Traveller Missiles -- a Peeve

[vegascat]

Modern air to air missiles (AIMs) might be a good place to start. They would be equivelent to what a merchanter might be able to afford. Pourpose built warships would of course use heavier and deadlier missiles, compairable to air to ground missiles(AGMs), or even torpedoes.
AIMs have a 30 to 50 G thrust, depending on type and model. They carry warheads in the 9 to 50 Kg range. The thrust phase will last only a few seconds, after that, they coast to the target. The warheads are not designed to kill by impact, but by near miss. A target detector will trigger the warhead when the missile is passing the target. The warheads are designed to throw frag in a band perpendicular to the missile flight path. A direct hit is overkill
AGMs have less peak thrust, but longer susstained powered flight phase. The warheads are usually heavier, up to 100 Kg.
Anti ship missiles will have a much longer thrust phase, and lower max thrust. They mount much heavier warheads, up to 945 lbs NEW.
Torpedoes, I have no direct experience with, but would be what a Imp heavy cruiser might be expected to use against a Zho cruiser to rip it open.

I have seen many new missiles come on line, replacing older mods. Improvements include increased max thrust, improved guidance, better target detectors, ECCM electronics, and tighter turn radius. I have not seen improvements in warheads for many years.

 

[vegascat]

Rockets are a strange sight to see. I am refering to 2.75" aircraft rockets. When fired from an A-10, they are visually identical to the laser fire from Star Wars fighters. The thrust is so high and burn so quick, that when fired, they appear as a streak of light reaching from the A-10, partway to the target. The flight time is very quick so gives near instant gratification seeing the targets down range blow quite nicely.
Stranger yet are the ricochets off armored targets. They leave a corkscrew smoke trail for a few hundred yards.

 

[kafka47]

This is going to get me into trouble, I know...

But, the problem with the whole missle debate that it is dominated by gearheads. Remember, Traveller is largely been about bring the 19th century into the 57th. Missles and ship combat has to assume the same paradigm. We are dealing not with regular missiles but things that would down tramp steamers, therefore, we are beginning to see missiles as torpetoes with highly sophesicated "brains" to lock on targets and avoid Electronic Counter Measures. Lasers in Traveller tend to like cannons needing time to focus and fire.

The paradigm that seems to be in operation is that of contemporary warfare, which Traveller assumes a great backward leap due to its wargame origins. So, if we want proper Starship combat rules, we will have to see MJD's Starships or SJG Imperial Navy. But, in the mean time, think of the historical time period that you postulate that Traveller emulates and think of the tactics for land, sea and air...chances are those are going to be the ones you think of for Space Combat.

If it is the Far, Far Future...like I postulate then real mechanics is not applicable unless you believe that Star Wars is real.

 

[manley_t]

This is much like the conversation a buddy of mine and I had over the holidays. He talked about how having any type of munitions in space combat, be they missile or projected mass, was stupid and antiquated.

His take was that energy weapons have such a superior range and that any incoming object could itself be destroyed by point defense laser systems before they're close enough to do any type of damage.

Part of our conversation covered ranges of beam weapons. Anything within 1LS will have the energy beam impacting in less than a second; and there is no warning since the beam travels at least as fast as any sensor reading.

I don't ever recall any mention of energy dispersion on any energy weapon in traveller version. There are ranges mentioned; but they seem to me to effect the chance to hit and not damage.

What this means is that is the laser effective at 2LS, 3LS, etc.? How far out can the weapon reach? The farther out you can go, the more ridiculous any type of munitions based weapon systems seems.

.....all that said, I still have a fondness for missiles but have been thinking lately of the 'energy torpedo' concept and how that could apply in Traveller......

 

[Anthony]

Hm...a few thoughts:

If you've ever played around with any SF game with a remotely plausible point defense mechanism, you discover that there's an ideal way to fire off missiles -- namely, fire them off in numbers large enough to swamp point defense.

Since it's hard to figure out how you can't launch all your self-powered, guided missiles in more than a couple minutes, that basically means that on the timescale of ship combat you can empty your magazines on the first volley. The only reason not to do so is if you have more missiles than you need, and want to save them for another target.

Now, High Guard doesn't work that way; missiles fire every turn, just like other weapons. So, how can we justify the behavior of Traveller missiles?

Perhaps missile launchers aren't what we think they are? This would be easier to handwave if they used power, but maybe they are some sort of cannon device, transporting objects at a large fraction of light-speed?

In terms of laser anti-missile fire vs missiles, the trick is to make missiles tough enough that they need a full-power laser hit to kill, and then launch them in a short enough time that the number of missiles exceeds the number of weapon shots.

 

[apoc527]

I'm a big fan of (you knew this was coming) David Weber's Honor Harrington universe.

Now, I realize that Traveller doesn't assume drives that can safely accelerate at hundreds of G's (in fact, the fastest missiles I know of can accelerate at 90,000 G's) but there are other aspects of missile warfare in the Honorverse that could be applied.

The whole EW thing applied to missiles. Of course, this is only effective if you fire missiles in large salvos. The technology of the Honorverse has been evolving since the first book towards finding the way to launch the largest possible first salvo. Eventually they use missile pods carried in superdreadnoughts. Traveller doesn't do that, but I see no reason why you can't slightly alter the way you think about Traveller missiles and assume that each missile has some amount of EW in it to make it harder to shoot down.

My biggest peeve with Traveller missiles, is that I do think the accelerate too dang slowly. I'm fairly sure of this since there are vehicles that can accelerate quicker than this in an atmosphere. (At least in T4). Anyway, GT has missiles with accels of 6 and 10g's respectively for TL 10 and 12 missiles (That's GTL).

Gotta run, but my main point is that missiles aren't as bad an idea as Big Tim's friend seems to think. Also, see the Colonial Marines Technical Manual for neat ideas on space combat (from the Aliens movies).

 

[CarlP]

So, if people think that Traveller missiles accelerate too slowly, can't we just factor them up? I'm a big fan of doing it that way, so that I don't really have to change anything. For example, just multiply the acceleration by x10. Instead of a range of 1G-6G, it would be 10G-60G.

Or, alternatively, multiply the G rating by the tech level. A 2G missile built at tech 10 would accelerate at 20Gs. The same missile built at tech 15 would move at 30Gs. Nice and simple to keep track of, we keep the ratings, but just use them as a multiplier.

I've also been thinking about bigger missiles, but haven't done too much on that. One-ton, five-ton, and ten-ton missiles, each with oodles of damage-inflicting potential. That'll take some rules writing, though, so I need to spend some time with a notebook and calculator. I'm just mentioning it here to, well, tease y'all.

 

[manley_t]

Originally posted by Anthony:
.... maybe they are some sort of cannon device, transporting objects at a large fraction of light-speed?

I like that idea. C-cannons...firing projectiles at % of C. no warhead...the round does all the damage that'll ever have to be done. But, that's one shot one kill....imaging the impact force....

 

[jfwking]

I look at turret launched missiles as tactical or point defense missiles used in swarms because thats the only way they can hurt a ship. The bay launched ones are the big ship killers with megaton range warheads. I also use missile counters giving them thrust and endurance (I'm a wargame fan).

Tac missile, 18G, 3 turns endurance. Either HE or nuke (no laser head), damage in D6. (Accel 24G at tech 13 and 30G at tech 15)

Bay launched (1 ton) torpedo, 12G 20 turns endurance, he/nuke/laser head, damage in d10. Yes that is all damage in d10 so a USP 9 nuke hit will do 14 D10, these are ship killers
(Accel 15G at tech 13 and 18G at tech 15)

50 ton bay fires 5 in salvo from 45 round magazine, 100 ton bay fires 9 from 90 round magazine.

Oh and to make them even more nasty when firing at them with point defense fire due to the size/armour/redundancy/ecm of these torpedos you don't destroy them on a hit. You degrade the USP by the USP of your point defence.
Example:
Destroyer on a raid jumps in and spots a convoy, fires 2 bay salvos at USP 9, one at the bigest ship (PCs in a 1000 ton frieghter and) and one at the escort corvette.
PCs spot the torpedos and launch tac missiles firing three salvos as the torpedos close.
First salvo miss, second salvo hits and reduces the USP of the attack by 3 (2 triple missile as one battery), third salvo miss. Missile turrets now empty and players get a troley and head down to cargo bay to begin reload (freighter has no magazines), player gunner with laser turret gets two shots before missile reach detonation range (laser heads), first shot misses, second is very good hit and reduces USP by another 4 (USP 3 tripple laser turret plus I increase USP factor by 1 for every 5 that gunner beats to hit role). Torpedos now have USP 2 and having got to detonation range they do so, role to hit for torpedos then role D6 + 3 for number of lasers that hit PCs ship.

Jim

 

[Ellros]

Very nice Jonah. Well thought out there.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Captain Jonah, 5 stars fer you! That's the shortest, elegant streamlining I've heard.
(And I only gearhead when I haveto Kafka47! I'm just looking for a workable system with what I have.
Good points on the Gunner factor too (fer dems that automate!vs Human control!)*****!

Out hunting pirates in the border lands DMZ,
1105, "Mike Rourke"/ISS Ursula, Q-ship.

 

[legate_legion]

Hello all Travellers;

I have noticed in CT that they only had HE & Nuclear, same in MT, but in TNE they had Bomb-Pumped Laser Missile, & don't ask me about GT...

Now, I have started to play & really enjoy T20, & I like how it has HE, Nuclear, & Laser Det Missiles, but it seems to me that the Missile Rack/Launcher could fire other loads than missiles... In other words turn it into something like Starfire's Gun/Missile Launcher. I mean it could have several loads, could it not?

For Example (a few off of the top of my head):
1. The standard HE Missile.
2. The standard Nuclear Missile.
3. The standard Laser Det Missile.
4. A solid slug that is fired at close ranges.
5. A shot round that is fired at even closer ranges.
6. An Anti-Missile Missile.
7. A Decoy Missile that mimics either a missile attack or your own ship.

I know that these are rough, but just a few thoughts about making the most of a good weapon.

 

[El Darbo]

I was going to bring up the problem of KE, but I notice that it has been said. Also, let's not forget the momentum of the firing ship, that'll impart some velocity to the missile as well.
Also, remeber that ships will be attempting to evade missiles thru ecm, countermeasures like sandcasters, and maneuvers. Maneuvers may not be the best, because the missile will be far more agile. Plus, a missile doesn't have to hit it target to cause damage. Nukes only have to detonate nearby. And who says tht every missile has an explosive in it? Kind of a dumb idea in space where there is no oxygen to burn (unless you include it in the payload, but how feasable is that?), nor a medium that can transmit the shockwave (which is where the destructive force comes from).
It seems more likely that a missile would have a submunition, so to speak, that would fire when the missile neared it's target. It is just too dang difficult to hit things which have significant delta-v and differing vectors/closing angles. Like the tank hunting missiles of today that fire a submunition into the top of a tanks thinner armor, these missiles would perhaps carry a penetrator designed to be launched from a missile based mass-driver that goes off when in range, thus hitting the ship at hypersonic speeds almost instantaniously, negating the need for the missile itself to smack into the hull.
Some might have a mighpowered lazer instead. When a nuke goes off it emits x-rays, etc., correct? SO, a missile could hold a small atomic or nuclear charge that is designed to go off inside the missile, be focused, and used as a short range, though very dangerous, beam weapon that would be unaffected by sandcasters. They could even have a Meson-type warhead, or a plasma projector, or even a way to cause gravity waves to occur upon detonation (which could really cause some problems to a fast moving ship, like hitting a wall).
We just need to step outside of our perception of what a missile is in the 21st cent., and start to think of how it would be improved. In just 400 years we have come a long way from the old chinese stick rockets with their pretty color signal pops.
(and it is a game, not astrophysics. If you want your missiles to hit the pcs, let them hit the pcs if it serves your purpose. This isn't a tactical simulation, nor a real life threat, why worry?)

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by El Darbo:
[snip snip]
Some might have a mighpowered lazer instead. When a nuke goes off it emits x-rays, etc., correct? SO, a missile could hold a small atomic or nuclear charge that is designed to go off inside the missile, be focused, and used as a short range, though very dangerous, beam weapon that would be unaffected by sandcasters.

Isn't that the description of the basics of the Bomb Pumped Laser Missiles? Detonate a Nuke to power up lasers...

 

[Ellros]

Originally posted by Sandman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El Darbo:
[snip snip]
Some might have a mighpowered lazer instead. When a nuke goes off it emits x-rays, etc., correct? SO, a missile could hold a small atomic or nuclear charge that is designed to go off inside the missile, be focused, and used as a short range, though very dangerous, beam weapon that would be unaffected by sandcasters.

Isn't that the description of the basics of the Bomb Pumped Laser Missiles? Detonate a Nuke to power up lasers... </font>[/QUOTE]That is correct. That is what a Nuke-det laser/Bomb-pumped missile is.

 

[El Darbo]

Doh! Right after I posted that I re-read the section on missiles to make sure i wasn't out of whack, and sure enough, i was.
Ever read Footfall? The humans buily a ship whos drive was basically a huge dinner plate that they detonated atomics behind, thus propelling them, then turning toward the alien craft and using the focused rays from the a-bomb as a weapon.
What a way to travel, like being perpetually kicked in the kiester.

 

[scantrontb]

Originally posted by El Darbo:
I was going to bring up the problem of KE, but I notice that it has been said. Also, let's not forget the momentum of the firing ship, that'll impart some velocity to the missile as well.
Also, remeber that ships will be attempting to evade missiles thru ecm, countermeasures like sandcasters, and maneuvers. Maneuvers may not be the best, because the missile will be far more agile. Plus, a missile doesn't have to hit it target to cause damage. Nukes only have to detonate nearby. And who says tht every missile has an explosive in it? Kind of a dumb idea in space where there is no oxygen to burn (unless you include it in the payload, but how feasable is that?), nor a medium that can transmit the shockwave (which is where the destructive force comes from).
It seems more likely that a missile would have a submunition, so to speak, that would fire when the missile neared it's target. It is just too dang difficult to hit things which have significant delta-v and differing vectors/closing angles. Like the tank hunting missiles of today that fire a submunition into the top of a tanks thinner armor, these missiles would perhaps carry a penetrator designed to be launched from a missile based mass-driver that goes off when in range, thus hitting the ship at hypersonic speeds almost instantaniously, negating the need for the missile itself to smack into the hull.
Some might have a mighpowered lazer instead. When a nuke goes off it emits x-rays, etc., correct? SO, a missile could hold a small atomic or nuclear charge that is designed to go off inside the missile, be focused, and used as a short range, though very dangerous, beam weapon that would be unaffected by sandcasters. They could even have a Meson-type warhead, or a plasma projector, or even a way to cause gravity waves to occur upon detonation (which could really cause some problems to a fast moving ship, like hitting a wall).
We just need to step outside of our perception of what a missile is in the 21st cent., and start to think of how it would be improved. In just 400 years we have come a long way from the old chinese stick rockets with their pretty color signal pops.
(and it is a game, not astrophysics. If you want your missiles to hit the pcs, let them hit the pcs if it serves your purpose. This isn't a tactical simulation, nor a real life threat, why worry?)

 

[Jame]

Weren't missiles bigger in TNE?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Jame:
Weren't missiles bigger in TNE?

Yep, and there is another thread about T20 Missiles where I said my piece.