C
Centurion13
Guest
**********
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Welcome aboard Centurion13 
I'm not recalling an update/errata to the Special Supplement 3: Missiles that appeared in JTAS if that's what you're talking about. Unless it was the Nuke Missiles expansion that followed, that did have an update of missing tables in the following JTAS iirc.
I think it would be OK (great actually
but I mean OK legally) to post the errata to the files section here and post a notice in the CT area. Or you could try emailing Marc (farfuture@gmail.com iirc) to clear it with him first if you want to be sure.
I'm not recalling an update/errata to the Special Supplement 3: Missiles that appeared in JTAS if that's what you're talking about. Unless it was the Nuke Missiles expansion that followed, that did have an update of missing tables in the following JTAS iirc.
I think it would be OK (great actually
but I mean OK legally) to post the errata to the files section here and post a notice in the CT area. Or you could try emailing Marc (farfuture@gmail.com iirc) to clear it with him first if you want to be sure.
C
Centurion13
Guest
***********
Last edited:
Patron Zero
SOC-13
I've always saw VLS missile packs to be more efficient than assigning that duty to a dedicated turret, there are simply so many places on a starship where such can be conveniently tucked away.
If VLS units were 'packaged' in a standard cargo module format, think of the possibilities of formerly unarmed merchant marine vessels now becoming toothy thanks to having such plug-and-play offensive-defensive options available.
If VLS units were 'packaged' in a standard cargo module format, think of the possibilities of formerly unarmed merchant marine vessels now becoming toothy thanks to having such plug-and-play offensive-defensive options available.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
My take on it at one time, partly born of frustration with missile movement rules, partly with the small size and turret requirement, that "missiles" are in fact projectiles, and "missile" launchers are guns. Point and shot with some terminal explosive final solution. TNE came along and added NukeDet lasers to that rather nicely.
But I do agree some torpedo tubes would be nice iirc the Berdolikin (and I'm probably spelling that wrong again 
) had tubes, or that was my solution for a conversion, don't recall for sure.
Or you could take the Solomani fixed fire hardpoint rule for rack or tube missiles. Up to one double mount per computer model iirc, no tonnage required, just the hardpoint designation, and -1 or -2 to hit (no gunner required, pilot calls the shot, like a mini spinal mount, of course being missiles I'd probably forgo the negative if they were self guided/homing). That'd give you up to 6 missiles per computer model number of rack or tube launchers for little cost.
But I do agree some torpedo tubes would be nice
iirc the Berdolikin (and I'm probably spelling that wrong again ) had tubes, or that was my solution for a conversion, don't recall for sure.Or you could take the Solomani fixed fire hardpoint rule for rack or tube missiles. Up to one double mount per computer model iirc, no tonnage required, just the hardpoint designation, and -1 or -2 to hit (no gunner required, pilot calls the shot, like a mini spinal mount, of course being missiles I'd probably forgo the negative if they were self guided/homing). That'd give you up to 6 missiles per computer model number of rack or tube launchers for little cost.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Not that the CT version of fixed mounts made any sense. No tonnage? Just where are the missile being kept?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
In a pocket universe
Not really
The way I read it was the fire control took up 1ton (a seat for the gunner and a local sensor/computer interface capable of control, and gearing to point the turret) while the turret blister itself was added on externally and not counted for tonnage in the design.
So the Solomani just skipped the fire control (no seat or local sensor/computer or gearing - just a direct line to the computer and the turret blisted fixed on). So no tonnage, just a hardpoint. The turret gets fixed onto the hardpoint and the line is plugged in to the computer and a power feed for lasers. The pilot points the ship (whichever way, commonly forward fire or stern chasesr, but broadsides could be done too) to line up the turret(s) and click. Missiles would have to be reloaded by eva or on the ground. The turret blister itself is where the 3 missiles per launcher are stored, the fire control tonnage is what allows reloading from within the ship or a magazine.
Patron Zero
SOC-13
But I do agree some torpedo tubes would be nice
I've always had 'torpedo tubes' available IMTU, if for lack of better description such being rail guns that launch various ordnance or non-weapon 'projectiles'.
One definite distinction was whether the tube was 'military' grade or the commercially available 'consumer' market version, firing-reload rate, range and torpedo variety separating such systems.
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
IMTU taking the VLS option for missiles allows a higher storage of missiles right in the mount with a higher rate of fire, no reloads in combat. 5 missiles maximum per launch cycle, 15 stored in the launcher, 2 tons+FC. Counts as pop-up turret, inherrantly hard to detect at range on a suface scan of the target.
Kind of a mini missile bay without relaods for small comabatants and merchant vessels. Reloading is easily accomplished by mating up a magazine cell that reloads the launcher from the outer hull, EVA type work.
Kind of a mini missile bay without relaods for small comabatants and merchant vessels. Reloading is easily accomplished by mating up a magazine cell that reloads the launcher from the outer hull, EVA type work.
C
Centurion13
Guest
**********
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I think I can speak for a large number of CT fans and answer: Yes the updated/errata'd info would be much appreciated
There's still a lot of us who play with and play CT and this is canon correction from Marc for something I don't recall having a correction printed (but I could be mistaken).
I should add there are CT reprint collections and CT (and other) CD-ROM collections available from Marc on his webstore site (farfuture.net) and a few working on collecting and correcting errata for various editions through this site.
Last edited:
Easterner9504
SOC-13
Tubes
I always figured the TRAV missiles must be mighty small to have reloads.
Annic Nova has 4 missile launch tubes concealed in the docking collar/60' escalator pylon area.
SDB's have no turrets or tubes, just a launch platform system looking something like pod clusters on jet bombers.
I always figured the TRAV missiles must be mighty small to have reloads.
Annic Nova has 4 missile launch tubes concealed in the docking collar/60' escalator pylon area.
SDB's have no turrets or tubes, just a launch platform system looking something like pod clusters on jet bombers.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I do agree some torpedo tubes would be nice
Isn't this what missile bays are?
I seem to recall some mention that bays are the equivalent of 25 launchers (though I can't find the reference just now) but I always took that as an aid to calculation rather than a literal statement that there is an array of small launchers in a bay, and hence I imagined that bays actually held large ICBM style weapons.
Patron Zero
SOC-13
I may be wrong in this assumption but would imagine missiles come in different sizes as well as intended applications. Meaning that the ordnance found in a missile bay aboard a capital ship to be more like an ICBM than say a Sidewinder or Phoenix.
Also would there not be categories of different types, again referring to the weapon's primary task-target ?
Also has there been any mention of a jump-capable weapon either in ship-to-ship engagements or as the venerable 'planet killer' role ?
Also would there not be categories of different types, again referring to the weapon's primary task-target ?
Also has there been any mention of a jump-capable weapon either in ship-to-ship engagements or as the venerable 'planet killer' role ?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
The standard shipping/launch container in SS3 (pg2 Missile Parameters) is 15cm diameter x 100cm long, the missile fits within (presumably the missile is a little smaller) and can be no more than the LBB2 standard of 50kg. Larger missiles can only be fired from missile bays but there's nothing that says standard missiles can't be (or aren't routinely) used in missile bays.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Depends on the rules in use. For CT all turret missiles are the same size, but may be of different types even before Special Supplement 3 came along.
May be, but not necessarily. SS3 allowed missiles larger than the turret standard of 50kg to be built, and those had to be fired by missile bay launchers, but it is implied that missile bay launchers don't have to use big missiles and default to standard missiles.
Not in this thread yet
(the Jump Torpedo) but it would be a very expensive weapon and probably not that effective.Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>No tonnage? Just where are the missile being kept?
no DISPLACEMENT tonnage since they are external just like battleriders instead of hangared smallcraft
>formerly unarmed merchant marine vessels now becoming toothy
except that this merchant vessel wouldnt have the fire control (ie gunner stations) to control the weapons so it sould be a nasty shotgun scare with hefty penalties for lack of firecontrol. pretty sure computer power is also important but that might only be # targets to engage
no DISPLACEMENT tonnage since they are external just like battleriders instead of hangared smallcraft
>formerly unarmed merchant marine vessels now becoming toothy
except that this merchant vessel wouldnt have the fire control (ie gunner stations) to control the weapons so it sould be a nasty shotgun scare with hefty penalties for lack of firecontrol. pretty sure computer power is also important but that might only be # targets to engage
I have an issue with VLS mountings though, in that they would require an extra bit of missile guidance -- IMTU, missiles are fitted with Crazy Ivan arming safeties that disarm them if they turn more than 90 degrees off of their launch axis, in order to avoid "own kills" if the target evades by closing with the firing vessel and the missile has to turn to chase him. Without such a safety, you risk a target diving past you and bringing your own missiles home to roost.
VLS would make this feature trickier, since such an arming safety would have to be set after the missile turns to lock onto its target; given that Trav missiles tend to be simple IR homing (for cost/mass reasons), and RL VLS missiles tend to have luxuries like GPS guidance, you risk some friendly fire casualties if you are not very careful with targeting and fire control when a Trav VLS missile pops up and starts slewing around to lock onto the target you told it to look for, especially if something hotter (such as your wingman) is near its LOS during the process. You would definitely need that 1 dton of fire control, which would cut in to any displacement savings you might hope to realize.
Still, as a Q-ship fitting, there would be advantages to it. In such applications, I would just as soon dump the missiles overboard in what might be called a
HLS deployment, with the missile parallel to the hull and pointed in a fixed (typically fore or aft, as the launcher may be installed) direction, locking onto that hot thing straight ahead of it, then hustling on off to engage it.A
HLS system would sacrifice the 360-degree field of fire of a VLS system, but would pose less of a risk during target acquisition, and could be engineered/ruled simply as a fixed mount with added fire control (and hence easy reloading capacity).Imperial Planetologist
SOC-12
IMTU missles launched from a turret are laser-guided by the gunner and computer while rack-mounted missles rely on internal guidance systems. The latter are easier to spoof.
