One of the most common misconceptions in 2300 is that it ever uses the regular missile rules. It does not since 2300 does not have missiles. Now here were a lot of people get confused single shot bomb pumped drones are commonly called missiles “Combat Drones: Combat drones are armed drones, either with multi-shot lasers or powerful bomb-pumped detonation lasers. The variety with multi-shot lasers are often called drone fighters and are intended to use reused multiple times. The variety loaded with detonation lasers are sometimes called ‘missiles’, especially in American service, but are usually just called combat drones, or sometimes bomb drones.” [Pg 48 book 3 ] but are not. ‘Missiles’ in 2300 are controlled and are not the fire and forget that ‘Missiles’ in core Traveller are and do not use the same rules. This causes much confusion since 2300 Missiles are controlled by their controllers and are both better at hitting their target as well as avoiding being hit. This is also why Bomb pumped lasers have a -2 to hit at close range but none at adjacent (most drones weapons have a range of adjacent which is one of the reasons that point defense in 2300 is so common). The fact is 2300 uses entirely different ship design and combat rules, yes you need the Traveller core for things like Character Generation, Skill use, And other basic game mechanics but completely ignore (other than the few direct references) The CRB and HG for 2300 ship design and combat. Actually the more useful supplement for 2300 currently is the Robots Handbook.
Missiles in 2300
- Thread starter tytalan
- Start date
Stutterwarp drives also make for different combat concepts. Technically there would be nothing wrong with having standard missiles with seeking warheads and targeting parameters installed. The controlled missile does give it more capabilities since it gets to use the guiding ships sensors and crew to think for it.
You can creat a Stutterwarp drone/missile with a computer controlling it so it’s self guided but the cost is prohibitive “ Drones are fitted with remote-control systems, operated by a human pilot on a carrier. Some drones can be fitted with more sophisticated automated systems, requiring the installation of a more advanced computer. This computer consumes 0.05 tons and is double the cost of the computers listed on page 26. An autonomous drone requires Robotic Control software (page 29) in conjunction with a suitable computer. Unlike in a ship, the drone’s computer just runs Robotic Control, not Manoeuvre, Stutterwarp Control or Intellect.” Pg 133 AEH. Drones are already costly especially bomb pump laser drones.
The combat environment is so different in 2300. Between range adjustments, ECM potential effects on the battlefield (breaking target lock, interference with Drones and gunnery to name a few) you can easily see why most combat is fault either close range or adjacent.
Bryn the 2300AD guy
Cosmic Mongoose
Drones are missiles. See the other thread.
Was sort of possible in GDW, since robot weapons did exist. They just had a -3 to hit penalty. However, most missiles were deployed as a screen around their mothership. Long-range attacks against well defended targets were largely pointless, but highly effective if commerce raiding.
The best use of missiles I found was in close combat, where you forced the enemy to either switch to defensive fire, giving you a free round of laser fire, or their lasers were still aimed at you, and not available for anti-missile defence.
Was sort of possible in GDW, since robot weapons did exist. They just had a -3 to hit penalty. However, most missiles were deployed as a screen around their mothership. Long-range attacks against well defended targets were largely pointless, but highly effective if commerce raiding.
The best use of missiles I found was in close combat, where you forced the enemy to either switch to defensive fire, giving you a free round of laser fire, or their lasers were still aimed at you, and not available for anti-missile defence.
I was talking about stutterwarp in general (not about the missiles having stutterwarp). Technically there is no reason why 2300AD missiles cannot have the onboard type controls that missiles of today have. By technically I mean making the weapon smart enough to guide and target itself.
Where operator controlled (or ship-guided) weapons have an issue is distance from the controller. Since all sensors and controls are light-speed weapons, you have the time it takes for the sensor change to arrive at the receiving ship, for the ship/operator to react, and then to send the signal back to the target. This, of course, assumes that your signals are clear enough and not spoofed. In space missing by a millimeter or a mile is the same - it's still a miss.
Yes, I don't disagree. If I recall correctly, there were some drone missile carriers in 2300? It's been a while since I've taken a look at the Kennedy-class US cruiser. Didn't they have their drone 'bus' that would be remotely deployed, and the drone itself was the missile launcher?
The issue of using your main armament in anti-missile role has always been a bit of a head scratcher to me. We obviously see this from WW2, where some destroyers and light cruisers had their main guns capable of engaging aircraft (and some were quite effective at it, such as the US Atlanta class with their 6 dual 5" rapid-firing turrets). However that does come at a price. While we don't have actual lasers to draw upon, we can see from the gun-equipped ships lineage that dual-type weapons gave them flexibility but also cost them in potential range and engagement against ships rather than aircraft. Tin cans weren't armored to begin with, however a light cruiser with 5" guns would be out-ranged by a light cruiser with 6" guns (which was a typical caliber size for light units).
WW2 ships mounted .50 cal, 20mm and 40mm guns for dedicated point-defense. Today you see that in 20mm CIWS (US ships), the AK-630 (Russian), and newer variants that do a combined gun/missile combo (like Russian Pantsir).
Obviously you have to consider the limited space a warship has available and whether or not you want a purely offensive armament in place of purely defensive, or whether or not you go with a dual-purpose weapon. Naval architects have to make those decisions in every design. What we don't have for these types of games is any actual info on which works best in combat. There are LOTS of paper designs that have failed miserably when put to the test. Recall the French Surcouf design with a dual 8" gun turret aft of the tower. She was an experiment that was never repeated. She never saw combat, and there were operating limitations to her as well. On paper she seemed an interesting adversary though.
Yea but until you get pass short range (which is your primary combat range any longer and it’s to easy to avoid engaging) your talking about 1 second delay both ways I doubt that it’s a long enough delay to effect combat. I really think one of the problems is carry over from earlier editions is the reliance on Missile/Drones over Fighter/Drones. Missile/Drones are already more expensive than Drone/Fighters which is why Manchurian has moved to the glowworm to its main attack drone instead of a bombpumped missile/drone I also support that it’s the thoughts behind the DA-2290. Truth be told Drone/Fighters make more sense in many ways 1) they don’t destroy themselves when they fire (big cost multiplier on a more expensive system) 2) you in theory get multiple attempts to fire so your not counting on a single shot 3) many more tactical options 4) decreases the strain on the logistical side of combat.
I think the fact that the game states that Missile/Drones are the more common weapon is simply a hold over from earlier editions and the different view on these types of weapons from that time period. With what we’ve learned in modern warfare and how it would translate into 2300 space combat I would expect most ships to primarily carry Fighter/Drones with a few Missile/Drones as a Sunday punch. Actual Fighters would probably carry Missile/Drones with computer controls for fire and forget options.
This is where the USAF CCA's are starting to fill in, at least theoretically. Designers are asking the same question - does it make more sense to have disposable wingmen? Obviously if you can bring your non-expendable assets back is great for lots of reasons.
I really hate the fact that everyone defaults to the Kennedy Class ship it’s a bad design and doesn’t really make sense these days (back when the game was created it did)
My thoughts on warships is their main gun armament would be Laser barrettes with a max range of short and they would use PDC and PDC drones for anti-drone and fighter defense. Submunitions are basically mines and definitely have their place. So a 800dt destroyer would probably have 1 PDC-29, 6 HLC-72 and 1 Grapeshot or Big Clip (I just happen to like those two), possibly a screen (it’s not clear if they use a Hard Point or not if they do I would probably replace the PDC-29 if I wanted a screen) than lots of drones bigger ships would probably run alone these lines though the hull percentage that could be dedicated to drones would increase with the size. Combat Drones would probably be 60% Fighter/Drones, 20% Missile/Drones, and 20% Sensor and PDC Drones (since they would have less attrition). Warships themselves are going to try to stay on the outside edge of Short range
The sad part is the rules are basically all there (I think the drone combat rules need a little flushing out) but they are spread across 5 books (Vehicle and Ships, AEH, Ships of the Frontier, Robots and the Vehicle Handbook) with the last two not really designed for use in 2300.
Unfortunately when T2300 was written this was not something considered which why I think the lore need a slight revision.
If I was the line manager I would look for a 2022 style release (no major rule changes just clarification and consolation ) with a two book slip box. Book 1 would be character creation and system rules separating is from needing the Traveller CRB. Book 2 would be Ships, Vehicles, and Drones (and robots) worlds would probably be included with the second book but possibly in the first if there’s room. Give the slip box a Poster map of human space that’s your core rule set. Do this as a Kickstarter and advertise the hell out of it.
Put the AEH (Updated and Expanded) as both a stretch goal and a add-on (Make it a low stretch goal and actually update it with everything else)
Than over the next year update Ships of the Frontier and Vehicles of the Frontier (the latter having its own version of the VH as part of it)
Keep the two games compatible but give them distinct lines.
Put the AEH (Updated and Expanded) as both a stretch goal and a add-on (Make it a low stretch goal and actually update it with everything else)
Than over the next year update Ships of the Frontier and Vehicles of the Frontier (the latter having its own version of the VH as part of it)
Keep the two games compatible but give them distinct lines.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
The remote controlled drone/missile is incredibly stupid considering:
real world technology now
the computer and cyber technology in the setting
Thing is a lot of this was added as a knee-jerk to the new kid on the block... Cyberpunk (released in 1988 and rather popular)
The Earth/Cybertech sourcebook, Rotten to the Core, and Deathwatch Program added technology without really considering the wider setting implications (this is Traveller).
You could even take a stab at inventing a pentapod biotech control system for a drone or missile...
Fast forward to the Mongoose version, computers can now be conscious, cyberware and computer miniaturisation is way in advance of anything we have today, so not having autonomous kill vehicles makes little sense.
real world technology now
the computer and cyber technology in the setting
Thing is a lot of this was added as a knee-jerk to the new kid on the block... Cyberpunk (released in 1988 and rather popular)
The Earth/Cybertech sourcebook, Rotten to the Core, and Deathwatch Program added technology without really considering the wider setting implications (this is Traveller).
You could even take a stab at inventing a pentapod biotech control system for a drone or missile...
Fast forward to the Mongoose version, computers can now be conscious, cyberware and computer miniaturisation is way in advance of anything we have today, so not having autonomous kill vehicles makes little sense.
2300 computer tech is not that far ahead of our own and despite what the news is telling you we are far from just sending out Robot troopers. I don’t see drones as being a problem in the setting and I don’t see cyberpunk aspect being a problem either. It’s a game it’s about having fun and who knows maybe shutter warp causes problems with independent computer controls.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Mongoose 2300 computer technology is way better than today, TL11 in point of fact with neural interface capability. The cyberware, the computer rules, the robot rules, Bayern all show how much more advanced they are.
I am not talking about robot troopers, just missile guidance systems that provide their own terminal guidance and firing solution (real world now), F16s that are fully AI controlled that can beat human pilots (real world now), in the Mongooos 2300 setting with its much more advanced computer technology then I would expect their missile guidance systems to be more capable than today.
A small robot brain in every missile would improve the missile kill chance for a fraction of the missile cost.
I am not talking about robot troopers, just missile guidance systems that provide their own terminal guidance and firing solution (real world now), F16s that are fully AI controlled that can beat human pilots (real world now), in the Mongooos 2300 setting with its much more advanced computer technology then I would expect their missile guidance systems to be more capable than today.
A small robot brain in every missile would improve the missile kill chance for a fraction of the missile cost.
Last edited:
Kennedy was the only one I could remember. I know it was an American ship, and I don't remember any of the other nations ships names.
Without any sort of significant boost from a launcher, missile launchers can launch and engage targets at any angle. Projectile or energy weapons would be limited to their field of fire. This is where you'd have to think (or a naval architect would) about where you are mounting your weapons, as ships would not be able to maneuver to bring other weapons to bear. It sounds good on paper or for a game, but in reality if you were under thrust you'd introduce all kinds of problems, not to mention causing your navigator grief by constantly changing headings and vectors. Great if you are avoiding fire, but still problematic in other ways.
For 2300AD ships that have the rotating sections to generate G, you couldn't really mount weapons on the hamster cage or anywhere near the path of rotation without blocking your field of fire - unless you locked down the rotation during combat. Then you would just have your normal occluded fields of fire.
ha! The latest MGT kickstarter for AI consciousness and all that stuff... wasn't there a movie called Darkstar or something where the crew was trying to convince a warhead with AI to detonate itself? It was a bit of a dark comedy, but I could see having truly intelligent weapons deciding that death is not a good thing for them...
Bryn the 2300AD guy
Cosmic Mongoose
There weren't, but you may be thinking of missiles with submunitions, or the odd missile armed fighters in SotFA, which can't actually control their missiles. Based on the art, submunition "bombs" are a better fit.
The Kennedy was a fusion frigate type with a couple of sensor drones and 20 missiles with semi-active control. The design philosophy was to use the drone as a spotter (37 million each), and vector long range missile strikes (8.4 million each in the design sequence, but discounted) onto a target probably using the drones active sensor as illuminator. The idea was the Kennedy should never receive return fire, hence the lack of investment in guns and defences.
It actually makes better sensor to place a small crew on the sensor drone and call it a spotter. It gives a lot more independence of action to the spotter.
Given the rules for defensive fire as written in Star Cruiser, each turret can have two bites of the cherry when defending - each can fire during the movement and fire phase, and then each can fire again during the detonation phase (assuming a same hex detonation). This means a ship of a reasonable size can slaughter missile strikes. Further, fleet tactics will have the main line stacked up in a single hex with coordinated defensive fire.
As the scale of combat goes down, missiles become a more dominant factor. They dominate in skirmishes of light forces, but are near useless at long range in large actions. See here.
The truly (cost) effective weapon system is a well armoured submuntions armed heavy fighter. Groups of fighters stand much more chance of surviving
The nature of the target matters. Terrestrial missiles and planes are traversing a different medium than the ships, and so are much faster but also more vulnerable if hit. In 2300AD space combat all vessels, including missiles, have basically the same characterisics. The weapons used to engage ships and missiles are the same.
Herein, the physics of lasers matters. Range is directly proportional to the diameter of the focal array (or individual element a multi-array). SC lasers are 6 m in diameter, and so the high-X laser can focus to 600,000 km. A smaller laser has less range. Range = engagement time. Further, although the physics say the effective range of a det-laser is only a few 100 km at best, the SC rules as written (and Mongoose rules) treat det-laser as focused lasers and allow them to attack by stand-off detonations. Any defensive weapon that doesn't outrange the detonation distance is useless.
The general question for navies in the gun period was always the maximum number of effective guns. In the 19th century, gun size increased with increasing armour, initially thicker wood (making 12 pdrs etc. ineffective resulting in 32 pdrs being standard), and then metal armour, resulting in smaller numbers of larger guns. The aim is to have your guns be effective against the enemy armour, and to maximise their number by not having them too large. Before predicted aim this equilibrium was found around the 12 inch gun. The later plunges into 13.5", 15" then 16" weapons was driven by increasing ranges at which hits could be achieved, and the need for those hits to be effective.
The fly-in-the-ointment was the development of an asymmetic weapon, the propelled torpedo. This meant a much smaller vessel could hit a battleship with a very powerful weapon (and remember, ca. 1880 battleships actually carried a couple of torpedo boats). The counter was a large number of effective guns against these smaller vessels. Then the small vessels started to get larger and more capable, necessitating larger guns to counter them etc. As these became too large for enough of them to be mounted on battleships, additional small ships were needed to ship them creating the destroyer.
The question here is whether smaller guns would be useful in 2k3. The x1 laser is the standard weapon, and is very multipurpose - it has good range, can penetrate most ships and can shoot down missiles. However, in the 2280's new armour materials have been developed which make ships which can't be penetrated by x1 lasers (armour-10, like the Martel or typo corrected Richelieu) viable. It may be that ships start carrying x2's or even x3 PBWS's to penetrate each others hull, and in that case a split to have a secondary battery would make sense. It just hasn't happened yet. Kafer ships have these same armour levels, and so the trend in naval architecture probably will soon generate a primary/secondary battery split...
