain America's shield - is that just a little homage?? ;-)
Page 493, column headings - what does the red text signify?
Page 531, right-hand column containing example: I agree with the errata suggestion to swap 531-right with 532-left. In addition, it would make more sense if the examples were set off either by horizontal rulers or by adding headings such as "Example 1 - Phase 1 Training", etc.
Page 535, The FIFTH Stage: should this be 5th or 6th stage? There is no explanation or mention of 6th outside of the table on page 540.
Page 593, Reactions: This should say something about sequencing the reaction rolls (aggressive animals check Attack first, then check Flee; passive ones check Flee first, then check Attack), and if they do not attack or flee, what happens?
Page 603, Events chapter: this could be expanded to become an actual Eventmaker by the inclusion of tables and more info; basically like Supplement 1.
Page 604, chapter title: should this be Bestiary as per JTAS and the dictionary, rather than Beastiary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bestiary
Page 604, all the beasts: this section could be greatly enhanced by creating a Beastmaker notation for each creature. It would have the added benefit of showing Beastmaker examples.
Page 670, C + S table headings: Recommend swapping the heading sequence to Hasty, Normal, and Cautious (and calling the middle one Normal). It makes it easier to understand, IMHO.
;-)
World Surface Ranges
Page 680, Basic World Ranges: I want to argue the toss over the range bands. I've done a fair bit of thinking about this over the years, and a lot of research into how CT, MT, and especially Striker handled things:
a. I've tried the exercise of grouping Striker weapons together by range. They fall roughly into the ranges bands I have proposed below (carbines good to 300m, rifles to 600m, before difficulties increase).
b. I also firmly believe that the close-in, PC-scale range bands should be evenly divisible by 1.5, in order to fit neatly on a battlemat. Once the ranges increase, they can be recalibrated to vehicle- and starship-scales.
c. In the case of T5, I also believe that using ranges in a similar fashion to earlier editions provides a nice sense of continuity.
d. I also like the idea of a one-sentence description for each band, to help players visualise what each band relates to. For example, it would give the GunMaker crowd some sort of guidance as to where their weapon parameters should fall in terms of range.
e. Finally, I'd prefer to replace the two close orbit/space ranges (Orbit and Far Orbit) with ground-based ranges. Save the atmospheric distances for COACC, reserve the land distances for the ground-pounders. ;-)
Anyhoo, here's my proposal for World Surface Ranges:
Contact - 0m (Unarmed melee range)
Reading - 0.5m (Dagger range)
Talking - 1.5m (Short sword range)
VShort - 4.5m (Sword or polearm point)
Short - 45m (Pistol range)
Medium - 300m (Short rifle range)
Long - 600m (Long rifle range)
VLong - 900m (Extreme rifle range)
Distant - 1500m (Sniper rifle range)
VDistant - 5km (Heavy Weapons range)
Subregional - 50 km (Indirect fire range)
Regional - 500km (Short missile range)
Continental - 5000 km (ICBM and ortillery range)
Planetary - 50000 km (Space combat short range)
I understand that the consequences of adopting this proposal are that everywhere that Range is mentioned in combat would need to be reviewed and possibly modified to match the changes.
Hence the request for a discussion of the topic. ;-)
Page 680, Basic World Ranges: I want to argue the toss over the range bands. I've done a fair bit of thinking about this over the years, and a lot of research into how CT, MT, and especially Striker handled things:
a. I've tried the exercise of grouping Striker weapons together by range. They fall roughly into the ranges bands I have proposed below (carbines good to 300m, rifles to 600m, before difficulties increase).
b. I also firmly believe that the close-in, PC-scale range bands should be evenly divisible by 1.5, in order to fit neatly on a battlemat. Once the ranges increase, they can be recalibrated to vehicle- and starship-scales.
c. In the case of T5, I also believe that using ranges in a similar fashion to earlier editions provides a nice sense of continuity.
d. I also like the idea of a one-sentence description for each band, to help players visualise what each band relates to. For example, it would give the GunMaker crowd some sort of guidance as to where their weapon parameters should fall in terms of range.
e. Finally, I'd prefer to replace the two close orbit/space ranges (Orbit and Far Orbit) with ground-based ranges. Save the atmospheric distances for COACC, reserve the land distances for the ground-pounders. ;-)
Anyhoo, here's my proposal for World Surface Ranges:
Contact - 0m (Unarmed melee range)
Reading - 0.5m (Dagger range)
Talking - 1.5m (Short sword range)
VShort - 4.5m (Sword or polearm point)
Short - 45m (Pistol range)
Medium - 300m (Short rifle range)
Long - 600m (Long rifle range)
VLong - 900m (Extreme rifle range)
Distant - 1500m (Sniper rifle range)
VDistant - 5km (Heavy Weapons range)
Subregional - 50 km (Indirect fire range)
Regional - 500km (Short missile range)
Continental - 5000 km (ICBM and ortillery range)
Planetary - 50000 km (Space combat short range)
I understand that the consequences of adopting this proposal are that everywhere that Range is mentioned in combat would need to be reviewed and possibly modified to match the changes.
Hence the request for a discussion of the topic. ;-)
