AnotherDilbert said:
You seem to want a completely different system for missiles. You are welcome to design a better system and publish is as house rules.
Until then all we have is the official missile salvo system, where missiles are very dangerous.
I simply pointed out a truism (the missile system is broken). Missiles ARE dangerous, hence there would be a more robust mix of defenses. In reality an enemy whose goal was to destroy their opponent WOULD in fact, attempt to swamp their defenses from long range, and only then attempt to close to finish them off with energy weapons. That's warfare 101. As I stated, it wouldn't be the tactic if you wanted to actually take them intact.
AnotherDilbert said:
There is, Fragmentation missile.
There is, Point Defence Batteries and laser turrets.
There is, Point Defence software.
A fragmentation missile isn't a true counter-missile. Unless they have modified the verbiage from the pre-published HG:
Fragmentation Missile: This missile is designed to target small craft. It explodes shortly before interception, throwing out a wall of high veolcity shrapnel. When fired in mass barrages this dense volley is enough to cripple entire bomber waves and disperse fighter screens. Upon reaching a target, the missile will make attack rolls against that target and up to three others within Adjacent range.
So (a) where does it state in the description it's a counter-missile, and (b) what silly person came up with this idea? This is, after all, space. A "wall" of fragmentation that can take out a bomber wave? Do pilots in space fly in formation only meters from one another? OR would they spread out hundreds of meters from each other, or perhaps even a kilometer from each other to specifically render attacks of this nature useless? I vote for the latter.
A more realistic counter-missile would be built around a 52nd century Standard-like missile. The SM-3 deployed with the USN is a remarkable missile. Land versions would include Patriot, THAAD, and other versions like the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), the Iron Dome by the Isrealis, and that's just naming a few Western versions.
The point defense systems in Traveller aren't analogues of real point defense systems. To hit a tiny object traveling at very high speeds (and an object that can maneuver while it's approaching it's target, thus rendering it an even harder target to hit) you need to throw out a massive amount of solid objects or energy. That implies a very high rate of fire and a weapon system that is specifically designed to handle such a thing. A gatling laser would be best, followed by a gatling rail gun. Using a laser turret that is configured to attack starships is like trying to shoot down a missile with a 5' gun.
Point defense batteries are closer in the idea, though the description precludes them from being installed on smaller craft if you wanted to build a dedicated escort or to provide better defenses for craft where you hope to avoid a fight through speed.
You are trying very hard to defend the status quo, and the point I was making was that the status quo isn't a very good one in as much as it relates back to what we are capable of today at a mere TL8. The idea is that the system has not been refreshed very well in quite some time. There was the silly attempt in Space Stations of the anti-missile net - "football sized drones equipped with a laser system and a gravitic drive", that unfortunately while deployed in a "net" around a station, could only defend against incoming attacks on a 45 degree angle. Which seemed rather odd since Traveller weapon systems have 360 degree capabilities.
The point remains that the missile systems in Traveller remain woefully underpowered and unrealistic. Since Traveller is an RPG with a bolted-on starship combat model it's understandable. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be fixed. They managed to fix the computer systems from being multi-ton behemoths to being integrated into ship and displacing no tonnage. Yet they can't introduce a counter-missile that could be fired in place of a regular missile?? And why would anyone need to house rule common sense?
