Missile Launch rate... revisit?

[Nerhesi]

Last playtest session my group and I were wondering why would anyone purchase Torps now?

In MGT1 Torpedoes did double or triple the damage of missiles.
Missiles in some cases could not even breach armour - at all. no hope.
Missile launch rate was 1/x/12/24 vs torpedo no torpedo x/1/3/6. X indicating that there was no missile barbette or torpedo turret.
Significantly more missiles per ton can be stored vs torpedoes


In MGT2 Torpedoes do approximately 50% more damage than missiles.
Missiles are significantly faster than torpedoes.
Both can easily breach armour. Torpedoes having an easier time ofcourse.
Missile launch rate remains 1/5/12/24/120 vs torpedo x/1/3/6/30
Significantly more missiles per ton can be stored vs torpedoes
Missiles are Significantly faster!

By our calculations *snort snort*, there is no reason to buy torpedoes! Even if you wanted the higher armour penetration, you're getting only 50% more damage per hit but at 4 times the launch rate. Thats around 150% efficiency by the way for damage per round. Not taking into account speed as well!

Possible simple fix: DONT TOUCH DAMAGE! Just reduce missile launch ratr. From 1/5/12/24/120 to 1/3/6/12/60

At least then this make torpedoes a viable choice... more damage per hit, but not the cost of being completely inferior.

 

[phavoc]

Wouldn't it be better to increase torpedo launch rates? Or increase their damage? Or increase their speed?

Missiles should have a higher launch rate, but I don't see that happening. So lowering their ROF isn't a good fix.

Good breakdown on the differences though.

 

[Chas]

Missiles can easily breach armor? I was concerned about the nuclear missile with this regard especially in the previous iteration of 7d. But at 4d you're getting a major chunk of that damage eaten out by armor, no?

 

[Nerhesi]

I definitely dont think we need to increase damage on anything at this point, it's already a massive figure compared to armour.

With max armour being 15 (OTU) and missiles doing 4d6+effect, you're correct in that a massive chunk will be ignore by the armour. If we can do damage comparisson to 15 armour.

Lets assume a modest Effect of 3.
A missile doing 4d6+3 damage is 17 on average. Resulting in 2 damage per missile.
A torpedo doing 6d6+3 damage is 24 on average. Resulting in 9 damage per torpedo.

Nuclear comparison is more in the favour of missiles of course, doing 9 damage per missile and 16 damage per torpedo.

Small bay regular payload average damage against 15 armour (12 Missiles vs 3 Torpedos) = 24 vs 27 damage
Med bay regular payload average damage against 15 armour (24 Missiles vs 6 Torpedos) = 48 vs 54 damage

Small bay Nuclear payload average damage against 15 armour (12 Missiles vs 3 Torpedos) = 108 vs 48 damage
Med bay Nuclear payload average damage against 15 armour (24 Missiles vs 6 Torpedos) = 216 vs 96 damage

Missile advantages:
Speed
Less damage drop off vs point defense (# of missiles)
Less dodgeable (# of missiles)
This was an analysis for 15 armour... This is definitely in favour of torpedoes here. The lower the armour, the better the missiles are too.

Torpedo advantage (not really):
Possible "harder" crits - I say not really, because crits are a thing of the past now. Why care about crits when you're flat out destroying your target twice as fast.


Recommendations:
Definitely bring Torpedo speed up to Missile speed.
Reduce launch rate on the bays

 

[Chas]

That could still do with some further consideration I think Nerhesi.

Right now there's confusion about missile and torp speeds, as printed for High Guard, they're currently the same.

The standard torp is made redundant very quickly when torp multi-warheads or plasma's kick in. I suspect it's a typo where they've put in 8d for the multi-warhead but have used it anyway in my general builds (and thus have kept torps rather than missiles in big bays in my ship designs :wink: ).

The multi-warheaded torpedo's 8d pushes its average damage in the scenario above to 16/war head. When then gets multiplied by 3.5 hits. The -1 thrust not critical in the bigger picture. Which then shifts the whole picture well to the torpedo's advantage even above nuclear missiles.

As noted that TL12 20k ton frigate with 7 large bays of torpedoes is a nasty customer.

 

[Nerhesi]

Agreed - there are still elements to visit before rendering judgement on missile launch rate. However, even as the outstanding items will make either missiles, or missiles and torps better - this issue will on become larger.

Also, while Plasma torps are great, with an average damage of 45 (+3 effect) per torpedo, 33 after armour; consider the actual numbers:

Med bay NUCLEAR MISSILE vs PLASMA TORP payload average damage against 15 armour (24 Missiles vs 6 Torpedos) = 216 vs 198 damage. Again - this is your best case scenario - the more armour you drop below 15, the more the missiles shine.

Even plasma torps are inferior to nuclear missiles in every way - even cost. The launcher is more expensive, but the payload is almost 50% more expensive per volley!

I think we can wait on this till we figure out missile speed and so on, but at the moment, it seems like missile launchers with Nuclear missiles for the big win!

 

[Chas]

Plasma's are AP10 so that's actually average 40/hit = 240pts a salvo, but regardless missiles have the big edge vs point defenses.

Hope to see
nuclear missiles getting bashed by screens
the torp mult warhead to drop to 6d
something happen to thrust ?!

 

[Nerhesi]

Plasma's are AP10 so that's actually average 40/hit = 240pts a salvo, but regardless missiles have the big edge vs point defenses.

Hope to see
nuclear missiles getting bashed by screens
the torp mult warhead to drop to 6d
something happen to thrust ?!

Took the AP into account, at 3.5 per die, +10 AP, so 45 - 15 armour, +3 effect, is 33 per hit ;P

You're absolutely right about screens. Looking forward to how they would work in "barrage" modes to be able to address massive volleys and such

 

[ErinPalette]

Just spitballing here, but what if we gave torpedoes the "resilient" feature and they needed to be hit twice by point defense (or X amount of damage) before being destroyed?

I'm not saying it would fix everything, but it's an additional patch that could help balance torpedoes.

 

[Nerhesi]

Resilient is an option, but hit twice wouldn't make much sense Erin because you really should be translating that requires any-more than "1 hit" to how much discrete damage it will take? two bay hits? way too much.

So maybe it would be take X damage - but then damage is linked to hull.... and torpedos are 3 per ton, so really, they also have like 1 hull point, or a fraction.

Maybe... and I'm glad you got me thinking down that avenue, maybe just giving them an armour value? like a 10 or an 8 or what not.

Anyways.. these are possible options and all of them have their impacts and pros and cons..

 

[MongooseMatt]

Just spitballing here, but what if we gave torpedoes the "resilient" feature and they needed to be hit twice by point defense (or X amount of damage) before being destroyed?

Erin, you are a mind reader That was _exactly_ what I was thinking (not the hitting twice part, we need something smoother and without book-keeping - I am thinking a 'save', as combat is the last place we want to slow things down).

How about this:


Torpedoes are much larger and more resilient than missiles, and some are even armoured, allowing them to punch through point defences to reach their targets.

A torpedo that faces successful point defence will ignore it on a 1D roll of 5+. Any torpedo can be armoured by increasing its cost by +20%. Armoured torpedoes will ignore point defence on a 1D roll of 3+.

 

[wbnc]

Just spitballing here, but what if we gave torpedoes the "resilient" feature and they needed to be hit twice by point defense (or X amount of damage) before being destroyed?

Erin, you are a mind reader That was _exactly_ what I was thinking (not the hitting twice part, we need something smoother and without book-keeping - I am thinking a 'save', as combat is the last place we want to slow things down).

How about this:


Torpedoes are much larger and more resilient than missiles, and some are even armoured, allowing them to punch through point defences to reach their targets.

A torpedo that faces successful point defence will ignore it on a 1D roll of 5+. Any torpedo can be armoured by increasing its cost by +20%. Armoured torpedoes will ignore point defence on a 1D roll of 3+.

that would be a good add...if you were willing to pay for the upgrade a heavily reinforced torp would be a natural evolution of the weapon.

a 50/50 cance of surviving the first hit wouldn't cause much of a balance issue. Also, it would give people another reason load out torps over missiles.

 

[Nerhesi]

Hold up gents. You now have Torpedos ignoring hits by triple pulse laser turrets and so on.. and technically, even if they're hit by a particle bay they'd shrug off hits...

So your torpedos are suddenly tougher than small craft that are 20 times the size.
Also - this will play hell with multiple torpedos. Tons of "saves"... so doesn't scale well.
Also what about capital damage system? 1000 torpedos? We going to do Saves by the dozens? hundreds?

Great - idea, just needs to be implemented in another way. Rather than having saves, and requiring other rolls, I think we can stick with Erin's initial idea with a minor caveat:

Torpedos require a second hit from point defense to be destroyed; unless they're hit by a Double Pulse Laser turret or larger.

 

[wbnc]

Hold up gents. You now have Torpedos ignoring hits by triple pulse laser turrets and so on.. and technically, even if they're hit by a particle bay they'd shrug off hits...

So your torpedos are suddenly tougher than small craft that are 20 times the size.
Also - this will play hell with multiple torpedos. Tons of "saves"... so doesn't scale well.
Also what about capital damage system? 1000 torpedos? We going to do Saves by the dozens? hundreds?

Great - idea, just needs to be implemented in another way. Rather than having saves, and requiring other rolls, I think we can stick with Erin's initial idea with a minor caveat:

Torpedos require a second hit from point defense to be destroyed; unless they're hit by a Double Pulse Laser turret or larger.

I'd have to wait and see how they are handling massed fire for missiles and torpedoes.

If the weapon is layered with armor and reflec/ablative..yeah a small target could stand a chance of shrugging off a single hit...then the protection is burnt away and the torp is vulnerable.

It's not exactly escaping without a scratch, it's armored/reinforced casing is now wrecked...and it's goign to come apart like a grape under a sledge hammer next hit.

and if I remember right bay weapons are not used in point defense...so your down to beam and pulse lasers..the lightest starship weapons available.

 

[Nerhesi]

If the weapon is layered with armor and reflec/ablative..yeah a small target could stand a chance of shrugging off a single hit...then the protection is burnt away and the torp is vulnerable.

It's not exactly escaping without a scratch, it's armored/reinforced casing is now wrecked...and it's goign to come apart like a grape under a sledge hammer next hit.

Yup - exactly right. You may be able to shrug off that one light hit, but then you're toast. 3+ or 5+ save is equivalent to having a black-globe generator on your torpedo though.

and if I remember right bay weapons are not used in point defense...so your down to beam and pulse lasers..the lightest starship weapons available.

Correct - but I take this as "thats what people use" not "you simply can't aim your weapon at that" Hrm... They're all near-luminal weapons.. it is just TERRIBLY inefficient to use that 50/100 ton bay to try to blast apart a torpedo right. Because the torp/missile doesn't move any faster or dodge any better than that fighter you're shooting with a bay..

 

[arcador]

Can't we simply simulate this by making the normal torpedo target number for point defence check as 9 and the armoured torpedo 10? (or similar numbers)

This way we save one extra roll and also account for linked beams?

 

[wbnc]

If the weapon is layered with armor and reflec/ablative..yeah a small target could stand a chance of shrugging off a single hit...then the protection is burnt away and the torp is vulnerable.

It's not exactly escaping without a scratch, it's armored/reinforced casing is now wrecked...and it's goign to come apart like a grape under a sledge hammer next hit.

Yup - exactly right. You may be able to shrug off that one light hit, but then you're toast. 3+ or 5+ save is equivalent to having a black-globe generator on your torpedo though.

and if I remember right bay weapons are not used in point defense...so your down to beam and pulse lasers..the lightest starship weapons available.

Correct - but I take this as "thats what people use" not "you simply can't aim your weapon at that" Hrm... They're all near-luminal weapons.. it is just TERRIBLY inefficient to use that 50/100 ton bay to try to blast apart a torpedo right. Because the torp/missile doesn't move any faster or dodge any better than that fighter you're shooting with a bay..

The multiple beams would tear it apart..only if they can get all of their energy on the target.You are not shooting at the side of a house..you are shooting at a telephone pole..getting multiple beams on target would require incredible precision giving how fast the torp is, and how small it is

I did the math on the actual velocity of missiles and torps once..based on how long it takes to travel fro distant range band to impact.
The rate of change means that a nanosecond miscalculation moves the entire body of a missile or torp out of the target zone....if it changes course or velocity during the lag between the fire order and triggering of the laser it moves out of the target zone.

And the target itself is less than a meter across... remember you are firing at the business end of the torp...not it's side...so you have a very small cross section to hit with multiple beams/pulses. If the designer wanted to he could probably get away with only armoring the front quarter of the Torp. Which means he can layer that armor on much thicker than on a fighter or starship.

it's fairly common now to build bombs/projectiles, that can stand up to supersonic, impacts to penetrate several meters of solid earth, and concrete. that is several mega joules of energy all by itself.


As for using bays as a point defense weapon

It is not a problem due to the lack of computing and tracking ability of the weapon system.Any starship system has that in spades. It's the microscopic level of control you have to have over the beam itself. and the difficulty of coordinating multiple individual weapons to that level of accuracy.

Trying to coordinate multiple weapons to track, and engage a target less than a meter across capable of pulling gees that would rip a starship apart.... it's like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. ( or shooting skeet with 120mm) Its not what bays are meant for they are meant to hit large targets, with far less acceleration capability.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Kinda like sniping womp rats in beggar's canyon...

 

[Chas]

Can't we simply simulate this by making the normal torpedo target number for point defence check as 9 and the armoured torpedo 10? (or similar numbers)

This way we save one extra roll and also account for linked beams?

The multi-war head torpedo already has a -2 on the DM for point defense. And this is likely the go to weapon of choice in many instances as is. So we'd need to be careful not to over do this so they become nigh unstoppable.

 

[Nerhesi]

Eh - and 8 is trivial, so is a 10 really.

You're adding skill, + characteristic, + implants... and unlike other shooting, you have NO negative modifiers

None. No range. No evade software. No dodge.

I'd be all for simply making Torpedos need a 10+ not an 8+. Way simpler than adding in more rules.