Laser changes and the tactical use of missles
- Thread starter Geesuv
- Start date
srogerscat
Mongoose
Micrometeorites seem to be a solved problem in Traveller s they seem to be ignored in all flavors of the game. Sensors spot them in time for dodging, low power laser shots zap them, whatever. Unless the GM needs them for plot purposes they are not a factor.
Trivial? A missile fired from very distant range is boosting for ten turns at six G before impact. Terminal velocity is 216 km/sec. Very roughly, 3 km/sec gives about the same energy release from a striking projectile as the objects mass in TNT.This gives an energy release of fore than 5000 times their own mass in yield of TNT. Missiles have a volume of .08 displacement tons or eighty kilograms. They mass a hell of a lot more than that, of course. But even using that low figure total yield is about .4 kilotons.
Since even Bonded Superdense is "only" fifteen times stronger than steel (according to Striker) that will obliterate any ship the players are likely to be in.
Mind you, I am not calling for an accurate representation of the effect of missile velocity, I use the very scaled down system I outlined above with a multiplier of one for each range band covered by the ordnance in order to give missiles and torpedoes the fear and respect they deserve.
Trivial? A missile fired from very distant range is boosting for ten turns at six G before impact. Terminal velocity is 216 km/sec. Very roughly, 3 km/sec gives about the same energy release from a striking projectile as the objects mass in TNT.This gives an energy release of fore than 5000 times their own mass in yield of TNT. Missiles have a volume of .08 displacement tons or eighty kilograms. They mass a hell of a lot more than that, of course. But even using that low figure total yield is about .4 kilotons.
Since even Bonded Superdense is "only" fifteen times stronger than steel (according to Striker) that will obliterate any ship the players are likely to be in.
Mind you, I am not calling for an accurate representation of the effect of missile velocity, I use the very scaled down system I outlined above with a multiplier of one for each range band covered by the ordnance in order to give missiles and torpedoes the fear and respect they deserve.
It depends on whether we discuss this within the real world framework orDFW said:
the Traveller rules framework.
For example, railgun shots do kinetic energy damage only, and a Travel-
ler missile should impact with about the same kinetic energy as a railgun
shot, so it should indeed do comparable damage through the impact alo-
ne.
Otherwise a starship with an armour strong enough to protect it from any
fast micrometeorites would not only be invulnerable to the kinetic energy
of missile impacts, but also to damage by railgun shots - and also have a
good chance to be almost invulnerable to energy weapon hits, too, becau-
se these hits would only vapourize a bit of the thick armour layer without
penetrating it.
In short, if one wants a playable - not necessarily a plausible - space com-
bat system, one has to ignore the fast micrometeorite problem or use on-
ly "magic wand" weapons like meson guns, because any armour strong
enough to withstand several fast micrometeorite hits would also be strong
enough to withstand almost anything else.
srogerscat
Mongoose
Rust,
I agree. I am arguing within the context of the MGT rules. "Fixing" missiles - and others may feel they are not broken - without breaking the space combat game is my goal. I have done so to my personal satisfaction, and told you how. You don't like my fix? Don't use it. Fine by me, and if I every have the chance to play in a session run by any of you who use the missile rules as written, I would be happy to do so.
I agree. I am arguing within the context of the MGT rules. "Fixing" missiles - and others may feel they are not broken - without breaking the space combat game is my goal. I have done so to my personal satisfaction, and told you how. You don't like my fix? Don't use it. Fine by me, and if I every have the chance to play in a session run by any of you who use the missile rules as written, I would be happy to do so.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
The problem that leads to however, is that the energy density of a chemical explosive warhead is much smaller than that of its kinetic energy. So using your premise, no non-nuclear missiles would be able to scratch the hull of any ship.DFW said:
Edit - Rust beat me to it...
I like your approach, especially because it fits in well with my currentsrogerscat said:
setting.
In this setting energy weapons are not used, mainly because they seem
even less plausible to me than the other weapon systems (the laser fo-
cussing problem, etc.) and too easy to defend against ("glass dust", me-
tal vapour created when the target's armour is hit, etc.).
This leaves me with railguns and missiles, and with missiles I have the
problem mentioned by Mongoose Pete, a chemical explosive warhead of
the size that fits upon a Traveller missile is simply not powerful enough
to do a lot of damage to an armoured ship.
So your idea to add the kinetic energy of the missile impact comes very
handy for me, it helps to explain the use of comparatively small missiles
and also brings them in line with the damage done by railgun shots - in a
way, I can treat missiles as "self-propelled railgun shots".
I would take the other approach. Since fast micrometeorites would changeDFW said:I do await being shown the rules as you probably know MGT better than I.
the situation in the Traveller universe significantly if they would exist, and
since they are mentioned nowhere in the rules, they quite obviously do not
exist in the Traveller universe. :wink:
Hmm... just an odd idea for my setting ...
If the armour of a starship consists of a hard inner shell (crystaliron, etc.)
with an outer layer of something like aerogel to minimize the impact of
micrometeorites, the warhead of a missile could be a kind of shaped char-
ge designed to separate from the missile, hit the ship and explode a mo-
ment before the actual impact of the missile, in order to burn away the
aerogel layer and thereby increase the damage caused by the missile's
impact on the hard inner shell ...
If the armour of a starship consists of a hard inner shell (crystaliron, etc.)
with an outer layer of something like aerogel to minimize the impact of
micrometeorites, the warhead of a missile could be a kind of shaped char-
ge designed to separate from the missile, hit the ship and explode a mo-
ment before the actual impact of the missile, in order to burn away the
aerogel layer and thereby increase the damage caused by the missile's
impact on the hard inner shell ...
rust said:
I have skimmed the books, not really digging into much, but I cannot find where it says that the standard missile is a chemical warhead?
I can see the standard missile as being a kinetic projectile.
If it has to be a chemical explosive, then it would most likely be (IMO) a shaped-charge warhead. That could focus enough energy into a location to do damage.
Im not arguing. Just curios.
oh, and why arent there laser barbettes?
This could well be, the only indirect evidence for a chemical warhead I amRumRogue said:
aware of is in High Guard, where the Multi-Warhead Missile would not ma-
ke much sense if it were a kinetic weapon, because splitting the projecti-
le's mass into several parts would reduce the kinetic damage instead of in-
creasing it.
This area looks fraught with contradictions.
The next page refers to heavy missiles (torpedos) -
The prior post by Mongoose Pete might be considered authoritative as well...
- Personally, I have always considered the missile as a contact explosive device that utilized a chemical assisted kinetic kill warhead. This means that the kinetic energy of the unassisted mass is not enough to do appreciable damage and thus requires an explosion to provide the energy needed to do real damage to a ship. This helps make point defense viable - otherwise, most of the mass just keeps coming albeit in a different 'configuration' (or a lot of radiation was released when matter was changed to energy
)
The idea of using 'titanium', in today's configuration, as definitive for the 'strength' of hull armour I find rather stretches my suspenders of disbelief - to me this is just a name referring to the base element (and, I'm sorry to say, using a real world element name was an extremely poor practice on behalf of the authors). Hulls IMTU are 'strong' enough (layered, laminated composites of buckyball tech, etc.) to withstand interstellar dust (note: micrometeorites are, by definition, objects that enter Earth's atmo
) and most of the relatively slower, but higher mass energy of impacts from missiles. But, I do not plan on using the MGT combat system and do plan for allowing better handling of kinetic impacts (shooting a missile that is 'almost' home could still lead to potential secondary damage... might be a use for effect).
There are more examples, but the reference to a warhead and a reduction in damage despite higher thrust and then with an increased damage for dispersed warhead mass at substantially lower thrust is indicative of a non-kinetic kill device... though one could argue masses at that point and make the math work for losses/gains in reaction mass (assuming missiles are non-gravitic).HG pg 48 said:
The next page refers to heavy missiles (torpedos) -
Is more indicative of a kinetic kill device :roll:
The prior post by Mongoose Pete might be considered authoritative as well...
far-trader
Mongoose
rust said:I would take the other approach. Since fast micrometeorites would changeDFW said:I do await being shown the rules as you probably know MGT better than I.
the situation in the Traveller universe significantly if they would exist, and
since they are mentioned nowhere in the rules, they quite obviously do not
exist in the Traveller universe. :wink:
The more reasonable approach
And close to my own ancient rationalization. Since Traveller ships don't fear micrometeor strikes (the rules never mention it, probably an oversight, but we're stuck with it) they must not be a threat. How can this be so? A couple ways immediately leapt to mind ages ago:
1 - In-system velocity is limited for safety. So while you can (in most rules) burn at 6G the whole way to the midpoint turn around on a trip from the inner to outer system, building up a very high velocity, that simply isn't done routinely. First, merchants don't have the time to waste running around in-system even at fast velocity, they'll make in-system jumps instead if the trip is that long. Or to save money any bulk in-system freight is likely to simply be flung at low speed, unmanned, and captured at the destination after drifting there. So the velocity of ships isn't usually enough to cause damage from micrometeor strikes. They happen, but they are insignificant damage. IF a ship is pushed past this (undefined) safe velocity (for emergencies, or other special circumstanaces) then I'd roll a chance for a strike or strikes and significant damage.
2 - The ship hulls all incorporate a shield defense (part of the whole maneuver drive field imtu) that is proof against low energy impacts like micrometeors. Nothing bigger than a certain (again undefined) low mass and velocity.
Let's also not forget that the chances of a micrometeor collision are quite low in deep space. Perhaps the small risk is simply accepted, much like deer and moose collisions with cars are on the highway in many rural areas. People die and cars are destroyed in large (but not overly significant to most) numbers. No one seriously suggests slowing to less than highway speed to reduce or eliminate the carnage. Same for Traveller ships, sure many are damaged or lost to micormeteor collisions when speeding through space, people are injured or killed, but it's simply accepted as one of the risks of swift transport.
far-trader
Mongoose
FWIW, the original CT (LBB2) Missiles are clearly NOT kinetic kill missiles. The damage roll (1D6 hits) is defined as being the result of how close the missile gets:
"Missile Detonation: Ordnance which impacts a target... and which then survives anti-missile fire, detonates... this detonation will inflict 1 to 6 hits depending on the range at detonation."
Clearly, it is an explosive warhead, presumably nuclear, as "detonation" is the repeated theme. The use of "impacts" above is clearly meant as "close to the target" as anti-missile fire is conducted after the missile "impacts", so it is in the final approach but not yet detonated. So CT didn't originally have kinetic kill missiles (nor for that matter railguns), perhaps because the hulls are proof against ALL impacts. Whether it be missiles, railguns, or micrometeors.
And equally as clear, following editions simply muddied the waters by trying to make such ideas fit
"Missile Detonation: Ordnance which impacts a target... and which then survives anti-missile fire, detonates... this detonation will inflict 1 to 6 hits depending on the range at detonation."
Clearly, it is an explosive warhead, presumably nuclear, as "detonation" is the repeated theme. The use of "impacts" above is clearly meant as "close to the target" as anti-missile fire is conducted after the missile "impacts", so it is in the final approach but not yet detonated. So CT didn't originally have kinetic kill missiles (nor for that matter railguns), perhaps because the hulls are proof against ALL impacts. Whether it be missiles, railguns, or micrometeors.
And equally as clear, following editions simply muddied the waters by trying to make such ideas fit
Re: micrometeors
I always presumed that the armor of the ship took care of that sort of thing at the usual "burn out to 100 diameters" level of velocity. But here are some other ideas:
Hull armor is a kinetic-resistant composite laminate of some sort and takes the hits. Part of annual maintenance overhaul is replacing cracked plates in the "nose armor" or whatever. This is also the reason you don't see more kinetic kill weapons in Traveller, in addition to the whole "if you miss, some day that projectile is going to kill someone innocent" factor.
Local navies "sweep" their planets' 100 diameter space for debris in some way, which explains why Subbies have no armor. They're not designed for use off the "beaten path".
The M-Drive's gravitics act as a very low-level repulsor which can handle deflecting very low mass projectiles. Advances on this idea are what get us Repulsors.
I always presumed that the armor of the ship took care of that sort of thing at the usual "burn out to 100 diameters" level of velocity. But here are some other ideas:
Hull armor is a kinetic-resistant composite laminate of some sort and takes the hits. Part of annual maintenance overhaul is replacing cracked plates in the "nose armor" or whatever. This is also the reason you don't see more kinetic kill weapons in Traveller, in addition to the whole "if you miss, some day that projectile is going to kill someone innocent" factor.
Local navies "sweep" their planets' 100 diameter space for debris in some way, which explains why Subbies have no armor. They're not designed for use off the "beaten path".
The M-Drive's gravitics act as a very low-level repulsor which can handle deflecting very low mass projectiles. Advances on this idea are what get us Repulsors.
Yep - being only a CT books 1-8 (no anything else!) ref prior to MGT - I never really used missiles on spaceships, and generally assumed them to be nuclear. Never played in the 3I - but, in my settings nuclear weapons were 'dirty' and were implicitly banned (as were basically all weapons - but that didn't stop anybody from having them).
MGT's approach - especially 'torpedoes' :roll: - doesn't really appeal to me, but, since I am playing with MGT folks, I've mostly accepted them (handwave super-powerful chemical shaped charges... blah, blah).
I didn't initially 'create' shields - instead preferring to use 'reality' of interstellar collisions as a bonus to RP. My poor players were often afflicted with a holed ship :twisted:. Of course, I created numerous patching methods and used this option as a plot device on more than one occasion (very handy for in-opportune M-Drive failures). Never used dice to determine the probability though... and, in all fairness, my players were probably unlucky if one compares their odd's in a more 'realistic' sense (at least for contact, maybe not for results).
MGT's approach - especially 'torpedoes' :roll: - doesn't really appeal to me, but, since I am playing with MGT folks, I've mostly accepted them (handwave super-powerful chemical shaped charges... blah, blah).
I didn't initially 'create' shields - instead preferring to use 'reality' of interstellar collisions as a bonus to RP. My poor players were often afflicted with a holed ship :twisted:. Of course, I created numerous patching methods and used this option as a plot device on more than one occasion (very handy for in-opportune M-Drive failures). Never used dice to determine the probability though... and, in all fairness, my players were probably unlucky if one compares their odd's in a more 'realistic' sense (at least for contact, maybe not for results).
:twisted: Ah Thanks! - my replacement for the interstellar debris hits! (My players now hate you!)hdan said:
Hmmm... nice. I'm thinking more the gravitic tech that allows internal gravity control could provide for external repulsion (i.e. seperate from M-Drive). Which means hull damage can only be repaired even while M-Drive is active (but local or even ship-wide gravitic control may need to be disabled...).hdan said:
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
In this case it was just me pointing out the obvious, rather than making an authoritative statement. The Traveller Core Rules were before my time and whilst I've written a couple of supplements, my comments concerning this issue have as much weight as anybody's.BP said:
I might write an article for S&P expounding the mechanics and virtues of missiles, under the aegis of Darrian specific weapons. Beyond that though I cannot make an 'official' rules change to the RAW, only give personal interpretations/suggestions.
From my perspective the micro meteor issue is less of a problem than some people think it is.
Most elliptical orbiting material is travelling about 51Km/s at around 1 AU out. Further away it gets slower. So grains of sand or dust will certainly make an armoured hull ring (a bang of about sixteen times its mass of TNT using earlier quoted figures), but beyond pings and pops it won't utterly destroy a ship moving at a sensible speed. Larger objects should be easily detectable by forward radar/lidar and a slight (and I mean tiny) sidewards impulse will avoid a collision.
Larger clouds of small objects would almost certainly be charted and either given an avoidance beacon or system traffic control would warn newly arrived vessels to avoid the region. Atop that, any well travelled system will clear access corridors/orbits/zones to prevent such micro-meteor impacts from occurring.
Part of naval picket duty might be patrolling routes and vapourising larger objects. Or civilian vessels with large electromagnets could cruise around sucking up the more dangerous (higher density/mass) ferrous particulate matter. Such a job would be unending of course, but within the bounds of possibility with high tech sensors and drones.
Speed limits would be mandatory, save for military/emergency response vessels... just like in modern ports/harbours where superfast speedboats are forbidden to travel at more than a crawl because of the risk of collision and the waves they cause.
This to me seems eminently sensible and requires no changing of the core rules. In fact having an inner-system speed limit adds to roleplaying fun - bringing trouble from the law if regulations are broken, or causing micrometeors to cause say 1d6 damage per Manoeuvre rate above 1 you are travelling at (abstracting matters) or 1d6 per x Km/s velocity (if you want to make it realistic). In game terms and for maximum fun, such a collision could badly damage the ship, but is unlikely to destroy it or kill the crew.
far-trader
Mongoose
BP said:
The nice part about tying it to the (gravitic/thruster) M-drives is that you have a built in correlation for a stronger field tied to faster drives (and higher/quicker velocity). While making it part of the (presumably) internal artificial gravity field (which really only needs to internal, and not more than 1G) means all ships have the same power available for deflection, which may be more than needed for a 1G ship (wasteful) and not enough for a 6G ship (dangerous).