Missile Turrets: Outdated and Obsolete ?

[McPerth]

one PB takes up a whole triple turret.

As this is under "changes on core book rules", I asume it as an errata fixing (as are the differences among Blasers and Plasers, also in the same chapter), so I guess it should be applied to CB designed ships too, not as a change in HG.

out of intrest, is their official word about weather PB are affected by sand? or if you can use them as point defence? I narrow interpretation of the rules as written would imply not, but I would have assumed yes to both myself.

From MgT LLB2:HG, page 74:

Sand: sand protects against incoming laser attacks and missile (...)

Point defense lasers: Point defense lasers (...)

(Bold is original, undelining is mine)

So, to my understanding, answer is no to both questions, as sand only protects against lasers and missiles and point defense are lasers.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

intresting. that really makes sand rather pointless, then, as the only two weapons it really works against (lasers and missles) are both only threats to lightly armoured ships.

methinks the number of sandcasters on my future ships will go down somewhat......


anyway, a thought occurred to me: do would missles be more effective at TL8-9? before crystalron, it would be rather difficult to heavily armour a ship (8 points would be like 20% of the tonnage), and max armour is equal to TL anyway, so even max armoured ships would be still vulnerable to 2d6 weapons.

edit: I know that the same benefits would help PBS just as much, and they would still be more effective at TL8-9. just curious if they would be somewhat effective at that TL range.

 

[McPerth]

anyway, a thought occurred to me: do would missles be more effective at TL8-9? before crystalron, it would be rather difficult to heavily armour a ship (8 points would be like 20% of the tonnage), and max armour is equal to TL anyway, so even max armoured ships would be still vulnerable to 2d6 weapons.

For merchant ships, yes, it will, if the missiles are nukes that can go through some armor. In any case, by the same volue they could have armor 4 they will have only armor 2, so missiles will be more damaging.

When you use barrages, though, the same reduction to armor will also be in fire control software, so it would not make too large a difference, As long as the ship has sandcasters (yes, they are useful in barrage combat) and PD, it's quite likely their modifiers neutralize the roll for the effect, and modiffiers use to be negative s long as the hip has armor.

edit: I know that the same benefits would help PBS just as much, and they would still be more effective at TL8-9. just curious if they would be somewhat effective at that TL range.

At TL 9 PB are already the best weapons in MgT (in previous versions it was higher TL), but read this thread for its use at TL 8...

 

[salochin999]

Going back the origins of the thread and my intent, I was more referring to missiles aboard civilian vessels and relocating such to VLS-type launchers in general.

Any freighter thinking of slugging it out against a dedicated naval-military ship is only going to end up one way, said destroyer, cruiser, etc probing the debris of the freighter for survivors.

Mind tossing out a spread of missiles carrying jammers or other sensor-confusing devices in their wake as the freighter flees into J-space might be a different thing.

My naval fights are generally Book 2 size ships so mostly merchant type ships vs pirates in modified merchants with the pirates not wanting to blow the target ship up so using lasers mostly and the merchants using sand and missile turrets defensively (to get the pirates to fire at the missiles) while the merchant flees.

The VLS type launcher is how I imagine missile bays rather than turrets although now you mention it the idea of a smaller "bay" firing smaller anti-sensor missiles appeals. I haven't done much space combat in Traveller but it seemed to me from an earlier thread that space combat ought to revolve around sensors a great deal.

I've never been able to reconcile my mental image of turret (star wars) with the sort of missile that seemed to be envisioned in Traveller which felt more tube launched cruise missile size to me so the idea of smaller turret missiles and larger tube launched missiles feels better.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Missiles & T5.

I noticed a lot of MgT referenced here, which is fine, but in my beloved Traveller5 it is missiles that rule since lasers have absolutely crapass range so missiles still rule space combat. It isn't just range, they do way better damage too. A Size 5 missile does 5D can starts with a range of Space7, whereas a spanky triple laser turret has 3D and a puny range of World7.

Don't know about you, but I will take greater range and damage even if I do have purchase and store reloads.

Just had to put in a good word for missiles which seem to be getting a bad rap.

And as to a comment earlier about Starports being shirtsleeve environments, in my TU that is only true for the accommodations, stores, docks and such, the hangars are still vacuum, zero-g environments. Why waste air and grav when they aren't needed?

Also, a VLS is a military system and thus requires a certified tech to change out (who will be in a VaccSuit and working in 0G).

 

[Patron Zero]

I'm tending to see a 'civilian-marketed' VLS being much more 'friendly' to reload-replace than dedicated military grade hardware requiring much more maintenance.

I do agree that having to 'suit-up' is generally unavoidable except in instances were the VLS is of a revolving-cylinder design, such possibly having an auto-load capacity.

 

[infojunky]

Ok this is one of those thread where y'all need to state your base assumptions and editions. As missiles have vastly varying effects every time a set of rules sets down on the topic.

I am kinda a Book 2 and Mayday sorta guy who happens to be using MgT as well and am slowly beating a fusion rules set based on Mayday and the MgT rules together. And as such I have been pondering Missiles a lot.

I have penciled in missile construction based on SS3:Missiles, using the 5G6 Missile as the standard. Said missile has a 10 kg warhead producing 2 hits or 2d6 damage in MgT terms. Though Mongoose did errata the 5G missile to 10G10. I also am going to keep the 12 missile per ton in magazine. i.e. I am going to use SS3 as written to figure out pricing and performance and then slot them in using MgT's terms for standard missiles.

Another bit of lore is that it was discussed that Bay Missiles where larger than the standard missiles 1.5 times the size so 25 cm diameter and 75 kgs. So I am considering stating them out the same way I am doing the Standard missile above, and slotting them in at 9 missiles per ton in magazine. Note the old assumption was that a 50 ton bay could launch 25 missiles per salvo, ergo 25x1 ton launchers and 25 tons magazine. (I haven't figured out what a barbette heavy missile launcher for these looks like yet)

Now to address the original question with a couple of ideas on missile based extra firepower for Merchants. The 1st is a pocket Q-Ship type mount, which is 12 tubes and the related Fire Control Mounted in a standard shipping Container (the VLS launcher in MgT's Trillion Credit Squadron) with silly all or nothing firing rule removed, in that I have seen pocket modular missile systems proposed for hardening Merchantmen. Note it is a standard 4 dTon container that I am suggesting, and reloading said container when it's out is definitely an out of combat job. The second is the Manual launch system with installed remote control system mounted on the ship, i.e. Crewman lugs missile to airlock, flips on it's power switch and manually "launches" it. As said Launched Missile clears the ship control and target designation is fed to it remotely from said installed control station (frequently a repurposed ship's workstation)

 

[McPerth]

As another curious thing, again in MgT, see that in CB combat system (page 149) there's no reference to sand being usable against missiles, only against incoming beams (not specifiyng what does "beam" mean, as it could well include PBs), while in MgT LBB2:HG system (page 74) they can be used against lasers (specifically, so not against PBs) and missiles (but in this case only if fired from medium range or beyond).

 

[McPerth]

Another bit of lore is that it was discussed that Bay Missiles where larger than the standard missiles 1.5 times the size so 25 cm diameter and 75 kgs. So I am considering stating them out the same way I am doing the Standard missile above, and slotting them in at 9 missiles per ton in magazine. Note the old assumption was that a 50 ton bay could launch 25 missiles per salvo, ergo 25x1 ton launchers and 25 tons magazine. (I haven't figured out what a barbette heavy missile launcher for these looks like yet)

See that in MT, bay and turret missiles are not diferent one another, and in MgT, a bay launches 12 missiles at once, but they are, again, the same missiles that a turret uses.

 

[Patron Zero]

I've always been an advocate of ships, specifically civilian over naval-military, being capable of a defensive measure using 'smoke' dischargers like modern armored fighting vehicles .

Picturing a series of small hull-mounted clusters of what look much like grenade launchers to deploy such to obscure a particular 'quadrant' of a vessel from incoming weapons fire.

Mind acting much like a sand-caster but not cluttering up a turret from mounting dedicated offensive weapons, The 'rounds' launched could have a variable 'fusing' as to allow for close-in, medium and long-range coverage capacity effective against targeting lasers and other means of sighting.

 

[mike wightman]

I've always been an advocate of ships, specifically civilian over naval-military, being capable of a defensive measure using 'smoke' dischargers like modern armored fighting vehicles .

Picturing a series of small hull-mounted clusters of what look much like grenade launchers to deploy such to obscure a particular 'quadrant' of a vessel from incoming weapons fire.

Mind acting much like a sand-caster but not cluttering up a turret from mounting dedicated offensive weapons, The 'rounds' launched could have a variable 'fusing' as to allow for close-in, medium and long-range coverage capacity effective against targeting lasers and other means of sighting.

That's pretty much how the 'screens' work in T2300, it's fairly easy to adapt them across to CT/MgT

 

[Supplement Four]

Maybe it's just how I see ship-to-ship combat as more a business of jinking about popping off a few missiles and reserving line-of-sight engagement for targeted-directed energy weapons.

You won't be jinking if your vessel is moving at any velocity at all. Typically, vessels in Traveller are moving on a straight vector, either accelerating or decelerating at massive speeds.

Remember, ships accelerate a full thrust to the mid-point of the journey, then decelerate for the rest of the journey (and many times, since the main thrust is pointed at where the ship is going, the vessel looks to an outside observer as if it is going backwards).

Unless a vessel travels at less than full thrust, It is usually pretty easy to predict where a ship will be in the future. If it takes 15 minutes for your missile to impact your target, then the missile's course is easy to predict.

If the target vessel attempts to change velocity, then that is usually very easy for the enemy to see and detect, and so adjustments are made to the missile's trajectory.

Combat in Traveller isn't like Star Wars, or even Star Trek. It's more like submarine combat with target vessels moving in straight lines.

 

[Carlobrand]

You won't be jinking if your vessel is moving at any velocity at all. Typically, vessels in Traveller are moving on a straight vector, either accelerating or decelerating at massive speeds. ...
If the target vessel attempts to change velocity, then that is usually very easy for the enemy to see and detect, and so adjustments are made to the missile's trajectory. ...

It's hard to see "jinking" as an effective way to avoid a Trav missile, but the game, as envisioned in High Guard and MegaTraveller, does allow for it. In High Guard, ships gain agility based on the strength of their maneuver drives and the amount of power to spare for those drives, and that agility makes it harder for a missile to hit. Same in MegaTrav, though obtaining a decent agility is harder there.

 

[mike wightman]

The maneuver/evade program of LBB2 fame also represents a ship 'jinking'.

The rule in Mayday is better, use of M/E costs you 1g of effective maneuver drive rating.

 

[infojunky]

See that in MT, bay and turret missiles are not diferent one another, and in MgT, a bay sujet launches 12 missiles at once, but they are, again, the same missiles that a turret uses.

Specifically the reference I was using is the Traveller conversion section in Striker.

And my inclusion was a supposition on my part, not anything that had made it into rules mechanics. Also note that MT treatment of ship's is largely a retread of CT's High Guard 2nd ed.

 

[infojunky]

The maneuver/evade program of LBB2 fame also represents a ship 'jinking'.

The rule in Mayday is better, use of M/E costs you 1g of effective maneuver drive rating.

MgT has a system like that buried in their reactions system as well.

 

[Supplement Four]

In High Guard, ships gain agility based on the strength of their maneuver drives and the amount of power to spare for those drives, and that agility makes it harder for a missile to hit. Same in MegaTrav, though obtaining a decent agility is harder there.

I'd say the agility rule, though, is just a way to account for different M-Drive ratings in an abstract system.

With the standard Book 2 system, it the same as going into to battle at 1G acceleration with a 3G M-Drive, reserving the extra 2G to change vector at the last moment. That would be a Traveller "jink". 100,000 km velocity, slightly changed to 70,000 km with a 30,000 km swing coreward.

 

[Carlobrand]

I'd say the agility rule, though, is just a way to account for different M-Drive ratings in an abstract system.

With the standard Book 2 system, it the same as going into to battle at 1G acceleration with a 3G M-Drive, reserving the extra 2G to change vector at the last moment. That would be a Traveller "jink". 100,000 km velocity, slightly changed to 70,000 km with a 30,000 km swing coreward.

Except that it doesn't matter whether the missile or laser misses by 30,000 km or by 30 km, so there's nothing in that abstract system to say that the agility "jink" isn't a brief lateral spurt rather than a 30,000 km deviation.

And, Book 2 doesn't have a "last moment": you decide your acceleration during your movement phase, and you're stuck with that until your next movement phase. Any "jinking" is reflected in the Maneuver/Evade programs, which, "automatically produce minor movement for a ship, thus reducing its chances of being hit by laser fire." Those programs are not affected by the amount of acceleration you're using in a given turn.

And, MegaTrav, which significantly modifies the High Guard ship design system but uses the High Guard combat system with minimal change, allows agility to exceed drive rating and then argues that small ships can have greater agility than large ships even if their drive rating is lower. And, in that game, agility does not affect movement.

 

[Supplement Four]

Except that it doesn't matter whether the missile or laser misses by 30,000 km or by 30 km, so there's nothing in that abstract system to say that the agility "jink" isn't a brief lateral spurt rather than a 30,000 km deviation.

No, there's nothing like that because High Guard is an abstract system. Abstract means no details like that. Something happened, but we're not sure what.

 

[Mark317]

Lot of talk about physic and such but you always have to follow the money

Missiles I have always presumed are the same as they are now in many ways, very capable against 90% of the ships out there and allow small low power ability to cause damage. Hearing the wide range of damages, and ability to be safe from damage with armor is all great, but you want an answer you always follow the money, unless it has not been invented yet then I guess you follow the food.

Bottom line you have a missile ship and a power ship laser/meson/etc. Missile ship has 1 go at battle and she is done. In my navy days it was USSR vs USA we did not have enough missiles to shoot down the planes they had available. So if they dedicated an attack our fleet did not have the fire power to stop it and that is if we got the archers, that did not count their arrows. After we shot our load, we were done until the 1 or 2 fleet supply ships came along side or we hit port.

Now in Traveller follow the money, pirates using missiles - "hey lets launch 300 Mcr of ordinance at this 80mcr ship to take it with lots of holes and dead expensive systems, and it's 1Mcr cargo which we don't have room for." why? not sure.

Now the Imps show up and say let launch this 2Tcr pile of missiles at these evil doers and god save the emperor blah blah oh and raise taxes we just print money anyway.

Merchant Missile bays make sense, insurance against the odd pirate, and fairly cheap if you don't operate where you actually use them. If you use them with any frequency then speed computer and other renewable cheaper things make sense. The fact is anything more than a 20 or so tons on a 200 ton trader makes it a negative business plan.

Mark.