Legality of ship weapons?

[Condottiere]

1. It depends on how long do you expect combat to (reasonably) last.

2. If the spacecraft is worth more than the cargo, what's actually going to be stolen?

3. Batteries might be installed, instead of expanding the power plant.

4. I'd say that missiles can change direction after launch, so fixed mounted missile racks not really an issue.

5. We used to have missile packs of twelve per hardpoint, sometimes referred to as vertical launch.

6. You are in rabbit country, but lack rabbit speed.

7. Turrets can usually have three different weapon systems, so you could choose whether to cast sand against lasers, laser point defence against missile or door knocker, or a missile as deterrence.

8. Pirates could remain doggo with stealthed spacecraft.

9. Optionally, you could buy point defence missiles.

 

[k0k0pelli]

In High Guard they specifically say "a fixed mount can only fire at targets directly ahead of it" they do not specify an exception for missile racks. A similar statement is made in the core rulebook on p 165. The GM can rule differently of course but RAW I feel that is clear. You could mount the fixed mount in an alternative direction (chase guns as an example) but you would still need to specify direction.

That said, unless you ignore the standard ship design philosophy missiles do not make sense economically for a merchant. You could easily cost yourself more money firing missiles than letting pirates take the cargo, especially if doing freight If you want to argue that missiles are economical, pirates would have them too as a primary weapon. A merchant will lose in that exchange every time unless they have a laser as point defense and if that is the case the argument that missiles are more practical no longer applies. Missiles are not used much specifically because they are not economical.

Edit: if you can dim for jump you can dim to fire lasers and laser will always use less power than a jump drive. Powering down non-essential systems (p. 153 core rulebook) on a 100t scout ship would give you enough power to operate and fire a dual beam laser turret or even a single particle beam so the argument on power is flawed I feel.

 

[Vormaerin]

I'd tend to think that a quarter of a million of easily found, closely packed missiles might be the part of the cargo that the pirates want to steal instead of trying to find the choice bits out of the 500+ dtons of cargo.

 

[k0k0pelli]

"tell you what, power down and let us take your missiles and we will let you go. If you fire those missiles they are going to be gone anyway and you will make me mad" heh, I could see my old character in Drinax making that argument (though ironically we did not pirate... much)

 

[k0k0pelli]

To answer the OP's question, AFAIK it is not specified except by exclusion.

* nuclear missiles are illegal
* barbettes and larger are generally not available to civilian ships

Weapon wise the limits are availability and practicality. I have not given it much thought but I can see high law zones requiring you to power down and "stow" turret mounted weapons but it is unlikely that a starport in the frontier, regardless of law level, would reject a trader for having ship mounted weapons. That would damage trade, no pun intended.

 

[Vormaerin]

Regarding running "lean" power ships, the rule is that 50% of a ship's basic power is 'non-essential' so you can do without it for a short time. No definition of "short duration", but I would assume that at least covers the 1d6 x 10 minutes of Jump engine usage and definitely would cover combat. So if you are a jump 1 ship, you could power your J-drive by that system curtailment. Anything more than jump 1 would need additional power available. I would suspect from a simulationist POV that a ship that did the former would have difficulty recruiting high passengers (and possibly middle passengers). People are not going to be happy if you disable the guest wifi and on board streaming services for jump, especially since doing so would highlight that the ship is "underpowered." There's no actual rule about that, though, so YMMV.

Likewise, you could do the same thing for power to weapons in battle. Passengers still wouldn't like it, but might be more tolerant in the face of the necessity to don their softsuits and other battle prep.

Another simulationist aside that isn't strictly a game rule, but to actually get a professional certification in a skill generally requires a skill of 1 according to the rules. While there are definitely businesses that cut corners, most large companies would not send out an armed ship without a licensed weapons officer, if only for insurance and safety reasons even if the law doesn't require it. That doesn't really change anything about the discussion at hand, just something I thought I'd mention while we were on the subject of weapons and legality. The rules say that proper crewing standards for commercial vessels is one gunner per turret, but also that the players are allowed to do things otherwise. Obviously, that gunner likely would be cross trained if possible. Probably as a mechanic, steward, or cargo loader.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Missiles are smart, and self guided.

2. The reason for a missile pack would be to overwhelm point defence and knock out the opponent.

3. If you do happen to be transporting missiles, you can get high (explosives) on your own supply.

4. Arguably, dogfighting requires a specific firing arc for fixed mounted missile racks, since it's a six second window.

5. We know in real life launched missiles can change direction almost as soon as they leave the launcher.

 

[k0k0pelli]

1. nowhere in the rules does it say that smart ignored the rules for arcs of fire. I have provided a specific rule for which there has not been given an exception. The smart rules do not say (or even imply) that they supersede more specific rules given elsewhere. Again a GM might interprt differently but RAW they are very specific on arcs of fire and do not say "except missiles" or "except smart weapons"
2. This one I perhaps missed but what rulebook allows you to fire an entire rack at once? or is a missile pack from some book that is not core and highgaurd
3. And this would bother a pirate how? if the cargo hold is taking criticals they have other issues
5, In real life most misslies cannot turn 180 (torpedoes are a different animal but there you have fluid dynamics on your side). even the guidance they do have relies on air/fluid dynamics, not arbitrary thrust direction like there would be in a vacuum

 

[Vormaerin]

Missiles are *smart* but that does not mean that you can fire them without a target lock and expect them to find the target that you want. Whether you can legally buy non standard missiles as a civilian is unclear.

This is a conflict between gamist and simulationist issues. Fixed Mounts were added to the game to allow people to make Vipers, StarFuries, and X-Wings. They are not actually limited to those small craft per the rules (though, as far as I know, there are no non small craft made with fixed mounts), but the reason that they take up no space and require no power is to make smallcraft workable. But the rules do say that fixed mounts can only fire at targets directly ahead of it.

If you want the benefits of mechanics (no power cost, no tonnage required), then you take the disadvantages of those mechanics (only fires at targets in front of the ship). I'm fine with fixed mounts on ships. But I would absolutely expect anyone who wanted to do that to use the vector movement combat system and fire those weapons in the ship's forward arc because that's what your target designation fire control system is limited to. Or at least only be able to fire if they are not using Thrust to increase the range to the enemy ship if you don't want to use the vector rules.

Obviously, you can house rule whatever you want for your table. But you can't say that's how the actual rules work.

 

[Vormaerin]

5. We know in real life launched missiles can change direction almost as soon as they leave the launcher.

I haven't actually operated a ship's missile launch system since the 80s, so they are probably a lot more sophisticated now. But, while a DDG's missile does get to change direction after launching, you have a nice fire control station where you are telling it what to do before you launch it. You aren't pushing a button and saying "flee free, little death" and letting it pick its own target after you launch it.

I don't have any actual experience with aircraft missiles, but in the movies you are always getting a target lock before you fire. I did see a brief thing on the F-35 supposedly having fire control systems that allowed target locks on aircraft behind it. But we are talking about a civilian merchant vessel that is deliberately skimping on its weapon expenses here

If you want the fancy fire control to pick targets anywhere around you, pay the power and the space. IMHO.

 

[k0k0pelli]

It depends on the missile but in general no.

Short range missiles have a fairly decent turn rate but are short ranged and rely on air foils. Missiles in Traveller are neither short ranged nor atmospheric.

Put differently, having a primary thruster doing 15Gs at launch means it would need to fly, pause, adjust trajectory using attitiude jets, then re-engage. That is a needlessly complex system compared to a missile that engages and thrusts until fuel is consumed with attitude jets to allow a cone based target area. You are dramatically increasing complexity and decreasing warhead at least somewhat for a limited use case that is not done in any conventional military craft (where missiles would be used most if for no other reason than size and number of engagements)

Further if missiles in Traveller are spherical in attack area, why put them in turrets ever? Load time for static tubes would be far simpler than turret and could be automated. Sorry but I feel that allowing a spherical attack area for fixed mount missiles is just a way to get more out of an intentionally limited resource.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Vagueness is a Traveller trait, which is why there had to be a clause added later as to range for firmpointed missiles.

2. There are probably a dozen ways to find a loophole for fixedly mounted missile racks, if you adhere to rules as written.

3. The most obvious is that a round is six minutes, and you can tilt the hull to get the missile within the firing cone, if not just flipping it.

4. Dogfighting is six seconds, and that would be a multiple segment manoeuvre.

5. If missiles have midcourse correction, they can have immediate correction, and latency won't play a part.

6. Missiles have to make course corrections anyway, on final approach.

7. So one would assume that manoeuvring nozzles would be organic.

8. Why do I have an interest?

9. Fixedly mounted broadside missile barrage, or upgrade to missile/torpedo combo.

 

[k0k0pelli]

The benefits of mechanics (no power cost, no tonnage required), then you take the disadvantages of those mechanics (only fires at targets in front of the ship). I'm fine with fixed mounts on ships. But I would absolutely expect anyone who wanted to do that to use the vector movement combat system and fire those weapons in the ship's forward arc because that's what your target designation fire control system is limited to. Or at least only be able to fire if they are not using Thrust to increase the range to the enemy ship if you don't want to use the vector rules.

Side Note: I love the vector based combat and would use that regardless. Makes it more Honor Harrington and less Star Wars.

 

[Vormaerin]

No one is denying that you can house rule it however you want. But it is clearly not intended that fixed mount weapons have 360 targeting. They flat out do not.

If you want to play with movement vectors and get your ship to turn or even just get your missiles to turn using those rules, then I could get behind that. But if you are going to use a handwavium distance/direction system, then stick with the limits of the rules. IMHO.

 

[Vormaerin]

Further if missiles in Traveller are spherical in attack area, why put them in turrets ever? Load time for static tubes would be far simpler than turret and could be automated. Sorry but I feel that allowing a spherical attack area for fixed mount missiles is just a way to get more out of an intentionally limited resource.

Seriously. If fixed mount missiles get rid of the tonnage and power needs, but have no downsides compared to turrets, why in space would you ever use a turret? Heck, you don't even need a gunner because your pilot can off handedly launch your entire missile mount collection with one button push that doesn't take any time or use up an action. And we all know that missile gunners are just glorified loaders. They don't actually have anything to do with targeting.

 

[k0k0pelli]

1. Vagueness is a Traveller trait, which is why there had to be a clause added later as to range for firmpointed missiles.

2. There are probably a dozen ways to find a loophole for fixedly mounted missile racks, if you adhere to rules as written.

3. The most obvious is that a round is six minutes, and you can tilt the hull to get the missile within the firing cone, if not just flipping it.

4. Dogfighting is six seconds, and that would be a multiple segment manoeuvre.

5. If missiles have midcourse correction, they can have immediate correction, and latency won't play a part.

6. Missiles have to make course corrections anyway, on final approach.

7. So one would assume that manoeuvring nozzles would be organic.

8. Why do I have an interest?

9. Fixedly mounted broadside missile barrage, or upgrade to missile/torpedo combo.

It is a little difficult to follow your arguments since you are not communicating in complete thoughts. (true also of your ship design thread but I guess this is just how you think and generally not a problem for comprehension to be honest)

1. It is a traveller trait that rules are vague (and sometimes contradictory) but there is a reason I reference RAW. The rules in this case are not contradictory, but specific. GMs are allowed to vary from the RAW but it is harder to argue the variance as the rule. Given a specific rule that states a specific thing (arc of fire for fixed mounts) I generally feel it should be considered RAW unless some other rule specifically overrides it. Smart does not override arc of fire for fixed weapons.
2. ok, which are... (chase missiles is one I grant)
3. Flipping, firing, and returning to original vector would mean you cannot be thrusting at full Gs during the turn at a minimum but sure it could be done. The rules do not account for such a concept but I would probably make something up. Please see my reference to RAW however.
4. immaterial? or are you saying you could do it at dogfighting ranges? If the latter I am not sure it applies since largely dogfighting ranges abstract a lot about positioning.
5. missiles generally have a cone of attack. They are not autonomous vehicles.
6. see cone of attack comment
7. I do not understand what you mean here
8. no idea.
9 chase rockets would be the easier route if you want to run but you could do broadsides and turn, sure.

also still am curious on this one

2. The reason for a missile pack would be to overwhelm point defence and knock out the opponent.

Is there some rule I am missing that allows fixed point missiles to fire more than one a turn? I can believe such a rule exists (missile rack vs missile pack perhaps?) but cannot find any such. This is genuine curiosity since that makes missile saturation for one shot waves more feasible. As it is "missile boats" are not particularly effective at low tonnage unless you have multiple ships or missile bays.

EDIT: i do see container launchers in the new Traveller companion but 4 missiles would not be a very effective saturation and means if that singe shot did not work you are screwed.

EDIT2; Ah, I see. theoretically you could mount 3 container launchers in one hardpoint for a total of 12 missiles. That would saturate probably but since you just spent about 10% of the value of a free trader with the push of a button (250,000 per missile * 12 = 3MCr) you will likely have some budgetary issues soon. Military and large corporations might be willing to do that though. It would make a good missile boat and if I were theory crafting a way to agressively take out a superior force that would be a way to consider.

 

[Condottiere]

Missile Pack: A way of giving a ship a lot more firepower in the short term, the missile pack is a set of twelve missiles set directly into the hull of a ship. Each missile pack takes up a turret hardpoint and weighs one ton but fires all loaded missiles at once and uses the Gunner (bay) skill. However they can only be reloaded in a starport. The cost of a missile pack is twice the cost of one ton of the loaded missiles.

Trillion Credit Squadron


comment: I suspect it was conceptualized when someone asked why we don't have vertical launching system(s).

 

[k0k0pelli]

Missile Pack: A way of giving a ship a lot more firepower in the short term, the missile pack is a set of twelve missiles set directly into the hull of a ship. Each missile pack takes up a turret hardpoint and weighs one ton but fires all loaded missiles at once and uses the Gunner (bay) skill. However they can only be reloaded in a starport. The cost of a missile pack is twice the cost of one ton of the loaded missiles.

Trillion Credit Squadron


comment: I suspect it was conceptualized when someone asked why we don't have vertical launching system(s).

Ah, thank you. I was not aware the rules for Trillion credit squadron had been updated for the current release. (Searched and found them on mongoose, will purchase later) In any case you can do the same with the container launchers I think.


EDIT: retracting cost argument (thank you Condottiere) though even 20k per missile is not cheap, it is manageable..

 

[Condottiere]

It used to be dirt cheap; I suspect when I mentioned that, inflation struck.

Launch boxes, by whatever label they go by, are probably two missiles per firmpoint, and four per hardpoint, as far as I can collectively recall in the current updated edition.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I vaguely remember a previous post about this.
The updated Central Supply Catalog has a discussion about equipment availability. I normally put all shipscale turret weapons in Category 3 (Paramilitary and higher).

The 80’s series of books about Han Solo frequently had him having to explain why his vessel was overgunned for a merchant. I added that to MTU, and started having Imperial Bureaucracy question any non-military starship with nondefensive weapons (Beam lasers and sandcasters).
As the rules progressed, barbettes, bay weapons and the like became more restricted as well. Pop-up weapons were also restricted.

Because, it isn’t Traveller if you don’t have an active role for a Purser whenever you are in port.