Can you divide a missile bay's salvo?

[Sageryne]

Does targeting require an action? If you target two ships, it requires two rolls. So, it might count as dividing actions and have the appropriate penalties.

You are saying a gunner can only do one thing every six minutes...

I guess they have time to get up, go get a coffee, use the toilet, between each time they tap their finger on a screen.

What if you use a virtual gunner?

Would it be your position that a computer could only issue one command every six minutes?

I can buy the idea that a small bay can only physically launch 12 missiles in 6 minutes. That is one launch every 30 seconds. These are big, missiles capable of travelling more than 50,000 km.

I can't believe that during that 30 seconds (five combat turns), a gunner couldn't designate a new target.

My position is that weapons several tech levels above us won't be any worse that what we can do with TL7/8 ocean going ships....

This ship (an Arleigh Burke class destroyer) is launching a tomahawk cruise missile from its vertical launch system (which is the same system that launches surface-to-air missiles). There are two launched 15 seconds apart from the bow VLS and then two launched 15 seconds apart from the rear VLS (then the launch is shown again from a different angle).

The primary limitation of the Mark 41 vertical launching system is how fast it can exhaust gases, which limits each "bay" to one missile ever 4 seconds. The Arleigh Burke can control up to 16 missiles targeted at 16 different targets at a time.... at TL7/8.

One would hope that by the time you can travel between solar systems that you would be able to target more than one target every six minutes.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Missiles use their salvo to hit. Can't find a MgT rule though, so however you want to handle yours is fine - which is the case even if I found a rule.
Beams, etc use gunner. But only one type of weapon fires, and if more than one of the same type fire, they use one roll.

Only if they are targeting the same target, otherwise it is two rolls.

 

[MasterGwydion]

You are saying a gunner can only do one thing every six minutes...

I guess they have time to get up, go get a coffee, use the toilet, between each time they tap their finger on a screen.

What if you use a virtual gunner?

Would it be your position that a computer could only issue one command every six minutes?

I can buy the idea that a small bay can only physically launch 12 missiles in 6 minutes. That is one launch every 30 seconds. These are big, missiles capable of travelling more than 50,000 km.

I can't believe that during that 30 seconds (five combat turns), a gunner couldn't designate a new target.

My position is that weapons several tech levels above us won't be any worse that what we can do with TL7/8 ocean going ships....

This ship (an Arleigh Burke class destroyer) is launching a tomahawk cruise missile from its vertical launch system (which is the same system that launches surface-to-air missiles). There are two launched 15 seconds apart from the bow VLS and then two launched 15 seconds apart from the rear VLS (then the launch is shown again from a different angle).

The primary limitation of the Mark 41 vertical launching system is how fast it can exhaust gases, which limits each "bay" to one missile ever 4 seconds. The Arleigh Burke can control up to 16 missiles targeted at 16 different targets at a time.... at TL7/8.

One would hope that by the time you can travel between solar systems that you would be able to target more than one target every six minutes.

I completely agree with this, but RAW doesn't allow for it as one action. It would have to be divided into 1 action per target. Personally, IMTU, I just ignore this and let My players target however many targets they want with missiles and torpedos.

 

[Condottiere]

The bottleneck may be the weapon system.

You can only point it in one general direction, per round.

 

[Arkathan]

Only if they are targeting the same target, otherwise it is two rolls.

There is no rule that allows that in a turret weapon, but you are free to implement it in your game.

 

[MasterGwydion]

The bottleneck may be the weapon system.

You can only point it in one general direction, per round.

Doesn't matter which direction you point a missile rack. It controls itself. Two missiles can set off in 2 different directions after being fired.

 

[MasterGwydion]

There is no rule that allows that in a turret weapon, but you are free to implement it in your game.

No rule prevents it either. It is prevented from happening with non-missiles fired from a turret.

 

[Arkathan]

No rule prevents it either. It is prevented from happening with non-missiles fired from a turret.

That's what I was talking about.
The part about the salvo was to indicate there is no penalty on the gunner side, because the missile rolls for itself at the destination. Gunner skill is irrelevant for missile to-hit rolls.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Does targeting require an action? If you target two ships, it requires two rolls. So, it might count as dividing actions and have the appropriate penalties.

No. Missile launch is not an attack, the salvo attacks on its own.

You can launch as many or few missiles as you wish, against as many targets as you wish.

And missile salvoes don't inflict critical hits...

 

[MasterGwydion]

That's what I was talking about.
The part about the salvo was to indicate there is no penalty on the gunner side, because the missile rolls for itself at the destination. Gunner skill is irrelevant for missile to-hit rolls.

No. Missile launch is not an attack, the salvo attacks on its own.

You can launch as many or few missiles as you wish, against as many targets as you wish.

And missile salvoes don't inflict critical hits...

Okay. Thanks to both of you! I was misunderstanding.

 

[Condottiere]

Missiles are launched in salvos.

A salvo is all the missiles launched by a ship against a single target in the same combat round.

That would seem to require an action by the gunner.

This could be a single missile from a single turret, three from a triple turret with three missile racks or dozens from multiple turrets or bays (see High Guard for more information on weapon bays).

That would be in reference to how many missiles are actually earmarked for a specific salvo, to one target.

The question would be, in Traveller, can you split that into two or more parts?

Not, whether this is done in real life.

Dozens seem in reference to different launch capacities in different sized bays, usually in multiples of twelve.

 

[Condottiere]

It should also be noted that keeping track of book keeping, tells us exact ammunition expenditure.

It can be argued that an energy weapon power draw is extended over six minutes, since we don't know how much energy each individual shot requires.

However, for sheer physicality, missiles and other ordnance tend to be stored in magazines, and we know how many of those are expended, for any given time period.

 

[rinku]

I'm tending towards yes, go for it. We have a limit to how many missiles a mount may launch in a turn, and know that it requires a gunner to initiate a launch. If there are two turrets with two gunners it is not in dispute that they could fire at different targets. Or that multiple turrets can combine launches to make a bigger salvo. Multiple turrets can be linked into batteries per High Guard. Fire Control programs can assist.

Missiles do not use the gunner skill of the launching crewmember. It's all about the missiles' autonomous ability to track and hit; the Sensop actually has more effect on the salvo's chance of getting there than the gunner does, through EW.

So... yeah. It makes sense to me that the gunner can designate any valid target for each of the missiles they can launch.

You DO need a gunner to reload, unless you've automated that part.

 

[Gavain]

As an aside question, since for getting a weapons lock on a ship is a SensOp vs SensOp roll and a SensOp can remove missiles from a salvo, can a SensOp "protect" a salvo from the actions of another SensOp? Thus turning missile salvo destruction into a SensOp vs SensOp roll.

 

[MasterGwydion]

As an aside question, since for getting a weapons lock on a ship is a SensOp vs SensOp roll and a SensOp can remove missiles from a salvo, can a SensOp "protect" a salvo from the actions of another SensOp? Thus turning missile salvo destruction into a SensOp vs SensOp roll.

My guess would be no because once the missiles are fired, the ship has no control over them. You cannot even change targets mid-flight like you can in real life.

 

[Condottiere]

Odd.

I thought I might have come across some rule like that, mid course correction, but certainly can't recall which edition or what supplement, or if I had been reading too much Weber at that time.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Odd.

I thought I might have come across some rule like that, mid course correction, but certainly can't recall which edition or what supplement, or if I had been reading too much Weber at that time.

If you ever find it, I would love to know where so I can change the rule in My games.

 

[Condottiere]

If I actually knew.

Weber's idea was to add an extra missile with communications equipment, and I think what we describe nowadays as a local cloud network.

 

[rinku]

As an aside question, since for getting a weapons lock on a ship is a SensOp vs SensOp roll and a SensOp can remove missiles from a salvo, can a SensOp "protect" a salvo from the actions of another SensOp? Thus turning missile salvo destruction into a SensOp vs SensOp roll.

Doesn't appear so.

Obtaining a sensor lock is an unopposed task. Stealth measures are modifiers to the targeting Sensop's roll.

Jamming communications is an opposed Sensop task.

Breaking an established sensor lock is an opposed task.

Sensor handoffs are automatic within bandwidth and range limits.

Target Sensop has to detect missile launch, unopposed roll.

Once per round a salvo can have an unopposed Sensop countermeasure action performed on it.

I may have missed something, but that appears to be if for CRB and HG in regard to non-fleet combat.

I guess you could treat the salvo as a candidate for "breaking an established sensor lock"? It's not mentioned if a sensop can affect locks made on other ships, but if they're able to jam a target's communications, I can't see why not. Spoof the target's detection equipment with signal overload and such.