Missile Flight Times & Thrust - January Update

[Nerhesi]

Matt - We need to be really careful with this. As it stands now, Thrust 12 and 15 missiles cannot be jammed at all unless launched from very long. I think that is a little over-compensating on our part for missile thrust... I think we should keep missiles to "jammable beyond Medium Range".

Perhaps, at ranges above Medium, the chart just bottom out at "1" - so there is always 1 jamming turn if the missile is launched at Long and above. Yes if a target is stationary then it doesn't make sense, but even a target spending all it's thrust evading, and zero moving, is going to cause a significant delta in a missiles flight pattern.

At the moment though, allowing missiles to ignore EW from Long range is a bit too good in my honest opinion. Thoughts?

 

[PsiTraveller]

Given that Reaction Drives of thrusters can make ships that will cross that range in a round possible, why not missiles?

It does address the very long range energy tactic. Missiles CAN reach and do damage at that range.

 

[Nerhesi]

Given that Reaction Drives of thrusters can make ships that will cross that range in a round possible, why not missiles?

Because Missiles inherently have a much much much better damage / ton / hardpoint ratio. This is traditionally balanced by PD and EW. So... not anymore by EW really

It does address the very long range energy tactic. Missiles CAN reach and do damage at that range.

And that is great - but should we somehow be saying that if a missile is going to take less than 7 minutes to reach you, then you can't jam/ew at all in those 7 minutes? This would be much less of a problem if EW wasn't done at the END of the round, therefore after the launched missiles hit. Or perhaps, if we check for missile hits at the END of the round after EW..

 

[PsiTraveller]

my group has a saying "phases "insert name", Phases!" when somebody jumps ahead of a sequence.
Generally it is for board games, but applies to space combat here as well. The attack sequence before the Actions phase does chop out a last EW attempt and put everything on the PD of the ship. This prevents the scenario of EW and then PD taking out the last of the missiles in a combined operation.

You could always houserule a last ditch PDEW roll in the PD phase to try and get a few more missiles. You could give the attempt a higher difficulty or a lowered Effect for the roll, then proceed to the PD roll.

 

[Nerhesi]

my group has a saying "phases "insert name", Phases!" when somebody jumps ahead of a sequence.
Generally it is for board games, but applies to space combat here as well. The attack sequence before the Actions phase does chop out a last EW attempt and put everything on the PD of the ship. This prevents the scenario of EW and then PD taking out the last of the missiles in a combined operation.

You could always houserule a last ditch PDEW roll in the PD phase to try and get a few more missiles. You could give the attempt a higher difficulty or a lowered Effect for the roll, then proceed to the PD roll.

Could definitely do that. But I think our mission is, if it's gonna be something regularly house-ruled, we should try to make it easier for the Refs/GMs and make it part of the base rules This definitely qualifies as one!

 

[phavoc]

I would say, unless the missile launching ship is close or adjacent in launching their missile salvo, a defender always has ONE opportunity to use EW against missile and to use PD against them. That way it's quite clear and covers any possible missile speed.

I'm with Nerhesi here - stuff like this should NOT have to be house-ruled. That opens up a Pandora's box, and also if tons of things are gonna be a house rule, why the hell is anyone buying the new ruleset?

If they ever get to the idea of rockets though (essentially unguided, short-range missiles), there would be no PD OR EW. It's a swing (8+, no DMs OFF or DEF and a hit/miss. A concept from Starfire I always liked. IF you could get close enough to an opponent, a big enough fighter squadron could savage even the largest of super-dreadnoughts. The problem was always surviving long enough...

 

[Chas]

I agree that you do not want basic precepts wanting to be house ruled. One suggestion is that you have something equivalent to the readied action in D&D. The sensor operator declares on their turn that they are ready/on stand-by to jam any incoming missiles - that way the sensor operator doesn't end up doing an unrealistic gazillon things in a turn. But allowing one default attempt to jam wouldn't be the end of the world. I'm personally not too fussed if EW against missiles takes a hit either though.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I am not sure if this is needed...

First off, this is one advantage that faster and more advanced missiles have.

Second, you are paying for those faster and advanced missiles. And we could make you pay more (there comes a point where maybe you can blat every defending ship in a system, but if doing that costs three times more than the entire GDP of said system, it may not be worth it...).

Third, EW is not a simple thing. First, you have to know missiles are coming your way. Then make sure they are not just a cluster of asteroids. Then find the make and model of the guidance systems. Then hack those systems. Then counter for the latest software patch that was added to them. Then tell the missiles to sod off away from your ship. Possibly while the automated adjustment software from the attacking ship is still sending signals to them.

All of that (especially the first point) may well be more than six minutes work...

However, thinking this through... Suppose you had a super-advanced computer running automated EW software. It might not be especially good, but it would be fast, allowing instant jamming as soon as missiles were launched. It might not even get confused by friendly launches (well, not very often).

Something for the Ship's Computer chapter?

 

[Nerhesi]

I am not sure if this is needed...

First off, this is one advantage that faster and more advanced missiles have.

Second, you are paying for those faster and advanced missiles. And we could make you pay more (there comes a point where maybe you can blat every defending ship in a system, but if doing that costs three times more than the entire GDP of said system, it may not be worth it...).

Third, EW is not a simple thing. First, you have to know missiles are coming your way. Then make sure they are not just a cluster of asteroids. Then find the make and model of the guidance systems. Then hack those systems. Then counter for the latest software patch that was added to them. Then tell the missiles to sod off away from your ship. Possibly while the automated adjustment software from the attacking ship is still sending signals to them.

All of that (especially the first point) may well be more than six minutes work...

However, thinking this through... Suppose you had a super-advanced computer running automated EW software. It might not be especially good, but it would be fast, allowing instant jamming as soon as missiles were launched. It might not even get confused by friendly launches (well, not very often).

Something for the Ship's Computer chapter?

I think that would be a good piece of the EW software for the ships computer. Remember Matt, this is SEVEN (7 minutes), at medium/long range, in which you know if someone has passed gas inside the ships bathroom or not (especially with some basic enhancements to your sensors). You're definitely going to know exactly how many missile turrets and bays there are, and when they're deciding to wink at you

So yeah, something in the software about it allowing the operator at least 1 EW roll per salvo regardless of range

 

[MongooseMatt]

What about this:

Broad Spectrum EW: While a software package cannot match a skilled sentient electronics warfare officer, computers can act much faster, disrupting entire salvoes in the time it takes an operator to simply notice a launch. The Broad Spectrum EW package continuously scans for hostile missile launches and automatically sends disruptive signals known to interfere with the guidance systems of all common missiles. A single electronic warfare action with DM+0 (no positive modifiers may be applied to this action) is automatically performed against any and all enemy salvoes launched within Long range.

 

[arcador]

I like it. Perhaps it should take a lot of processor or should have some limitation, otherwise every bigger ship will run it. But I like it

 

[Nerhesi]

I like it Matt if we can have it take into account all mods except the biggest/human one, the operator. So no int+sensors bonus on that

This is for the exact same reason you mentioned.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Remember, only positive mods are ignored - it really is just performing quick and dirty operations based on best known counters.

 

[phavoc]

What about this:

Broad Spectrum EW: While a software package cannot match a skilled sentient electronics warfare officer, computers can act much faster, disrupting entire salvoes in the time it takes an operator to simply notice a launch. The Broad Spectrum EW package continuously scans for hostile missile launches and automatically sends disruptive signals known to interfere with the guidance systems of all common missiles. A single electronic warfare action with DM+0 (no positive modifiers may be applied to this action) is automatically performed against any and all enemy salvoes launched within Long range.

EW comes in two paths here. The first is that the human operator looks for patterns and such being done by the opposing operator. In the world of electronic warfare, the more time you have observing the enemies EW, the BETTER your counter to it is going to be.

And that's where the computers come in. They will be looking for patterns in the opposition and once they can find the pattern they will be able to mostly counter it and then their defenses pretty much evaporate. So humans are the creative side, able to make leaps in logic that computers are incapable of. Computers do all the number crunching and grunt work and let the human figure out patterns it cannot.

EW attempts to send out false signals that lure seekers away, or make the seeker think it's lost it's target. There's also an inverse relationship here. The "smarter" your seeker, and the "smarter" your defenses, the more likely that a "dumb" seeker will not be lured away because your jamming systems aren't working on it's lower level. In space, at the ranges being done, missiles have to either use their own seekers (which is where the superiority of the jamming ship comes into play - far more power and capability than any single missile) or they have to be command-guided to getting close to their target, which they will then turn their own seekers on. The latter works well, but the comm signal must be kept or the missiles would go into self-seeking mode. A default mode would be to engage simple IFF and they will attack any target that does not have the proper code being transmitted. Potentially dangerous with damaged ships around, but hey, that's war, right?

I don't recall if their are HARM-equivalent missiles out there, but that would be a potential warhead and it would specifically seek out EW emitters. A nice way to minimize that pesky EW defense.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Yup, brilliant idea - just put HARMs in (made them torps though, to give people a real choice - get hit by missiles or get hit by a massive torpedo...).

 

[phavoc]

Yup, brilliant idea - just put HARMs in (made them torps though, to give people a real choice - get hit by missiles or get hit by a massive torpedo...).

I would suspect a capital ship has multiple sets of emitters, so how are you proposing to handle the damage? Blow up one, and the others take over. So do the missiles do permanent or temporary reductions in EW capability? I could see one, or both even. Today a radar site uses multiple emitters as well raising/lowering and moving to keep HARMS from simply homing in on their last known location. A HARM missile could do the same, but a ship would have to roll to bring the emitter away from the incoming attack. Otherwise, like the real world, simply turning it off means the missile just heads to the last known location. Changing the attitude, however, while making the missile essentially 'miss', also means you can't use the emitter.

So the question becomes do HARM torpedo attacks remove EW for the same turn, or the next turn? And can you get sensor hits with them that degrade the overall ability (which should factor into ANY sensor needs for OFF/DEF)? If the latter, then you will have to have like a sensor 'track' for every ship. After so many hits it's effectively blind until it makes repairs. You could give higher level sensors more boxes on the track to reflect their higher cost, but also higher resiliency.

I do hope we get some capital ship sheets that allow us to keep track of the OFF/DEF DMs's, energy, etc. Will be very helpful for fleet combats.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Can make it far simpler, and force the choice onto the target.

The AR torp only gets to attack if the target performed EW in the current turn or last - but it does so with DM+6. If the target shuts down its EW, the torp automatically misses.

So, as an attacker, you make sure your AR Torp (however many of them) gets to the target at the same time as your missiles. The target either gets peppered by multiple missile warheads or a few massive torps.

 

[phavoc]

Can make it far simpler, and force the choice onto the target.

The AR torp only gets to attack if the target performed EW in the current turn or last - but it does so with DM+6. If the target shuts down its EW, the torp automatically misses.

So, as an attacker, you make sure your AR Torp (however many of them) gets to the target at the same time as your missiles. The target either gets peppered by multiple missile warheads or a few massive torps.

That pretty much guarantees mixed salvoes, with anti-radiation (AR) torps being mixed in with other types of warheads. That would be the default tactic to force the defender to choose. The price of the AR torps needs to reflect their massive bonus.

The other question becomes - who gets to choose which missiles are removed from a mixed salvo? Or for example, a player launches 9 torpedoes, 3 are AR, 3 are standard, and 3 are nuclear. Would that count as a single salvo, or 3 individual ones?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Yeah, I have high-balled the price of AR toprs, but they may need to go higher. Or get moved to the High Tech chapter.

Mixed salvoes: Remember, no such thing. Separate types get split into separate salvoes.

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, I have high-balled the price of AR toprs, but they may need to go higher. Or get moved to the High Tech chapter.

Mixed salvoes: Remember, no such thing. Separate types get split into separate salvoes.

Yeah, I wasn't sure. So in this case a player would try to keep a salvo of 9 AR torps, with maybe a standard mix following behind them to see if he'll keep his EW down just in case the next batch is AR, too.