• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Naarmilii, Missiles, Torpedoes...And You (IMTU)

So, I've been thinking...You tend to do that when you have a boring day job. IAC.....

I've always had issues with missiles in Trav. The reason is that, given current understanding of anti-missile tech, you either have to barrage-fire thousands of missiles at once to get past the CIWS -- not that conventional (TNT/RDX/etc) explosives are going to do a great deal of damaged to a buttoned-up merchantman -- or throw nukes with abandon, in the hope that they get into fireball-radius before the CIWS kills them. (Nukes in space is a very separate issue.)

Obviously, I don't like that.....But I need to account for everybody and their brother having a missile rail or forty...

So the other day, as I pondered this, I hit on the idea of "naarmilii"...Which suddenly made several apparently-unrelated things in Trav click into place.

Naarmilii is a transuranic 'Unobtanium' -- it has an atomic number of 186, for instance -- that has no use other than in missile warheads and as a hideously volatile and unstable fuel, that anyone has discovered in c.15,000 years.

In fact, in its natural state, naarmilii doesn't really do anything at all. While a tiny bit (say, the size of a standard d6) of refined naarmilii should irradiate the Continental United States for the next ten millennia or so, it just sits there...until you bring that refined naarmilii into contact with a similar amount of refined potassium -- at that point, you'd better not be on the same city block, because the explosion is about equal to a 155mm artillery shell.

Thus, standard missiles IMTU -- meaning those on civilian ships -- use a warhead of roughly 5lbs of naarmilii-potassium...the scaling makes this roughly equal to a 2000lbs bomb...It's important to remember that there is an upper limit to blast yields: naarmilii-potassium cannot go nuclear...but you will hit a point of diminishing returns.

While having one of these 5lbs bricks of joy hit your Free Trader would be...unpleasant...most warships worthy of the name would likely notice it before, you know, killing you. That brings me to the difference between 'missiles' and 'torpedoes'.

Missiles are fairly easy to grasp, given the above as well as numerous canon-artwork, as being about the size of a modern-day TOW missile: about 5ft long, maybe 8in in diameter. But what good are these things against capitol-ships? Answer: not much. Enter the torpedo.

Torpedoes, IMTU, are still the prime cap-ship killer, after c.12,000 years, or so: about 10ft long, and 600mm in diameter, they carry a five-hundred pound warhead of naarmilii-potassium (this is the upper limit; more of either material will not produce a bigger bang).

Don't get in the way of one of these things. Trust me.

So, what is naarmilii, exactly, and where does it come from? The most popular speculation by scientists in the 3I (and the Zhodani Consulate, note) is that naarmilii is the product of a reaction generated by an Ancient experiment. Why? Because the "Saudi Arabia" of naarmilii is Vland -- surrounding sectors have rich deposits of this stuff, but nowhere is it more prevalent then on the Vilani homeworld. (NB: the further from Vland you get, the deeper in geological strata naarmilii goes...yet another of its mysteries...)

The problem with that is that naarmilii happily attaches to most organic matter. It doesn't alter it, but a rather complex and involved process (albeit needing only TL0 or -1 equipment and facilities) is required to separate the naarmilii from the organic material...

...Hence, the development of the shugilii caste of Vilani culture -- these people specialize in making something "edible" (to be polite) out of native Vland plants and animals, because the naarmilii in the plant and animal matter will cause 1st Degree burns to the mouth and throat, and will be rejected by the body, if it doesn't kill the person, first...which is why you almost never see a Vilani chewing on a blade of grass. The shugilii's ritual involves everyone trying a spoonful of the now-"edible" product before flavoring begins....IW-era Terrans identified the taste as "...something between tofu and wallpaper paste, mixed with rancid potting soil and moldy sweat-socks..."

For thousands of years, the vile sludge produced by the shugilii's was dumped in waste pits, until technology progressed far enough that Vilani scientists refined it, and started experimenting...the survivors reported their findings, and the Vilani military adopted the waste product-turned-explosive component wholesale.

Needless to say, naarmilii made quite an impression on Terran fleet elements for the first couple of interstellar wars, until we captured our first naarmilii mine...

...So, why is this stuff not found in Terran space? Because, if you drop a Jump-10 map around Earth, there might be two commercially-viable naarmilii deposits...which, coupled to thin zuchai deposits in the same area, meant that there was no pressing need, as the Vilani saw it, to go in and try to civilize a (sometimes literally) howling wilderness when there was little to be gained in even the mid-terms.....

Thoughts?
 
Thoughts?


I like it very much because it's a nice IMTU wrinkle. The adventure seeds swirling around naarmilli are almost too numerous to imagine.

I also don't like it because it tries to force Traveller ship combat into a yet another preconceived straitjacket.

You want powerful, ship killing missiles and torpedoes because we currently have powerful, ship killing missiles and torpedoes. You may even think Traveller ship combat is "wrong" and needs to be "fixed" because it doesn't have powerful, ship killing missiles and torpedoes. Other people want powerful, ship killing fighters for the same reason you want missiles and torpedoes. They too may even think Traveller ship combat is "wrong" and needs to be "fixed" in order to provide the fighters they want.

Too many people pick some "age" or "facet" of naval warfare they believe Traveller ship combat resembles, or should resemble, and then propose all sorts of changes in a well meaning attempt to pound the square peg of Traveller ship combat into the round hole of whatever they fancy. This fails, naturally, because Traveller ship combat resembles Traveller ship combat and nothing more.

Sure, certain broad aspects have historical analogues, strategic communications resemble the Age of Sail for example, but Traveller ship combat plays by it's own rules and, because those rules change as tech levels change, Traveller ship combat is fascinating in it's own right.

You want a powerful, single hit, ship killing weapon? Spinal mounts are answer. You want missiles/torpedoes to fit the bill instead? Then do away with nuclear dampers or build at those tech levels where nuclear dampers aren't powerful or available. The options already exist. There's no need to add unobtanium or other rules. You just need to accept Traveller ship combat for what it is instead of attempting and failing to make it into something it is not.

I also think you should write up your narrmilii idea and either post it to the File Library here or submit to one of the many active Traveller fanzines. This idea is too good to get lost "among the threads" on a message board.
 
Ok, I too like the idea and I also like what Larsen says! You both have interesting points and I want more.

I think of the Falkland Islands Campaign where Exocets were doing a lot of damage and wonder why we dont have an equivalent weapon for Trav. I have also asked about fighters here and been told that a single fighter is basically useless. I am not saying thats impossible, I will say I have ran adventures where players were fighter pilots instead of merchant captains and we did manage to have fun.
 
Well, I will have to write it up better -- I am notoriously scatterbrained when I write in zombie-like exhaustion -- but let me hit a couple of points.

Case in point:
Torpedoes, IMTU, are still the prime cap-ship killer, after c.12,000 years, or so:

*facepalm*headdesk* Bugger.

What this SHOULD have said was that it was a prime cap-ship killer en mass -- singly, while they will mortally wound (if not turn into a navigation hazard outright) anything under 1000dtons, they will cause serious damage to a >20Kdton armored warship...but they probably won't kill it outright. Spinal mounts still exist IMTU, mostly Meson guns and PA's, and are the preferred 'main force' weapons for line of battle ships.

Firing a mass of torpedoes from a 50- or 100dton bay, however...

Also, as Khan Trav pointed out, this also makes fighters much more dangerous to cap-ships than current rules allow for. Having the Tigress being able to fire 300 torpedoes from its fighters on demand means that they now have something to do beyond playing sensor picket.
 
Ok, I too like the idea and I also like what Larsen says! You both have interesting points and I want more.

I think of the Falkland Islands Campaign where Exocets were doing a lot of damage and wonder why we dont have an equivalent weapon for Trav. I have also asked about fighters here and been told that a single fighter is basically useless. I am not saying thats impossible, I will say I have ran adventures where players were fighter pilots instead of merchant captains and we did manage to have fun.
We don't have an equivalent weapon for Traveller because an exocet type missile would be shot to pieces long before impact or even proximity detonation.

Under LBB2 rules missiles and fighters do play quite a significant part in ship combat. So much so that capital ships better invest in ecm and the anti-missile program.
 
I've always seen Traveller missiles as something of an improved version of a SAM or Anti-ship missile today. That is, it carries about 200 to 400 kg of explosives and uses an engineered fragmentation system such that between the fragments and the speed of the target you get the proverbial toothpick in a hurricane.

That is, the fragments are dangerous simply because their impact velocity is on the order of 50,000 kph or better.

The missiles themselves have some sort of mid-course guidance arrangement from the firing vessel. This fits with the combat rounds in space engagements in CT and MT. What this means is a ship fires a single salvo and then has to wait until the missiles are terminal before launching another as the guidance is engaged with the in-flight salvo.

Once "terminal," that is say within 1000 km or less of the target, the missile has an internal guidance system that is turned on and locks on the target. Maneuver is limited as the terminal velocity is extremely high and there is little fuel for maneuvering thrusters etc. The missile is designed to attempt to detonate slightly ahead of the target in order to increase the effect of fragment impact rather than simply rely on impact detonations, although this is an option for targetting prior launch.

At least that's the way I see it. No need for stretches of chemistry or physics.
 
Traveller missiles have a mass of 50kg

Which makes my point about naarmilii -- even discounting the 'torpedo' segue, 50kg is a little over 100lbs, which is about right for a TOW or HELLFIRE missile...And I simply can't see where either conventional explosives, or their likely future incarnations, are going to do much damage to a vessel designed to spend the hard end of a century alternately in space, or crossing transitions into atmospheres....Yet, at the same time, I don't want to throw nukes right and left to solve the problem, either.
 
Which makes my point about naarmilii -- even discounting the 'torpedo' segue, 50kg is a little over 100lbs, which is about right for a TOW or HELLFIRE missile...And I simply can't see where either conventional explosives, or their likely future incarnations, are going to do much damage to a vessel designed to spend the hard end of a century alternately in space, or crossing transitions into atmospheres....Yet, at the same time, I don't want to throw nukes right and left to solve the problem, either.

That changes things significantly. I can't see a way they'd work at all....
I can't see at 50kg their being much more than fuel and a simple guidance system at most. For a missile to cross as much as 500,000 km or more and out run an enemy ship maneuvering at maybe up to 6 g acceleration it would need a really significant amount of fuel or, that fuel would have to be something on the order of fissionable or fusionable to produce enough energy to move the missile fast enough to intercept the target at all. It couldn't coast there....

A KE penetrator (aka "Rod from God") could do significant damage if it impacted the target. But, that is pretty slim odds on its own. I'd say you need to come up with a propulsion system first......
 
In the Falkland Islands War (Guerra de las Malvinas) the Exocet Missile struck that HMS Sheffield should have easily been shot to pieces. USS Stark was also struck by an Exocet which should have been an easy kill for her. I understand this is apples and oranges.

If missiles could not possible strike a starship in combat then why are they used? Is there a problem with the ship combat rules?

As for torpedoes, IMTU they have limited use for a fighter to employ one they have to be two place with the weapons system officer managing the targeting, firing and guidance to target.

I definitely do not know as much about Traveller as you guys but I am interested in learning.
 
Keep in mind: no gunner can drive any spacecraft anywhere near as responsively as a CPU aboard the spacecraft being driven, especially given the lag times involved in canonical traveller combat ranges (up to several light seconds).

And missiles/torpedoes are JUST spacecraft with a bomb aboard

Keep in mind: A 1/10 light second distance, 30,000km, is 2/10 light second plus human reaction time (also often 1/10 second or more)... versus a much lesser reaction time by the CPU. And you STILL need the same sensors when using it as a Remote Piloted Weapon. And can ditch the 2-way comm.

So, it's all a matter of just how much that processor costs... Probably not as much as the comm and it's battery pack.
 
I've always had issues with missiles in Trav. The reason is that, given current understanding of anti-missile tech, you either have to barrage-fire thousands of missiles at once to get past the CIWS -- not that conventional (TNT/RDX/etc) explosives are going to do a great deal of damaged to a buttoned-up merchantman -- or throw nukes with abandon, in the hope that they get into fireball-radius before the CIWS kills them. (Nukes in space is a very separate issue.)

Actually when you do the sums, they are barrage firing thousands of missiles. Somewhere in the fleet is a thread where I've done the numbers for HG, and its frightening just how many missiles are fired.
 
Oh that's easy :)

It's magic! NO! WAIT! I mean a gravity drive! Yeah... ;)
A gravity drive that uses fuel...

I've long suspected it but as soon as you actually start thinking about the missiles in Traveller they are based on more magic than meson guns.

So we could go down the route of magic new materials to make them work or magic technology - take your pick.

By the way, I like the idea too.
 
In the Falkland Islands War (Guerra de las Malvinas) the Exocet Missile struck that HMS Sheffield should have easily been shot to pieces. USS Stark was also struck by an Exocet which should have been an easy kill for her. I understand this is apples and oranges.

If missiles could not possible strike a starship in combat then why are they used? Is there a problem with the ship combat rules?

As for torpedoes, IMTU they have limited use for a fighter to employ one they have to be two place with the weapons system officer managing the targeting, firing and guidance to target.

I definitely do not know as much about Traveller as you guys but I am interested in learning.
Well since you bring it up it is officially known as the Falklands conflict here in the UK; since there was no declaration of war it wasn't a war.

Next bit of your post - yes there is a problem with the rules.

A 50kg missile couldn't possibly do what it does in the Mayday/LBB2 combat paradigm without invoking magic technology.

Fighters as a missile delivery system are a good investment under Mayday/LBB2 rules - if using HG then fighters aren't much use above TL12.
 
Ok, got it. (I do think magic is a viable option) So as long as I am keeping to ships in the Broadsword class and smaller missiles ok. If we start talkng capitol ships then we need swarms thicker than bees right?
 
I wonder if a "more realistic" missile for Traveller would actually be at least 1t in size, perhaps bigger.

It has to have a manoeuvre drive, a chemical rocket just won't give 6g acceleration for 20 mins plus
 
Actually when you do the sums, they are barrage firing thousands of missiles. Somewhere in the fleet is a thread where I've done the numbers for HG, and its frightening just how many missiles are fired.

Sounds more like they are firing something like the 1950's FFAR air to air rocket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_4/Mk_40_Folding-Fin_Aerial_Rocket

Just a bigger (50 kg vs 8.5 kg) version.....

Little if any guidance, fuel to get it to the target, and fired enmasse hoping one or two will hit.
 
Some thoughts. I think that there is a lot of room for expansion between the small turret-launched defensive missiles (as I refer to them) and the 2 dT torpedo (from Mongoose Traveller.)

IMTU, there are 1 dT missiles (modern size equivalent SS-N-22 Sunburn), 0.5 dT missiles (modern size equivalent Tomahawk), and a smaller 0.25 dT standard bay-launched missile (similar in size to Harpoon.) I give the larger missiles longer ranges, more intelligence, better ECM and ECCM, light armor, and various penetration aids (my torpedoes even have a small point-defense laser) in order to improve their odds against anti-missile fire.

I also prefer multiple laser-triggered plasma submunitions (similar to a plasma or fusion gun) for warheads so not all missiles need to close all the way to contact range to do damage and point-defenses have even more to do.

For the poor far trader captain who is stuck using standard missiles, if you still want to use conventional explosives remember that his primary objective is to discourage the pirate from pursuit - not to kill the pirate (although that would be a welcome side effect!) Any missile moving at 3 km per second relative to its target packs its own weight in 'blam' - the kinetic energy of 1 kg of missile at impact is equal to 1 kg of TNT. It's doesn't really need a warhead. Double the closing velocity and the damage goes up by a factor of 4.

Depending on the intercept course and relative speed, whether or not you believe turrets use gauss missile launchers, etc., it is not difficult to get these kind of impact velocities in space combat. In addition, if the pirate is performing anti-missile fire, he's not shooting you that round with the weapon - and the potential expensive damage to the pirate from a missile or two might just convince him to look for a softer target on another day.

As always, YMMV. I like a long-range missile/short-range beam weapon paradigm; as mentioned earlier in the thread, it gives fighters something to do besides be target drones for the same system that you shoot down missiles with. Military targets will still need saturation attacks, but once your own energy weapons and missiles knock out some of the turrets used for point defense those incoming missiles are going to be a lot more frightening.

The whole missile vs. beam weapon debate is a classic Green:purple argument where your starting assumptions about space combat determine which side you fall on. Don't take it too seriously!
 
Back
Top