High Guard 2e Turret and Ammo

[Condottiere]

 

[h1ro]

haha

 

[AnotherDilbert]

AnotherDilbert, I think this opens up a whole other discussion, one that perhaps deserves a new thread. It's probably been discussed before so I don't know if it really warrants going over again.

It has probably been discussed enough. But we do not need to make missiles more effective.

The gist of the discussion is what serves as balance in the game?

Why should a ship be able to sustain damage? There are real world naval examples, the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Sheffield in the Falklands War, where one or two missiles caused the loss of each ship. The historical wet naval analogy isn't one I'm overly fond of but we often fall back on it.

Your example also features unarmoured ships. At TL12 it's feasible to put 12 points of armour on a ship and 2e features point defence systems. These things could reduce the damage.

I deliberately choose a civilian example, because I think that is what most players use, and that is where turrets are the main armaments. For a military example with armour we can probably use nukes causing more damage. PD batteries are only significantly better than laser turrets at TL14+ (depending on crew skill).

With the previous example at TL12, military: 24 nukes hit against Armour 12: Average damage = 24 × ( 21[6D] - 12[armour] ) = 216. The ship with 160 Hull is destroyed in one attack. The dice may save the target, but it will generally be destroyed.

I'd continue to argue that as far as military ships go, the logistics of keeping missiles supplied far from port weighs heavily against them but we mostly don't model those things in our games, nevermind our discussions

Agreed, missiles are a heavy logistical burden and they are expensive in large amounts.

If we do accept that overkill is a distinct possibility, it would perhaps change the decision to engage or make the conflict about not being hit, countermeasures and tactics being the best way to wage that war. From a role playing point of view, I'd much prefer to avoid ship combat but that's an opinion few others seem to share.

Regular, automatic overkill is in my eyes boring and leads to short-lived characters, killing the role playing. It should be avoided.

We do not really have enough ways to avoid getting hit, and if we had military ships would spam them so that combats became long and boring.

I agree that starship combat is a bit too expensive hobby for most characters, but for role playing I don't see a problem. Some play with lots of personal combat, some with space combat, some with neither. Traveller easily caters to all those play-styles.

 

[Condottiere]

The point of combat in Traveller is to avoid it, due to sudden character death syndrome.

For a military style campaign, attrition is calculated in.

For civilian, it should be mostly fireworks to colour the adventure.

 

[phavoc]

First up, to the OP, I hope you got answers that you can work with.

AnotherDilbert, I think this opens up a whole other discussion, one that perhaps deserves a new thread. It's probably been discussed before so I don't know if it really warrants going over again.

The gist of the discussion is what serves as balance in the game?

To your example, I'd make a comparison of an unarmoured person being shot with a PGMP. It can happen, it's gonna be messy but should we take the PGMP out of the game? If we look at current weapons and armour, overkill is prevalent.

Why should a ship be able to sustain damage? There are real world naval examples, the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Sheffield in the Falklands War, where one or two missiles caused the loss of each ship. The historical wet naval analogy isn't one I'm overly fond of but we often fall back on it.

Your example also features unarmoured ships. At TL12 it's feasible to put 12 points of armour on a ship and 2e features point defence systems. These things could reduce the damage.

I'd agree that in general, massed missile attacks go against what we've seen in the Third Imperium setting but I don't think that equates to breaking 2e MgT.

I'd continue to argue that as far as military ships go, the logistics of keeping missiles supplied far from port weighs heavily against them but we mostly don't model those things in our games, nevermind our discussions

If we do accept that overkill is a distinct possibility, it would perhaps change the decision to engage or make the conflict about not being hit, countermeasures and tactics being the best way to wage that war. From a role playing point of view, I'd much prefer to avoid ship combat but that's an opinion few others seem to share.

Modern naval vessels are not armored like their predecessors. In fact there is no attempt at armoring a warship these days, aside from some kevlar reinforcement around the magazines and ops center. To be fair this isn't a lot different from a WW2 tin can - they were lightly armored as well, hoping their smaller size, speed and relative agility would help them dodge incoming shells. It wasn't till you got into cruisers you started getting real armor. Ships built after WW2 are mostly aluminum.

The Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship, was built to merchant standards - to efficiently transport cargo. The Sheffield wasn't sunk instantly, it burned from the inside out (due to damage). Plus Sheffield never even took any defensive measures due to errors by the crew. The ships didn't have any real missile defenses other than chaff and ECM (no CIWS or modern-day Rolling Airframe Missiles to engage incoming missiles).

It's not that missile are overwhelming in Mongoose, it's that the missile combat issue is not balanced. Missiles should be the system that allows enemies to be engaged beyond energy beam range. They should be dangerous. But the defenses aren't there to reflect that danger. Dedicated point defense systems don't exist. There's no ability to launch anti-missile missiles. So if you want to add in swarm tactics and VLS systems to rapidly overwhelm an enemy (or heaven forbid you make missile launching fighter swarms as useful as ship-launched missiles), you need to balance that out with defenses that must be overwhelmed in order to be penetrated. Armor is a passive system that is your last line of defense.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Frag warheads and point-defence batteries?

Fragmentation missiles are also an effective counter to other missiles when targeted at another missile salvo, Fragmentation missiles will reduce the number of missiles within the salvo on a one-for-one basis

Point defence batteries can be found on p.33of High Guard.



There's also electronic warfare, you can deploy chaff via sandcasters, if you have fighters they can act as additional point-defence...

In fact, why not make a defensive fighter? Take the heavy fighter from High Guard, replace the missile launcher with an additional laser, mount both lasers in turrets, and both crew members can use the point defence reaction against incoming ordnance.

 

[h1ro]

Ships built after WW2 are mostly aluminum.

Which, if I understand it correctly is why they burn so easily (compared to steel).

The Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship, was built to merchant standards - to efficiently transport cargo. The Sheffield wasn't sunk instantly, it burned from the inside out (due to damage). Plus Sheffield never even took any defensive measures due to errors by the crew. The ships didn't have any real missile defenses other than chaff and ECM (no CIWS or modern-day Rolling Airframe Missiles to engage incoming missiles).

The Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor were pretty much the only actual examples of recent naval losses I could find, I'm unaware of anything more recent that includes current anti missile defences. Something I'd been meaning to bring up in this discussion was the way a fleet has to operate, that few ships are designed as stand alone vessels and that in the current day, no commercial shipping is armed. Now, I know that's not gonna jive with the 3I but I think it's worth bringing up at this point - it's not affordable to make a commercial ship that's able to adequately defend itself and those that could come closer would struggle to turn a profit running freight. The legal issues are a whole other ball game and yes, I know we're gaming here, not simulating. (But some of us like for there to be a decent strain of believability hanging around our suspended belief).

It's not that missile are overwhelming in Mongoose, it's that the missile combat issue is not balanced. Missiles should be the system that allows enemies to be engaged beyond energy beam range. They should be dangerous. But the defenses aren't there to reflect that danger. Dedicated point defense systems don't exist. There's no ability to launch anti-missile missiles. So if you want to add in swarm tactics and VLS systems to rapidly overwhelm an enemy (or heaven forbid you make missile launching fighter swarms as useful as ship-launched missiles), you need to balance that out with defenses that must be overwhelmed in order to be penetrated. Armor is a passive system that is your last line of defense.

PD are now included in the rules but at 20 tons they might not find their way onto your average (smaller) commercial ship.

I don't agree with the balance thing tho, why should there be balance? I think that overkill should figure into the game as I very much agree with Condotierre's point that Traveller combat is dangerous and therefore should be avoided at all costs. It puts some value in my character if I don't throw him in front of a bus!

Does the difficulty in designing the game for balance come from the idea that small independent traders should be armed?

 

[Condottiere]

Another issue would be if the missiles devoted any thrust to evasion manoeuvres, or took the least time route to their target.

If they were evasive, that has to be minused off their velocity, and flight time has to be recalculated.

If not, that makes them rather sitting ducks against anti missile weapons.

 

[Condottiere]

Another assumption is that missiles can't be retargetted after launch, so two more measures is that you can preposition stealthed area defence frigates in the likely path, where they shoot at the incoming wave, and then start to chase them.

The other one would be setting up decoys and honey traps that are more seemingly attractive.

 

[phavoc]

Another assumption is that missiles can't be retargetted after launch, so two more measures is that you can preposition stealthed area defence frigates in the likely path, where they shoot at the incoming wave, and then start to chase them.

The other one would be setting up decoys and honey traps that are more seemingly attractive.

That would make missiles coming in a few types. - con trolled via the launch vessel, semi controlled (either or), and self controlled. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I personally dot use the current 'smart' missile option that keeps allowing a missile to attack after a miss. That's just silly

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I personally dot use the current 'smart' missile option that keeps allowing a missile to attack after a miss. That's just silly

Quite, and Smart missiles cannot reacquire missed targets.

Smart just means they are Fire-and-forget and get a +DM to hit.

Smart: This weapon has intelligent or semi-intelligent rounds that are able to guide themselves onto a target. They gain a DM to their attack rolls equal to the difference between their TL and that of the target, to a minimum of DM+1 and a maximum of DM+6.

 

[Condottiere]

Hundred gee terminal velocity would argue against that.

Someone would have to keep track of remaining fuel, the missile would have to turnover to decelerate, reacquire the or a target, and accelerate towards them.

The missile could turn two hundred seventy degrees, but that's going to be a wide diameter.

 

[Condottiere]

You can stretch endurance to two hundred and fifty gee thrusts, if you use a technological level thirteen motor at twenty five percent volume earmarked for fuel.

You could also programme the missiles to Tokyo drift towards their target until they get into close range, expending their thrust for evasive manoeuvring, or for correcting course if the target is being evasive.

 

[edpovi]

I actually found a bit more information on the Turret Ammo question in the Core Rulebook (page 157).
Turret Ammo is still a bit magical, particularly when a turret has both a missile rack and a sandcaster, but at least the silliness of a turret with 36 missiles is tossed out. Turret has ammo space for 12 missiles or 20 canisters.

But this information also conflicts a bit with High Guard in that the Core rules list 20 canisters for a turret, but High Guard lists 12. I'd lean a bit towards the Core numbers, as it matches the tonnage for ammo in HG.

To limit the "magic", i'd be inclined to set of a house rule to limit turret ammo to 1 ton (as it is listed in Core). But if you have both a missile and sand-caster, then spit the storage (e.g. 6 missiles and 10 canisters).


-Ed

 

[phavoc]

Turret space has alway been odd. Evidently the 1 ton you pay for fire control can be filled with ammo at no space cost, let alone all the required power conduits, control feeds and ammunition handling equipment.

It would probably make more sense to have a missile launcher taking up X tonnage, including your obligatory 1 ton for fire control, and then gibing it a rate of fire. Civilian launchers would have a ROF of say 3, and mil- spec launchers would have ROF of 5. That sidesteps the whole magical space issue. The space would be increased, say 3 tons for a civvy launcher and 5 tons for a military one.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fixed Mounts have even more "sufficiently advanced technology". They take no space whatsoever inside the ship.

 

[Condottiere]

We call it hammerspace.

 

[steve98052]

Doesn't all the weirdness over missile magazines go away in one recognizes the difference between mass tons and dtons? I think a Canon missile has a mass of 250 kg -- 1/4 mass ton. But a missile is quite a bit more dense than 1/14 ton per cubic meter. If its density equals water, it takes up 1/4 cubic meter, or 1/56 dton. Sand canisters are also much more compact than dton mass parity.

 

[edpovi]

Doesn't all the weirdness over missile magazines go away in one recognizes the difference between mass tons and dtons? I think a Canon missile has a mass of 250 kg -- 1/4 mass ton. But a missile is quite a bit more dense than 1/14 ton per cubic meter. If its density equals water, it takes up 1/4 cubic meter, or 1/56 dton. Sand canisters are also much more compact than dton mass parity.

I think it's pretty clear "tons" in High Guard is a measure of volume (displacement) rather than weight.
If you buy 12 missiles, it takes up 1 Ton (dTon / 13.5 m3) of cargo space.