Missiles in traveller combat systems?

[The Thing]

Having never played any version of T asides from GT, I can't know about them so I'd like to ask: Are small numbers of missiles basically useless in most versions of traveller space combat?

See, in GT space combat, a single laser can usually, on average, stop about 2 missiles per turn on AVERAGE rolls, meaning it'll stop at least one on poor rolls and rarely stop none, plus on a decent roll a single laser will stop 3.

This means a typical free trader with two turrets mounting 3 weapons each that has, say, 4 lasers and 2 sandcasters, can reasonably expect the lasers to stop 8 missiles per turn, because even if you roll crap for one laser the odds say you'll roll good on another and balance it out.

Also a sandcaster can stop one missile per turn on an average roll.

In GT it's pretty much futile to arm a small ship like a FT or scout with missiles as you can fire one per turn per missile launcher, and a laser can stop 2 per turn.

Now this isn't a mistake in GT's space combat system, it's intentional and even written in the rules that a typical energy weapon can stop 2-3 missiles per turn average.

I can see this as reasonable as in a featurless background (space) a decent sensor rig ought to be able to spot the missile coming in and a laser moves a lot faster than a missile, so it ought to be able to tag it.

My question was does it work like that in other versions or traveller?

Also, missiles aren't useless in GT, they just need to be used in large numbers to saturate a target's defenses, which is why missile bays are popular.

Generally it makes sense for small ships to forgo missiles and mount lasers or sandcasters. Fighters operating in squads can use missiles with effect. Is that how space combat in CT and other versions go? I'm just sorta curious.

 

[pendragonman]

It is my understanding that lasers mounted in the same turret are not able to track separate targets, so your far trader could resonably expect to only intercept 4 missiles. In CT, one missile does 1 d6 damage per impact, so even one missile is devastating to a ship under 500 dtons. In CT, the space combat rules are mainly for single ship combats or at most very small squadrons. When HG2 is added to the mix (in my world, Books 4 and up are "Advanced" Classic Traveller) large fleet combat becomes more reasonable, as do ships of up to a million dtons. This is where huge volumes of missiles truly become necessary to score hits.

 

[The Thing]

It is my understanding that lasers mounted in the same turret are not able to track separate targets, so your far trader could resonably expect to only intercept 4 missiles. In CT, one missile does 1 d6 damage per impact, so even one missile is devastating to a ship under 500 dtons. In CT, the space combat rules are mainly for single ship combats or at most very small squadrons. When HG2 is added to the mix (in my world, Books 4 and up are "Advanced" Classic Traveller) large fleet combat becomes more reasonable, as do ships of up to a million dtons. This is where huge volumes of missiles truly become necessary to score hits.

I think in GT lasers in a turret can track seperate targets.

 

[aramis]

In CT? No, thing, it isn't.

In stock CT (Bk0-3), most merchants can not fire in intercept; the computers can't run enough software...
Given normal software requirements (subset below
1 of:
1sp Maneuver
1sp Maneuver/Evade 1G
2sp Maneuver/Evade 2G
3sp Maneuver/Evade 3G
plus:
1sp Target
plus choices of:
1sp Gunner Interact
2sp Anti-missile

Given that the typical ship has a 1/bis... that's 4sp of programs
A typical load out for PC's would be
Maneuver/Evade 1, Target (for offensive fire), and Gunner Interact (to add the gunner's skill in), they can't run the required (by the computer rules and space combat tables) Anti-missile fire program, because they are a space short.

Or, they forgoe gunner interact, and run anti-missile, and can't fire at the enemy at all.

Now, a ship with the larger (model 3+) computers can do far more, and could do likewise, even using doublefire to fire twice in the turn.

 

[selunatic2397]

In my Ct sessions, missiles only rarely came into play...

At 5,000 credits each, my players were usually too hard up to buy them...

or too cheap to use them.

Lasers were my players weapon of choice.

 

[Kharum1]

We would throw rocks.

 

[ChalkLine]

In MT, missiles are wonderful in that they cost almost nothing for power allocation but horrible in that the three types (of which only one is approved for civilians) costs you each time you shoot. Added to the fact that they take up cargo space (or magazine space if you are making a dedicated warship) and the value of missiles drops markedly. Sooner or later you start to wonder if the extra size power plant may not be worth it.

Because missiles have a better attack at long range (beyond planetary), very fast ships with high agility can mount a lot of missiles and barrage other ships while keeping them at arm's length. Here a 50ton missile bay is kinda attractive . . .

 

[jwcarroll60]

Missiles provide a good weapon to cover the advance of your gunline. Missiles are a good skirmish weapon as well.

They may not be big ship killers but they are uselful in getting things started.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Missiles are also quite a bit cheaper than Lasers, for non-combat ships. On average, when you take into account the cost of the Laser, the cost of the bigger powerplant and the lost space to the additional powerplant and additional fuel, as I recall, it works out that you have to average more than 12-18 missiles per month per tube to equal the cost of the laser. (More if it is a beam laser.)

Remember that the Powerplant is ton for ton the second most expensive item on a Traveller starship.

 

[The Thing]

In CT? No, thing, it isn't.

In stock CT (Bk0-3), most merchants can not fire in intercept; the computers can't run enough software...
Given normal software requirements (subset below
1 of:
1sp Maneuver
1sp Maneuver/Evade 1G
2sp Maneuver/Evade 2G
3sp Maneuver/Evade 3G
plus:
1sp Target
plus choices of:
1sp Gunner Interact
2sp Anti-missile

Given that the typical ship has a 1/bis... that's 4sp of programs
A typical load out for PC's would be
Maneuver/Evade 1, Target (for offensive fire), and Gunner Interact (to add the gunner's skill in), they can't run the required (by the computer rules and space combat tables) Anti-missile fire program, because they are a space short.

Or, they forgoe gunner interact, and run anti-missile, and can't fire at the enemy at all.

Now, a ship with the larger (model 3+) computers can do far more, and could do likewise, even using doublefire to fire twice in the turn.

The computer systems/rules in CT are so outdated by modern technology that I couldn't even begin to consider using them as anything but material for a comedy.

"Captain! The main computer's down and we don't have the right transistor to fix it!"

 

[BetterThanLife]

The computer systems/rules in CT are so outdated by modern technology that I couldn't even begin to consider using them as anything but material for a comedy.

"Captain! The main computer's down and we don't have the right transistor to fix it!"

Actually we have already had that conversation on the Forums here. I think the computers are too small in Traveller. (We aren't talking about some 2D maneuver where everything travels in a straight line after all.)

 

[aramis]

BTL:

The computer on the voyagers was about on par with an Apple II.

The total computer power used to run Apollo missions is about equal to my PDA.

The Gallileo Mission computing needs will fit in 4Td, counting all the human interface...

It really doesn't take much processing power to resolve 3D maths of the needed types in real time to do the combat nor for the basics of Deep Space Nav.

It takes a lot of memory to handle the large databases needed for safe in-system nav... but for the most part, the maths can be done real time on most home computers of today.

The only really power-hungry maths would probably be jump calcs.

Now, if we want radiation survival, we can easily assume a factor of x100 volume from current models, for micro-vacuum tube computing. (That also hits, convineintly the high temps and power draws of Traveller computers.)

The sizes are fine, if we assume mainframe megacomputers with petaflops and milions of petabytes, OR we assume current TL is about to stop progressing in the realm of computers.

 

[navywarlord]

Missile Special Supplement

How many use the special supplement that they had for missiles? This resource (along with my Navy experience) provided me with multiple types of smart (and dumb) missiles for use in differing situations.

After all, when the players are trying to run to the jump limit and absoulutely need to hit that pursuing cutter/patrol ship/etc... hard, what better to use then a missile? Smart guidance, discresionary engine, contact detonator (or proximity if trying to knock out sensors) and a little stealth coating (house rule), along with a few decoys ejected from the cargo bay, will give the pursuing ship enough pause to make the limit and jump.....

If the players are dealing with another merchant instead of a patrol craft, chances of hitting just get better (but remember that NPC craft use missiles too!)

 

[BetterThanLife]

BTL:

The computer on the voyagers was about on par with an Apple II.

The total computer power used to run Apollo missions is about equal to my PDA.

The Gallileo Mission computing needs will fit in 4Td, counting all the human interface...

It really doesn't take much processing power to resolve 3D maths of the needed types in real time to do the combat nor for the basics of Deep Space Nav.

It takes a lot of memory to handle the large databases needed for safe in-system nav... but for the most part, the maths can be done real time on most home computers of today.

The only really power-hungry maths would probably be jump calcs.

Now, if we want radiation survival, we can easily assume a factor of x100 volume from current models, for micro-vacuum tube computing. (That also hits, convineintly the high temps and power draws of Traveller computers.)

The sizes are fine, if we assume mainframe megacomputers with petaflops and milions of petabytes, OR we assume current TL is about to stop progressing in the realm of computers.

The sizes are large only for non-maneuvering targets. Your targets are maneuvering in 3D at variable thrust and large ranges. (Even those missiles you are trying to shoot down are not likely to be flying straight and level.) Then you have to deal with ECM, and ECCM, and scrub all that out of your sensors, even if your sensors are not part of the computer. Oh and you have to do it with light speed sensors and pinpoint weapons. For normal maneuvering, sure, the computers are large. For combat, and for Jump calculations, they are definitely small.

 

[boomslang]

How many use the special supplement that they had for missiles? This resource (along with my Navy experience) provided me with multiple types of smart (and dumb) missiles for use in differing situations.

I use it for inspiration, mostly.

IMTU, missiles are grav-propelled (6G max), not reaction-propelled. And all the various guidance and sensor options in SS3 add complexity which I do not find helpful in play; in the icy blackness of space, IR Homing works just fine at the price point most navies, companies, and citizens can reasonably afford. Plus, nothing is more painful than watching some gum-snapping enemy NPC Gunner-1 slag your lovely, super-high-tech, MCr5 über-missle with a generic KCr5 off-the-shelf missile launched against it... or worse, a lucky laser bolt.

But I prefer the warhead info to that from Striker, and I make extensive use of the Radiation Damage Table in regular B2 scenarios.

 

[aramis]

BTL:

BULL!

Missiles are unlikely to be dodging much; they will be operating on their own on-baord computers, especially given the ranges involved (and the time and response lags). The physics of frictionless vector motion pretty much make anything other than a direct approach incredibly wasteful of energy & time. Best way to increase missile hit rates is reduce flight times.

Real world combat missiles are running 20-30G's, 2-3 times the target's maximum maneuvers, and 5-10 times the target's maximum thrust, in an environment with aerdynamic friction allowing conversion of vector (rather than requiring vector cancellation). This makes a few off-axis types quite effective when combined with blind spots. In space, the blind spots are fewer, the missiles easier to detect, the vectors must be cancelled, as you can't use friction to convert a vector.

If an AIM-9L can hit a dodging aircraft with a CPU that fits in an altoids tin...

Seriously, 3d isn't a computational problem that's hard to solve. It's hard for Humans because we don't think in vector, but it's readily solved using computationally minor maths. Massively parallel computing should make it trivial in far smaller spaces than CT computers.

 

[atpollard]

"Captain! The main computer's down and we don't have the right transistor to fix it!"

Just a small (possible) clarification, a Model-1 computer (like I use on my "trying to make ends meet" free trader) is available at TL 5.

Perhaps that should be "Captain! The main computer's down and we don't have the right vacuum tube to fix it!"

 

[BetterThanLife]

BTL:

BULL!

Missiles are unlikely to be dodging much; they will be operating on their own on-baord computers, especially given the ranges involved (and the time and response lags). The physics of frictionless vector motion pretty much make anything other than a direct approach incredibly wasteful of energy & time. Best way to increase missile hit rates is reduce flight times.

Real world combat missiles are running 20-30G's, 2-3 times the target's maximum maneuvers, and 5-10 times the target's maximum thrust, in an environment with aerdynamic friction allowing conversion of vector (rather than requiring vector cancellation). This makes a few off-axis types quite effective when combined with blind spots. In space, the blind spots are fewer, the missiles easier to detect, the vectors must be cancelled, as you can't use friction to convert a vector.

If an AIM-9L can hit a dodging aircraft with a CPU that fits in an altoids tin...

Seriously, 3d isn't a computational problem that's hard to solve. It's hard for Humans because we don't think in vector, but it's readily solved using computationally minor maths. Massively parallel computing should make it trivial in far smaller spaces than CT computers.

Bull? And your example is a 1950's missile with a speed of around Mach 3.5 and a range of under 20 miles? Nobody can shoot down an Air to Air missile or a Surface to Air missile, the majority of them travel between Mach 3 and Mach 5, and the vast majority of them have a range of under 50 nautical miles. (With roughly 75% of those with a range of under 25 NM.)

There are several reasons that missiles that are fired at Aircraft travel in the most direct path. 1. They are fast enough that the target doesn't have much time for evasion if launched without warning. 2. They can't be intercepted. and 3. tWhile they are much faster than their target they have very limited range.

In Traveller missiles are 1. subject to being shot down. 2. They don't have anywhere near the speed or acceleration advantage over their targets that a Anti-Aircraft missile does. 3. They are fired at extremely long ranges. (Giving the enemy plenty of time to project their course.)

If missiles in Traveller traveled in a straight line then they would be a joke to shoot down and would never get through. It isn't just vector math. It is predicting which vector the target is applying acceleration to how much acceleration they are applying along that vector and getting that information in a hostile electronic warfare environment, with light speed sensors at ranges that mean your information is almost, but not quite in real time. At the same time your vessel is applying thrust in random directions at random intervals so which also has to be taken into account. Further in Traveller even Artillery shells make evasive maneuvers.

You are solving multiple simultaneous differential equations and need a high degree of accuracy to generate a hit. Because unlike your example of Anti-aircraft missiles most Traveller weapons are not standoff weapons and actually require a hit. Even the lowly sidewinder is a fragmentation warhead. An error of a half of a second of an angle is a clear miss for a laser when firing at a Tigress at normal Traveller starship combat ranges. And that is assuming some minor piece of space debris isn't wandering across the battlefield.

 

[shadowdragon]

a "hit" only means that it does damage- not literally that it must physicaly impact the target. also any projectile weapon fired from a distance where time in flight becomes a factor will have a much higher chance of not interacting with its target in a meaningful way if the time in flight is too long. sidewinders had a good long range (20 miles in an atmosphere is pretty good) and were frequently launched from within 5 miles to reduce time in flight and pilot reaction time. just because it HAS a long range doesnt follow you will USE all that range. And aa and sams are EXTREMELY difficult to shoot down in flight, but by no means impossible. OUR technology precludes it, OTU tech may not. and our technology precludes it because our engineers have lost a great deal of ability (due to $$$ from funding sources more than any other cause) to think outside the box and find out "what if". just like DARPA's new boss shutting down viable fusion reasearch (which may or may not have panned out, but wth it was WORTH looking into) simply because "DARPA doesnt do fusion research" in his opinion. never drop yourself into the mold of "we cant do it therefore it cant be done". many times things are not done because people cannot accept doing them, rather than because it is impossible.

 

[mbrinkhues]

German Air Defence used a version of the Siemens R-Series process control system as a computer system, the whole unit including operator stations, climate control etc. fitted to a container that could be placed on a 5to truck in the 1980s.

A civilian fault-Redundant R-Series came/comes in 5 boxes (2 CPU, 2 Disk, 1 Switching Logic) each 1.5m wide, 1.5m deep and 2m heigh. The climate control was about the size of an additonal cabinet. And those things are TOUGH, they (and the M-series follow-ups) are used in Nuclear Power Plants as THE control system.

The M70 series had about twice the power and came in 1.5x1.5x1.5m cubes in the mid 1980s

The M26 series introduced in 1992 had five times the computational power and came in a set of IBM AT-03 size boxes.

The M86, the most powerful M-series has about the same computational power as a Intel 486 when it comes to Integer and that of a SUN-4 in floating point.

And even the old R30 and M70 can easily handle complex real-time calculations involving hunderets of variables per second, running complex Expert System software. Die Jungs have done that as security systems for more than a decade with fault-times of less than 10 minutes/year.

=====================

Actually missile interception of small, high-speed objects can be done. That's the reason the XB-70 project died and the B1 project gained low-level capacities. And systems like Spartan, Sprint and Galosh do the same with ICBM warheads and 1950s.

The only reason the IRL missiles use fragmentation or nukes is the short reaction time and need for one shot kill capacities, something NOT a problem in Traveller where a single engagement round takes longer than the whole Worldwide Thermonuclear War would have taken and a single missile won't kill you anyway.

======================

Oh and don't forget that the Traveller system really is just the computers, not the workstations (they come under Bridge/Cockpit) nor the climate control.