CT Special Supplemet 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata

[snrdg082102]

Evening Piper (PDT),

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
What good is a SS3 missile if everything on the board can pretty much maneuver out of harms way?

Couple of points to consider:

Missiles have the vector of the launching vessel. A head-on run toward the target adds to the vector of the missile and can increase effective range.

I have never understood why a missile launched from a turret that can be moved to point at a target or a long the target's course is going to have the same vector as the launching ship. Now if the missile rack is fixed pointing in the direction of the ship's bow then I agree the missile has the same vector.

At (relatively) short range, missiles work just fine. They're a knife fighter type of weapon in SS3.

Which doesn't match CT Book 2 missiles being homing types which constantly seeks the target ship. In HG missiles at short range have a -1 DM. Neither of the two sources indicate to me the missiles are short range.

As previously mentioned, drifters can work, too, particularly in a tail chase. You can also launch multiple missiles, hold them motionless relative to your launch vector then fire them all together (guidance and propulsion permitting).

Yep that can work which reminds of "The Flight Engineer" trilogy co-written by James Doohan, aka Scotty, and S.M. Stirling. In the second book the ship central to the story had to resort to dumping missiles and some obsolete space mines to start evening the odds against the enemy task force chasing them. Of course the main character the ship's flight ordered them because of a movie he'd seen as a kid.

Engaging a target with missiles using vector movement is pretty cool and a lot of fun (YMMV). If you haven't actually tried it, I'd recommend it strongly. As a tip, try reducing the Book 2 laser ranges by a factor of 10. It gets the game up off of the floor and onto a table (which is a big plus at my age).

I've used the vector movement system, not in Traveller though, both on the floor and table.

Wouldn't you be reducing the range/distances for the whole system and just the lasers?

 

[mike wightman]

Simple experiment.

Throw a ball out of a moving car window .

The ball has the vector of the car and the vector of the throw, the combination of which gives its actual vector.

Traveller missiles do the same.

Any missile fired from a ship has the starting vector of that ship. It then applies its own acceleration. Its final vector is the resultant.

Pretty basic physics

 

[Piper]

I have never understood why a missile launched from a turret that can be moved to point at a target or a long the target's course is going to have the same vector as the launching ship. Now if the missile rack is fixed pointing in the direction of the ship's bow then I agree the missile has the same vector.

It's the same mechanic as a sandcaster, or tossing a wrench out the airlock; launched objects have the vector of the launching vessel. Missile launchers don't change this. The missile's vector is changed by thrust.

Which doesn't match CT Book 2 missiles being homing types which constantly seeks the target ship. In HG missiles at short range have a -1 DM. Neither of the two sources indicate to me the missiles are short range.

SS3 expands and supplants the missile rules in Book 2 so "matching" it isn't really an issue. Missile combat in High Guard is heavily abstracted and bears little resemblance to any of the other systems. The "-1 at short range" is an artifact that appears in several GDW games. It doesn't show up in Mayday, Book 2 or SS3.

Wouldn't you be reducing the range/distances for the whole system and just the lasers?

Not if I wanted to demonstrate missile combat.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Mike Wightman,

Simple experiment.

Throw a ball out of a moving car window .

The ball has the vector of the car and the vector of the throw, the combination of which gives its actual vector.

Traveller missiles do the same.

Any missile fired from a ship has the starting vector of that ship. It then applies its own acceleration. Its final vector is the resultant.

Pretty basic physics

Looks like you win I admit my mind and eyes, what little mind I have anyway, were beginning to shut down from thinking too much on a variety of subjects and looking at the screen a bit to long without a break.

Thanks for getting straightened out.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Piper,

It's the same mechanic as a sandcaster, or tossing a wrench out the airlock; launched objects have the vector of the launching vessel. Missile launchers don't change this. The missile's vector is changed by thrust.

Yep, I should know better than to over work my battered old brain. Unfortunately, I did and the result was doing a forehead slap, part of why my brain is battered. Failing eye sight was a combination of items, in this case my eyes started to lose focus, tear-up, and the lids kept getting in the way.

SS3 expands and supplants the missile rules in Book 2 so "matching" it isn't really an issue. Missile combat in High Guard is heavily abstracted and bears little resemblance to any of the other systems. The "-1 at short range" is an artifact that appears in several GDW games. It doesn't show up in Mayday, Book 2 or SS3.

I agree that SS3 expands the CT Book 2 rules. I disagree that the SS3 rules supplants the rules from CT 2, at least from my understanding.

My understanding is an original rule not clearly noted as being changed in a follow-on rule set is still applicable to any future rule set, unless the GM and players ax the rule or rules. SS3 explicitly states that missiles <= 50 kg and use a homing guidance system, which matches two of the three CT Book 2 details, cost in Mayday and SS3 are different. I'd like all three to match, but I can live with cost being higher since CT Book 2 is so vague on the details of the missile components

HG came out after the Basic Traveller three LBBs and, as correctly stated, changed the space combat rules to a more abstract format. However, Mayday which came out after both books provides a bridge between CT Book 2 and HG.

You are correct that HG clearly defines that at short range missiles have an -1 DM to hit. However, SS3 and Mayday have methods to convert to High Guard's abstract combat system. With a little effort CT Book 2 Starships' Defender's/Native DMs of > 5,000 mm of -5, > 2,500 <= 5,000 mm of -2, and <= 2,500 mm with no DM could qualify as short range. Of course which one or not to use is for the GM and players to decide.

Not if I wanted to demonstrate missile combat.

Oh, giving missiles a one up on lasers, I see how you are remind to me to have lots of armor or if using HG rules lots of repulsor bays.

 

[mike wightman]

SS3 expands and clarifies LBB2 combat in some respects I agree.

It introduces a radiation damage table that allows you to make up rules for the Gazelle's PA barbettes , it clarifies the use of sand against missiles and it finally explains what a Crew hit does in LBB2 combat

 

[mike wightman]

I don't think the HG conversion ranges in Mayday are actually very good for LBB2 combat, they are far too long.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hey Mike Wightman,

SS3 expands and clarifies LBB2 combat in some respects I agree.

It introduces a radiation damage table that allows you to make up rules for the Gazelle's PA barbettes , it clarifies the use of sand against missiles and it finally explains what a Crew hit does in LBB2 combat

Now that you mention it the SS3 Radiation Table does look like an expanded Critical Hits table. I totally missed that little tidbit.

I agree that SS3 added to the rules concerning In LBB2 sand affected whether or not weaponry hit the target.

Just a thought since sand effects missiles, wouldn't it also have a similar effect on ships hulls?

One of the GMs running a game I was in introduced me to the Crew hit which became the first of several characters sub-coming to the Star Trek Red Shirt experience.

 

[Hyphen]

The first is that the abbreviations in the propulsion system fuel mass do not match. The equations have a T and the abbreviation key has a B.

OK, will take a look.

The second item is the maximum acceleration per Mayday 1978, Mayday 198?, and SS3 is 6G.

Yes, but have you actually PLAYED Mayday? I did, a few times. If you are pursuing (stern-chasing) a 6G ship, your missile hasn't a hope in hell of catching it. You MUST have missiles of greater acceleration than the enemy, or you'll find they're useless.

Once I worked that bit of info out, I ignored the acceleration restrictions.

The nice thing I found more recently is that _Power Projection_ postulates 10G missiles - thus matching my "standard 10G ship's missiles" perfectly. The only thing they didn't do was give the Navy better missiles than the civvies - such as the 20G Bolt.

 

[Hyphen]

Evening PDT Hyphen,

I've got silly question about "Mayday Missiles Modified":

What happened to the SS3 requirement tha fusion warheads below TL 10 requirement about fission triggers?

For those keeping score: Tom & I corresponded on this, and I think we eventually agreed that this was inherent in the rules that give minimum tech levels for warheads. The rules say that if your fusion warhead is below TL 10, they will be larger - presumably to account for the fission trigger.

 

[mike wightman]

The Annic Nova has several 12G12 missiles on board...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Hyphen,

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
The first is that the abbreviations in the propulsion system fuel mass do not match. The equations have a T and the abbreviation key has a B.

OK, will take a look.

Just a minor errata

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
The second item is the maximum acceleration per Mayday 1978, Mayday 198?, and SS3 is 6G.

Yes, but have you actually PLAYED Mayday? I did, a few times. If you are pursuing (stern-chasing) a 6G ship, your missile hasn't a hope in hell of catching it. You MUST have missiles of greater acceleration than the enemy, or you'll find they're useless.

Once I worked that bit of info out, I ignored the acceleration restrictions.

The nice thing I found more recently is that _Power Projection_ postulates 10G missiles - thus matching my "standard 10G ship's missiles" perfectly. The only thing they didn't do was give the Navy better missiles than the civvies - such as the 20G Bolt.

No, I haven't played Mayday but I've always had a concern that missiles and small craft were limited to 6G. One of the features in GURPS Traveller is being able to design missiles with accelerations greater than 6G.

I don't seem to recall SS3 putting the cap on acceleration at 6G.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi Mike Wightman,

The Annic Nova has several 12G12 missiles on board...

You are right that JTAS 1 p. 27 states that the Annic Nova has four 12G12 responsive discretionary missiles. The description indicates that the missiles where designed using Mayday. The issue is which of the four editions, per FFE 005, of Mayday was used to design the Annic Nova missiles.

Per FFE 005 Games 1-6+ Classic Games reprint there are four Mayday editions that where produced which where done as follows:

1978 ziplock edition
1979 Boxed edition
1981 Boxed 9 x 12 edition
1984 Hobby Japan Edition.

I can confirm that

1. The Mayday 1978 rules don't include a section for building missiles, however the ordnance launch section does provide the three components of guidance, propulsion, and detonator. Further the rules state that a standard missiles uses homing guidance system, 6G6 limited acceleration, and a contact detonator.

2. The FFE 005 reprint has a section for building missiles which limits maximum acceleration to 6G and burns to 12.

I don't have access to copies of the 1979 boxed or 1984 Hobby Japan editions so I don't know what changed.

Based on the resources, specifically the FFE 005 reprint, I have the Annic Nova missiles being 12G12 appears to need errata.

 

[Hyphen]

Based on the resources, specifically the FFE 005 reprint, I have the Annic Nova missiles being 12G12 appears to need errata.

This is one case where I'd rather fix the reprint...

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening (PDT) Hyphen,

This is one case where I'd rather fix the reprint...

I totally agree that the reprint should be changed so missiles can have higher accelerations. Heck small craft especially fighters should have higher G-ratings too in my opinion.

As indicated the 1978 Mayday rules didn't cover missile design and the 1981 limited the max acceleration to 6G. My guess, which I hope someone can confirm, is that the 1979 version didn't cap acceleration.

 

[Hyphen]

I totally agree that the reprint should be changed so missiles can have higher accelerations. Heck small craft especially fighters should have higher G-ratings too in my opinion.

Agreed. They may even become useful, if not downright dangerous. ;-)