Missile heavy or Laser heavy?

[RabidVargr]

2 large fleets face one another.

1 fleet uses beam weapons as primary weapons.

1 fleet uses missiles as primary weapons.

Who wins and why?

Why would one type of weapon be a better primary system and why? What about cost of those systems? You only buy a laser once, but missiles on the other hand, are one shot, better hope you kill.

Let the games begin!!!

RV

 

[N.I.C.E. Labs]

In my experience a good fleet uses all of it's weapons so I don't think it can be cut an dried lasers or missiles. What sort of defenses do the fleets have? Sandcasters vs. antimissile point-defense. Electronic countermeasures, even the overall speed of the fleet could be a factor, out maneuvering certain weapons and firing arcs. Of course I digress to the point of finding out how many marines are on board every third pinnace and how many of them had strawberry jam over grape for thier morning toast, so I'll do my best to get back on track.

Lasers have the benefit of little or no travel time, unless you get into Larry Niven Known Space type of battles: fire all weapons at something a few million miles away...go grab a bite to eat for an hour then come back to see if you've hit.
On the other hand, missiles are much more versitile, varying speeds, warheads, etc. and to stop a missile means tying up an offensive weapon that could be used to attack the fleet.

For myself I'd probably go with the laser fleet. Lasers are very well suited to offensive and defensive roles, and there are only a few ways to stop lasers, but all sorts of ways to stop missiles. Missiles, unless in overwhelming numbers are best for nuisance attacks...forcing weapons to be devoted to them while the fleet presses it's main attack, or as coupe de gras final strikes.

 

[Elliot]

My Trillion Credit Squadron experience (confirmed somewhere in JTAS I think) indicates that missles and mesons are the weapons that win fleet actions - why? radiation damage and critical hits.

 

[gardclan]

I suppose that this sort of thing depends greatly on how your missiles behave. Under HG, nuke missiles are defiantly the poor man's meson gun. Once you get to TNE, the missiles get to be downright NASTY... of course, the game is geared around relatively small ships. The only problem under TNE is that missiles are relatively short ranged birds and often have trouble closing with the target before running out of fuel.

Also, if memory serves, under HG rules, missiles gain a bonus to hit for long range engagements. Based on this, a missile heavy ship would probably prefer to stand off and bombard her opponent, where the laser heavy ship would defiantly prefer to close for a brawl.

I could see differing design philosophies developing from this sort of thing, where missile boats are heavily sheathed and mount huge ECM/EW suites, and laser gun ships would be extremely heavily armored and faster than a freshly bathed cat.

Of course, I believe that lasers were a diminishing return under HG rules once the armor factor got over 10 anyway. Sure, you could scrape every turret, sensor, and hatch off of the hull, but you just weren't going to *hurt* that Armor 15 DN with lasers.

 

[daryen]

In HG missles are definitely a prefered weapon. They use no energy (thereby increasing agility) and the nuclear variety can do spinal mount type damage.

Elliot is right, in HG missles and mesons rule.

The really cool (annoying) thing about missles in HG is that they are FREE! Once you buy the system (bay or turret weapon), you get a infinite supply of free missles.

If you actually had to pay for the missle you fire, they might not be as useful, but as HG (and TCS) is printed, missles definitely rule.

 

[Tarn]

In GT, missiles are the weapon of choice for the light ships, your fighters and corvettes. They pack a good punch with conventional warheads and an amazing one with nukes. Larger ships need lasers to defend against fighters and missles, but would do their killing with the heavier particle or meson weapons.

 

[Tarn]

In GT, missiles are the weapon of choice for the light ships, your fighters and corvettes. They pack a good punch with conventional warheads and an amazing one with nukes. Larger ships need lasers to defend against fighters and missles, but would do their killing with the heavier particle or meson weapons.

 

[RabidVargr]

Anyone read David Weber's Honor Harrington series? That's a excellent example of a missile based fleet. They do what they can to overrun the enemy with too many missles for them to dispense with and hope a few get through. Lasers are the point defense weapons, and they've got a few heavy beam weapons (called Grazers) that they use close in. They also have EW missiles, and all kinds of other nasty crap they throw in there to screw with the enemy.

Another game I can think of off hand is Star Fleet Battles. I always played Kzinti, who's primary weapons were missiles and disrupters. Then they had a bunch of defensive phasers as well.

RV

 

[gardclan]

Originally posted by RabidVargr:
Anyone read David Weber's Honor Harrington series? That's a excellent example of a missile based fleetRV

Can't think of a better example. A good number of my players are (or soon will be) Honor Harrington fans... my big problem is going to be saying NO to missile pods every other game (They want a space merc / escort service type campaign.)

The big thing to note about ships in HH's universe is the fact that they can't use spinal mounts on big ships because of the nature of their defences. Battles are fought by the broadside exchange... crossing one's own "T" is very bad... they can shoot at you... you can't shoot back (as well), and you have no sidewalls (their equivalent of shields) to accept the oncoming fire.

So... you have missiles for long range fights... and energy weapons for close in fights. Only really good and gutsy captains get close enough for energy exchanges before being battered into wreckage by their opponents.

 

[alexhawman]

if you are outfitted entirely with a single weapon system , and your opponent is aware of your fondness for that system, you are in big trouble when you encounter ships designed specificly to foil your favarite weapon, for this reason most fleets would include ships with the largest variety scattered amoungst them, then it's up to the fleet tacticians to use them to thier best effect.

 

[RabidVargr]

You don't want a fleet with different weapons systems. That makes it impossible to maximize your firepower if only half your ships are in range and the other half needs to get closer, but in doing so will get cut up. If you're talking escorts, then that's a bit different. I can see capital ships with the heavy weapons surrounded by all manner of DDE's or FFE's armed with a plethora of point defense weapons and maybe one large missile bay or heavy gun.

But you don't want to go half and half or third and third and third. That cuts firepower you need to supress the enemy.

RV

 

[gardclan]

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Enchantr on this one. Naval ships don't always have the luxury of operating in fleets, and if you have a fleet you can always mix and match your weapons mixes.

I can see some point to having your missile boats launching from behind a screen of energy weapon "bodyguards"... but this ends up rather like the archers of old... if the enemy cavalry could somehow get around the line of battle, your archers were pretty much toast.

 

[Shadow Bear]

It may depend on what game system you are using. In T20 the missile fleet would have a definite range advantage. Missile range bands of 90,000km vs beam laser 30,000km or pulse laser 45,000km. At a range of 270,000km the missile fleet would have a range band modifier of -4 vs the beam laser range band modifier of -16.

All other things being equal (armor, vessel size, tech level, agility, number of vessels, crew skill levels, computers) the missile fleet would have a much better chance of winning.

 

[N.I.C.E. Labs]

Originally posted by RabidVargr:

Another game I can think of off hand is Star Fleet Battles. I always played Kzinti, who's primary weapons were missiles and disrupters. Then they had a bunch of defensive phasers as well.

RV

I will admit that SFB is where I get a lot of my bias against missiles. Playing Gorn (predominantly a beam weapon ship) I have EMPTIED a Kzinti of missiles from all it's racks, without ever taking a hit (This was against about the best Kzinti player I know in a Rated Ace Tournament, btw.). I'll be the first to admit missiles are devastating, but there are just too many ways to take them out for them to be wonder weapons. True when they hit they are nasty, but they have to get there first. For example, just one nuclear missile on proximity detonation could wipe out an entire enemy fleet's missile swarm. Can't do that against lasers.

Of course we all must remember that while the weapons are formidable, the true factor are the minds behind them. A Fleet could out weigh someone ten to one, but if it's commanded by someone as dumb as a bag of hammers, I'll bet on the little guy

 

[Antony]

I vaguely remember someone mentioning it was possible to build a 40G missile using FFS1. Could someone put together such a missile so that I can check I am acutally assembling them correctly.

 

[StrikerFan]

Originally posted by RabidVargr:
2 large fleets face one another.

1 fleet uses beam weapons as primary weapons.

1 fleet uses missiles as primary weapons.

Who wins and why?

Why would one type of weapon be a better primary system and why? What about cost of those systems? You only buy a laser once, but missiles on the other hand, are one shot, better hope you kill.

Let the games begin!!!

Depends totally on what rule set you're using. Under High Guard or MegaTraveller, the missile fleet will kick the laser fleet up and down the street, because the nuclear missiles will get more damaging hits than the lasers will. Lasers are a dual-purpose secondary weapon, they are not a primary weapon for fleet combat. Low TL primary weapons are missiles, changing over to PA's and meson guns as TL goes up.

StrikerFan

 

[djg_p]

I use TNE rules.

Developed an 8000ton vessel a while back without any conventional spinal mounts. Main reason ... too difficult to aim over long distances. (The whole vessel needs to be orientated.)

Developed *HUGE* (non-spinal) Laser Bays instead to replace the normal spinal mounts. Also being a Bay mounting, the vessel does not have to orientate towards a target. (IE: One is not trapped of only being being able to fire into ARC 1 (straight ahead).)

In the end, I developed both a 50ton Laser Bay and a 150ton Laser Bay. (Point of note: After developing the 150ton bay I did some TNE calculations and almost fell off my seat. A successful hit of a 150ton Laser Bay onto an enemy Capitol Ship will almost certainly deal a Critical Hit every time.)

I did all this a while back while I was developing a Traveller campaign as a hobby. It now has taken on a life of its own. (I have too much time on my plate.)

I have also been tinkering around with space missiles as well. Developed one with a Fusion Rocket instead of the standard HEPlar drive. The upside of this: *EXTREMELY* high acceleration, manueverability and endurance. Also replaced the normally emplaced nuclear warhead with a slug. Effectively making a kinetic missile. IE: Imparts damage by physical impact. Again, did some calculations. (I do NOT want to be in the way of one of these if it gets upto full speed. Doesn't matter what ship I'm in.) Used the rules regarding vehicle to vehicle impact as well as genuine physics of inertia.

Hope I have given you all something slightly different to think about.

Cheers, DJG
================================================
Originally posted by RabidVargr:
2 large fleets face one another.

1 fleet uses beam weapons as primary weapons.

1 fleet uses missiles as primary weapons.

Who wins and why?

Why would one type of weapon be a better primary system and why? What about cost of those systems? You only buy a laser once, but missiles on the other hand, are one shot, better hope you kill.

Let the games begin!!!

 

[wrandrews]

We use TNE as well. We run military campaigns, and have found spinal mounts to be less than useful. We tend to use both lasers and missiles, but the destructive power of missiles has resulted in the design of a "point defense laser." They are small (about 16 MJ), rapid fire lasers that are used against missiles, drones, and small craft.

Engagements often occur at short ranges, making bay mounted meson guns more useful than we thought (they tend to be short ranged).

The book keeping of fuel led us to use thruster plates. We found that the official spacecraft often lacked the fuel for combat, and we had to choose between changing tech or making the craft larger. The reduction in records won out, and we changed tech. In an environment were you have to keep track of fuel, the battle rider is far more useful than a cruiser.

We have also found that very large ships are not very practical. Carries tend to have "paper" armor. Battleships are very, very slow (the MT days of a fast battle ship are over). We have a heavy destroyer design at 10K tons that is deadly. The light cruiser is under development, and will be truly deadly.

 

[Antony]

In my variant universe (using TNE rules and FFS1) a squadron of 8 TL9/10 light missile cruisers managed to ambush a TL10 heavy cruiser squadron with 8 heavy cruisers at a refuelling point. Admittedly the light missile squadron did have an initial advantage. But in the space of a few hours the missile squadron had fired nearly 2400 missile at a total of 24 enemy ships. The results were one light cruiser exploded, and one damaged beyond repair, the other six were all damaged to varying degrees but made it home. From the enemy heavy cruisers only two ships actually escaped, both damaged.

Tactically what had happened was that intelligence had given the light cruiser squadron knowledge of the location of a deep space refulling point which would be used by the heavy cruisers. The lights arrived first and went passive and mostly powered down. When the heavys arrived all hell broke loose.

 

[vegascat]

Light cruisers are not up to playing with heavies unless they have a large numerical advantage where total tonnage os at least as much. Missles work as long as they can keep their distance, that means High G and agility. It is not a suprise to see a light Cruron shredded at close distance in a GG refueling battle.
You might try a replay with the light cruron using meson guns instead of missiles, staying in the clouds on the far side of the planet.