Missiles as capital ship weapons.

[barnest2]

I was thinking about this. In a recent thread it was decided that missiles were no good as a ship to ship weapon. However, when you put them into barrage combat, I think they're much more useful.
For a start, a large number of low damage weapons can still get through armour. This is the same with missiles as with beam lasers.
However, the main thing is endurance and quantity. When you fire a torpedo bay, you fire 12 barrage points worth of weaponry, which masses in at 7.5 tons. Compare this too a missile bay. You are firing 12 barrage points worth of weaponry, which masses in at only 1 ton. A ship armed with missiles could last much longer in battle than a torpedo armed ship.

For example, a ship armed with three torpedo bays launches 9 torpedoes per turn, which is 22.5 tons. On a ship with a 100 ton magazine, this ship will be able to fire for only 4.5 turns.
A ship armed with three missile bays launches 36 missiles per turn, which is three tons. On a ship with a 100 ton magazine, this ship will be able to fire for 33 turns, a much longer engagement period.
A missile armed ship could either keep up fire for a longer period, or it could save internal space for other things, such as more weapons, armour, or additional equipment.

Am I wrong? Does anyone see a problem with this?

 

[DFW]

I believe it is correct. Which is another reason I don't use the nutty barrage rules. They are inconsistent with the rest of the system.

 

[apoc527]

Against decent armor, missiles will have little chance of causing damage. Especially since most anti-cap ship torps will be bomb-pumped lasers. So a 100-ton torpedo bay will launch 6 of those 6d6 torps for 36 barrage damage. A 100-ton missile bay launches 24 missiles for 1d6 each.

Those 1d6 missiles will bounce off any ship with more than about 8 armor. The torps will cause damage against even 15 armor on a good roll.

 

[barnest2]

Aye, but the armour isn't a big deal in barrage combat, it's equally effective against both torps and missiles. And if you're going to be using bomb pumped lasers, why not nuclear missiles. 24 missiles there fore do 48 barrage damage.

 

[apoc527]

Well I'm assuming nuclear dampers, which don't affect bomb-pumped laserheads.

As for the armor, it most certainly is more effective against the missiles. For any given Armor Rating, the missile has a -5 DM vs the torpedo (laserhead).

If armor = 8, then it's a -7 DM against a missile barrage, but only a -2 DM vs laserhead torpedo barrage.

Against higher armor, it will mean the difference between damage and no damage.

 

[barnest2]

Hmm. I think I have been using the barrage rules slightly differently. That or I've gone slightly insane. Oh well.

 

[apoc527]

Well, regardless, it's not your fault! The barrage rules are useful (IMO), but you have to completely ignore the only example they give.

The easiest way to remember how to use them right is to always do the following calculation to get the "base armor DM" against any given weapon:

Individual Weapon Damage (IWD) - Armor = Base Armor DM

The key thing is to keep the sign as if it were a totally normal 4th grade math problem (or whenever they teach negative numbers these days).

Thus, the IWD for a missile is 1 and the IWD for a bomb-pumped (or laserhead) torpedo is 6. So, those torpedoes will always have a +5 DM advantage on the barrage table vs the missiles.

Here's a few examples:

Assume the following is true for all examples:

+1 Crew Skill
+4 Fire Control
+0 Range
No Dodge DM
No Point Defense (just because it makes it clearer)

The 2d6 roll = 7 (because it's average)

Weapons are a heavy torpedo bay and a heavy missile bay. Torpedos are bomb-pumped laserheads and missiles are standard.

24 Missiles (IWD = 1) vs. Armor 5
Base Armor DM = 1-5 = -4
Total Positive DMs = +5 (from above assumptions)
Dice Roll = 7 -4 +5 = 8 (125% damage on 24 Die Barrage = 30 Damage)

6 Laserhead Torps (IWD = 6) vs. Armor 5
Base Armor DM = 6-5 = +1
Total Positive DMs = +5 (from above assumptions)
Dice Roll = 7 +1 +5 = 13 (250% damage on 36 die barrage = 90 damage)

The advantage is obvious vs. a weakly armored ship.

Now, let's go the other direction.

24 Missiles (IWD = 1) vs. Armor 12
Base Armor DM = 1-12 = -11
Total Positive DMs = +5 (from above assumptions)
Dice Roll = 7 -11 +5 = 1 (0% damage on 24 Die Barrage = 0 Damage)

6 Laserhead Torps (IWD = 6) vs. Armor 12
Base Armor DM = 6-12 = -6
Total Positive DMs = +5 (from above assumptions)
Dice Roll = 7 -6 +5 = 6 (75% damage on 36 die barrage = 27 damage)

The situation favors the bomb-pumped torpedos even more when you take into account the defensive DMs from point defense. The missiles would be shot down in droves, while the torpedoes penalize defensive DMs by -4 (-2 vs. lasers and -2 vs. sand).

Make sense?

 

[DFW]

Thus, the IWD for a missile is 1 and the IWD for a bomb-pumped (or laserhead) torpedo is 6. So, those torpedoes will always have a +5 DM advantage on the barrage table vs the missiles.

What about a "Basic" Torp?

 

[apoc527]

The basic 4d6 torps aren't nearly as great at killing large ships. Plus, they don't get the advantage vs. point defense.

IMO, if you are going to use torpedo bays, bomb-pumped laserheads are the only way to go.

Think of it this way: for a 100-ton bay, you get SIX 6d6 attacks. For the same tonnage and hardpoint with an energy weapon, you could get a single 9d6 attack.

Of course, meson weapons are probably better, but they kind of irritate me (canon or not).

 

[DFW]

The basic 4d6 torps aren't nearly as great at killing large ships. Plus, they don't get the advantage vs. point defense.

So, are they better than the much smaller/lighter missiles in the barrage?

 

[apoc527]

Yes, but only by a +3 DM. The difference won't be as dramatic due to that and the lesser Barrage Strength. But against lightly armored ships, they will be more than sufficient.

 

[DFW]

Yes, but only by a +3 DM. The difference won't be as dramatic due to that and the lesser Barrage Strength. But against lightly armored ships, they will be more than sufficient.

Okay. Makes sense within the barrage rules. Not that the barrage rules alone, make sense.

 

[barnest2]

i still maintain my endurance thing If you're not coming up against massively armoured ships, then you can carry many more missiles than torps...

Hmm, maybe missiles are better for mercs and customs patrols?

 

[DFW]

i still maintain my endurance thing If you're not coming up against massively armoured ships, then you can carry many more missiles than torps...

Hmm, maybe missiles are better for mercs and customs patrols?

After figuring out the basic tenets of the barrage rules, I threw them out as they aren't logical.

 

[barnest2]

After figuring out the basic tenets of the barrage rules, I threw them out as they aren't logical.

So what would you suggest using for large cap ship combat. This is key to my pbp

 

[DFW]

After figuring out the basic tenets of the barrage rules, I threw them out as they aren't logical.

So what would you suggest using for large cap ship combat. This is key to my pbp

There is no need to use anything other than weapon damage, unmodified by addition. Otherwise, you would be having triple turrets in small ship combat acting as "barrage attacks". MGT just added this illogical "accelerator" to speed up combat. In reality, if you pound on an Iowa class BB with 2 & 4 inch guns, you're in for a LONG fight. As it should be.

 

[barnest2]

So you want me to roll every attack and the damage for every attack on a 9000 ton ship?
The problem with that is that the sub capital ship damage table gives a huge number of non hull hits. You will end up having two disabled hulls with little internal damage before anything else happens...

 

[DFW]

The problem with that is that the sub capital ship damage table gives a huge number of non hull hits. You will end up having two disabled hulls with little internal damage before anything else happens...

Well, that's what would happen in reality.

You asked.

That's why there are meson weapons and radiation weapons...

 

[barnest2]

Well, that's what would happen in reality.

You asked.

That's why there are meson weapons and radiation weapons...

I disagree. A lot of the external hull of a ship are not filled with stuff, so most hits will be hacking into hull rather than stuff like bays and sensors.

 

[DFW]

I disagree. A lot of the external hull of a ship are not filled with stuff, so most hits will be hacking into hull rather than stuff like bays and sensors.

I see what you mean now. I agree. The tables need to reflect the reality you point out.