Laser changes and the tactical use of missles

[far-trader]

Mongoose can't really be blamed for the missile mess.

Quite. I hope such wasn't read into anything I typed If anything it looks like Mongoose tried to fix it some. Maybe they missed the mark a tic but it was a good shot and addressed some big points by collating and adding.

 

[rinku]

For what it's worth, Special Supplement 3 gave the standard HE missile as 5G thrust with an endurance of 5x1000 second turns, which equates to 8 MGT 6 minute turns.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

SS3 doesn't jive with MGT HG though. MGT HG states that missiles have Thrust 10 (HG pg 47) while SS3 doesn't allow desiging any missiles above Thrust 6.

Someone should REALLY do a MGT version of SS3 with rules for desiging missiles and torpedoes... Humm maybe a S&P article?

 

[rinku]

Oh, yeah, I realise SS3 has flaws in itself anyway (especially regarding the 6G limit), I just put up that factoid for interest's sake. The parameters MGT HG gives are much more reasonable.

If you want to preserve the existing 1D6 HE and 2D6 nukes, make the large warhead version a variant of the Multi-warhead missile: 2D6 HE/3D6 nuke with thrust 8, 10 turn endurance, though the heavy nuke's warhead probably wouldn't mass much more - you might just want to double the cost on those.

 

[Jame Rowe]

SS3 doesn't jive with MGT HG though. MGT HG states that missiles have Thrust 10 (HG pg 47) while SS3 doesn't allow desiging any missiles above Thrust 6.

Someone should REALLY do a MGT version of SS3 with rules for desiging missiles and torpedoes... Humm maybe a S&P article?

Except that In My Not Humble Opinion (I keep telling you guys: adopt IMNHO!), missiles SHOULD have thrust above 6. Just because they couldn't intercept anything if they didn't.

 

[Bense]

Also, a weapon can only fire once per combat turn, so if a ship is shooting at incoming missiles, it is not shooting at you!

Are you sure? I was under the impression reactions happened independently of whatever else you did in a turn. The fact that a gunner can keep shooting down missiles until he misses seems to support this.
But, again, I'm a little vague on the rules and may be missing something.

Oh, and an additional question, how do double, triple and whatnot turrets with multiple lasers work when shooting point defense? This doesn't seem to be covered...

The way I read the rules are that each weapon can only fire once per combat round - offensively or defensively.
For point defense, I see the rule as saying that the gunner can fire one laser in their turret, see whether they hit the missile or not, and then fire another laser if they missed the missile until they are out of unfired lasers in the turret or miss an incoming missile in a given flight.

 

[rinku]

Don't forget that turns are 6 minutes long and point defence is performed at very short ranges. I take it to be a free action using lower power requirements (since the beam is within its focal limit and missiles don't have armour).

On that thought, armoured missiles are a possible variant that I haven't seen discussed. There's also room for discussing increased beam damage at closer ranges and/or decreased damage at longer ones.

 

[Sevya]

SS3 doesn't jive with MGT HG though. MGT HG states that missiles have Thrust 10 (HG pg 47) while SS3 doesn't allow desiging any missiles above Thrust 6.

Someone should REALLY do a MGT version of SS3 with rules for desiging missiles and torpedoes... Humm maybe a S&P article?

Except that In My Not Humble Opinion (I keep telling you guys: adopt IMNHO!), missiles SHOULD have thrust above 6. Just because they couldn't intercept anything if they didn't.

Which would be the point of updating it to MGT rules. MGT has higher thrust base missiles and small craft than CT, so that would be needed in updating SS3. The update should allow designing the current missiles, with options to design variants, or even entirely different types. I can see something not unlike the drone rules in Starfleet Battles.

Sevya

 

[rinku]

I can see something not unlike the drone rules in Starfleet Battles.

As an old Kzinti player, I just got a nervous twitch...

This being Traveller, I see something more like the vehicle design rules. That's how it's been done before in SS3 and Fire Fusion & Steel.

 

[Captain Jonah]

MGT High Guard multi-warhead missiles can be used to restore the CT civilian rules.

Mongoose can't really be blamed for the missile mess. As has been mentioned, the original High Guard confused things back in 1979, and it wasn't until Special Supplement 3 out of JTAS 21 (1984) that we even had official rules for missile thrust values (and this in a space combat system that was based on vector movement...)

But from a game balance point of view, missiles should be deadly, since they can be countered and have limited shots. To my mind, a base 2D6 damage for conventional and 3D6 damage (with restricted availablity) for nukes feels right. You can always reduce the turns of thrust if you feel they need limiting a bit.

Standard missile at tech 6, gain the three levels of tech improvement at techs 7,8,9. At tech 10 add +1D, tech improvements at 11,12,13. Add a dice at tech 14, etc etc. Nukes double damage. So Imperial standard light missiles are 3D at tech 15 with probably high yield, small missile nukes 6D. A bit more scary. Add speed boost to the tech improvements at 33% per to double missile speeds at most improved version.

All MonT weapons should increase in power over tech levels. Its a bit silly to presume that a missile invented at tech 6 or a laser from tech 7 isn't increased in power aside from the three tech level imporvements in the rules. Why are tech 15 worlds building something so out of date

 

[Captain Jonah]

I can see something not unlike the drone rules in Starfleet Battles.

As an old Kzinti player, I just got a nervous twitch...

This being Traveller, I see something more like the vehicle design rules. That's how it's been done before in SS3 and Fire Fusion & Steel.

Kzzzzziiintiiii. Powerrrr up theeeee Expandddddinggg Spheeerrrreee.

Killlll thee Furrrballsssssss :twisted:

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The changes to the lasers was made so that MGT matched previous versions of Traveller. You get a choice, powerful and inaccurate or less powerful and accurate. Depending on what you are using them for, both have their uses.

Missiles were also of the same power as lasers back in CT. With the options available in HG, you can give some variety to your missiles. One thing that DID change with MGT was the size of the missiles. In CT, missiles were 0.2 tons; in MGT missiles are only 0.08 tons. So MGT made the missiles smaller but with the same damage. Missiles have the advantage of RANGE. Lasers are pretty short ranged weapons (short for a Pulse laser and Medium for a Beam laser); that is there advantage. Also, a weapon can only fire once per combat turn, so if a ship is shooting at incoming missiles, it is not shooting at you!

Yeah, this business about pulse and beam lasers doesn't make much sense. Not having played earlier versions of traveller, the rules in the core MonT book seemed logical, i.e. for an extra 500, 000 Cr you get a laser that is twice as good. Then bought HG, adopted those rules, started scratching my head, and got involved in threads on this forum about ship board weapons, which was very informative and gave me a crash course in previous trav editions.

The only reason for the HG amendment appears to be the trav canon, which I don't feel bound to, so have gone back to the core rules for pulse lasers and beam lasers.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I've been interested in Traveller for a long time but have never gotten the chance to run or play it. So when I look at the rules and systems I'm not really sure how the end up working out during play.

I picked up the High Guard supplement today and I noticed the changes made to Beam and Pulse lasers. These changes seem odd to me, making the pulse laser more powerful and less accurate and lowering the damage of the beam laser (an Elite II player in my childhood)
So my first question is this, are these changes necessary? I found the original rules pretty apt. Using Pulse lasers more as short range point defense guns and beam lasers as more of an attack weapon.

My second question is to do with the missiles as presented in the core book. I was surprised to find they were no more powerful than lasers (except perhaps the crew damage from nukes, but still...) So the way I see it, they take forever to get to the enemy, they can be shot down by prepared opponents, take up more space and have limited shots.
Am I missing something? It doesn't look like missiles have any solid advantage over other, more direct, weapon systems.

These are just things that have occurred to me while reading the books. Theres likely to be more random and likely inane questions from me down the line...
Thanks!

On question one, the changes were not necessary IMHO.
Qu2, have a look back at previous threads on this forum, there has been a lot of debate about missile, torpedoes and damage in the last few months, you will find the posts very interesing!

Egil

 

[Bense]

Yeah, this business about pulse and beam lasers doesn't make much sense. Not having played earlier versions of traveller, the rules in the core MonT book seemed logical, i.e. for an extra 500, 000 Cr you get a laser that is twice as good. Then bought HG, adopted those rules, started scratching my head, and got involved in threads on this forum about ship board weapons, which was very informative and gave me a crash course in previous trav editions.

A weapon that doesn't have a -2 penalty to hit is a better weapon, especially for point defense (where damage doesn't matter).

 

[srogerscat]

Pulse lasers as opposed to beam lasers damage:

Look at it this way: Beam lasers are continuous fire, it is much easier to hit with them, you just wave the beam around a bit and you will be working the target. Now, the target is maneuvering, so some of the energy is wasted, only part of the energy will be on target, the rest of the beam will be wasted on whatever it hits in the next galaxy or two.

Pulse laser, deliver the same amount of energy overall, but in short discrete bursts. Traveller TNE had .01 second pulses. Shorter pulses are easily doable. You are going to miss a lot of your shots.

So, let us assume two lasers, one pulse, one beam, each with a 100 megajoule/second output. the beam laser is firing all the time, the pulse laser shoots once per second.

The beam laser will be delivering only part of the total second of output to the target, and to make it worse, not all of that energy will be delivered to the same spot. It will be burning a shallow scar all over the ship profile. But overall, you will be put a lot of (diffused) energy on target which will accumulate damage over time.

The pulse laser will miss a lot. Overall, the beam laser will doubtless put a lot more energy in total on target. But the pulse shot will deliver the full 100 megajoules (about 40 kilograms of TNT equivalent) to the target - and more importantly, to the same *spot* on the target.

Which do you think will do more damage to the target?

 

[srogerscat]

Unnerfing missiles

All flavors of Traveller have pretty much ignored the jaw dropping amounts of kinetic energy missiles accumulate as they zip downrange towards the enemy. Essentially, the longer a missile boosts, the harder it will hit. You can keep track of burn times if you want, but the simplest way to do it is to multiply the rolled damage by the number of range bands moved plus one:

1D6 x (Rb + 1)

Or you can substitute turns to target for Rb. This will give missiles the respect they deserve.

Now, if you want to make missiles true shipkillers, well, bear in mind that kinetic energy goes up not linearly, but with the square of the increase in velocity, so a truly accurate modifier would be more like 1D6 x (Rb + 1) x (Rb + 1).

Whether you go with the linear or geometric modifiers, kinetic energy also makes missiles vulnerable to a new counter measure: Sandcasters.

These missiles are closing at speeds measured in ten of kilometers/second. At that speed it really doesn't matter if you hit a ship or a spitball, the missile goes out in a blaze of glory and fragments. So, allow sandcasters to be used as antimissile weapons: subtract the sandcaster roll from the missile damage roll, than apply the range/speed damage multiplier. If you are a kind GM, allow the players to allocate sandcaster antimissile fire after the results of laser point defense are known. My players typically fire more than one barrel at an incoming missile, if possible. Just to be sure.

 

[DFW]

All flavors of Traveller have pretty much ignored the jaw dropping amounts of kinetic energy missiles accumulate as they zip downrange towards the enemy.

Not at all. A ship hull encounters MUCH more kinetic energy hitting a 1 gram micro meteor on its way from Earth to Jupiter at a few Gs. Just do the math.

 

[vitalis6969]

The beam laser pulse laser thing is backwards.

Pulse lasers put many pulses towards their target in a given amount of time. This should increase the chance to hit, but lower damage as each individual pulse has less energy. Much like THIS system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

CW (continuous wave) / Beam lasers will have a harder time to hit, it requires a single point of contact, but will deliver more energy to the target, because when it does his, it applies the full beam.

-V

[/url]

 

[srogerscat]

DFW,

Oh yes, very true about long-haul micrometeorite impacts - but that does not change what I wrote. The Traveller system applies a standard constant die roll to missile impact damage no matter what the relative velocity of projectile and target. My system is an attempt to find a playable way to reflect how missile speed-at-impact increases damage without totally breaking the space combat system.

 

[srogerscat]

"Pulse lasers put many pulses towards their target in a given amount of time. This should increase the chance to hit, but lower damage as each individual pulse has less energy. Much like THIS system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS"

It seems to me that if you are getting many pulses per second from a pulse laser then the practical effect is very little different from a beam laser, so there should be no game difference between the two.

"CW (continuous wave) / Beam lasers will have a harder time to hit, it requires a single point of contact, but will deliver more energy to the target, because when it does his, it applies the full beam."

Harder to hit? How so? Think of beam lasers as water hoses and pulse lasers as thrown water balloons. It is much easier to hit with the hose, you can sweep it across the target. But a big honking balloon will get the target much wetter all at once - if you hit in the first place.