Missiles

[kevinknight]

First question... Ran into an issue with Multi Warhead Missiles in our game Saturday night. The players closed to medium range and opened up with their small missile bay armed with a salvo of multi warhead missiles at a Vargr corsair. Said corsair failed in any point defense rolls (not that it would have really mattered). Player rolled a 4 on the D6 for the number of missiles once they split resulting in 48 warheads attacking the corsair. Attack roll of 6 plus the 3 difference in TL plus 48 from the missiles resulted in (shocker) a successful attack. Damage roll was 15 minus the 2 armor of the corsair resulting in 13 net damage times 48 for the number of missiles, total of 624 damage... to a ship that can take 160... is this functioning as intended? If so, why aren't all warships armed with multi warhead missiles or multi warhead nuclear torpedoes? True, if the corsair had been more heavily armored the damage would have been less but even with 12 armor (the max for it's TL) it still would have been practically destroyed by one salvo. And while they players were excited about the results, one of them did point out what if the bad guys do that to us?
Second question... Why are multi warhead missiles/torpedoes randomly generated on a D6? Is it poor design/engineering so that while there are 6 in these only 1 to 6 effectively separate? I would think by the TL involved in Traveller they would have fixed that since the USA did back in the 1960's... Maybe put in multi warhead missiles that split in a specific ratio and cost more/do less damage as the number increases?
Third question about missiles... Why are only lasers allowed for point defense? I can understand if particle beams or other directed energy weapons were less effective and received a negative DM but why would they not be allowed at all?

 

[Nerhesi]

First question... Ran into an issue with Multi Warhead Missiles in our game Saturday night. The players closed to medium range and opened up with their small missile bay armed with a salvo of multi warhead missiles at a Vargr corsair. Said corsair failed in any point defense rolls (not that it would have really mattered). Player rolled a 4 on the D6 for the number of missiles once they split resulting in 48 warheads attacking the corsair. Attack roll of 6 plus the 3 difference in TL plus 48 from the missiles resulted in (shocker) a successful attack. Damage roll was 15 minus the 2 armor of the corsair resulting in 13 net damage times 48 for the number of missiles, total of 624 damage... to a ship that can take 160... is this functioning as intended? If so, why aren't all warships armed with multi warhead missiles or multi warhead nuclear torpedoes? True, if the corsair had been more heavily armored the damage would have been less but even with 12 armor (the max for it's TL) it still would have been practically destroyed by one salvo. And while they players were excited about the results, one of them did point out what if the bad guys do that to us?

So you've actually partially answered the question yourself. The fact that the armour is 2 is a HUGE deal. You also rolled near maximum damage on 3D.

If you have 12 armour, on average, you would do ZERO damage with the multi-warhead missiles.

Your example is a bit dissimilar in that you have a small-bay firing at target that has minimal (near zero armour), it would be instantly destroyed. That is correct.

The lesson for my players would be to make sure you understand what weapons your opponent has, and to make sure you're not just heading blindly into a fight. Whether it is point defense, meson screens, nuclear dampeners etc... you should keep in mind what defense you have vs their weapons. And of course, as always - armour is key.

Second question... Why are multi warhead missiles/torpedoes randomly generated on a D6? Is it poor design/engineering so that while there are 6 in these only 1 to 6 effectively separate? I would think by the TL involved in Traveller they would have fixed that since the USA did back in the 1960's... Maybe put in multi warhead missiles that split in a specific ratio and cost more/do less damage as the number increases?

Hold over from old design I believe. Thats a good idea. 3-4 missiles would be a safe assumption.

Third question about missiles... Why are only lasers allowed for point defense? I can understand if particle beams or other directed energy weapons were less effective and received a negative DM but why would they not be allowed at all?

As per the above - I personally allow my players to use any direct fire weapon for PD with a -4 penalty if it not a laser/pulse laser.

 

[kevinknight]

Ok, thanks. BTW, I really like the flavor change on the whole missile/energy weapons area. Reminds me of David Weber's Honor Harrington universe.

Another point... Fragmentation Missiles. Should these be allowed in some type of point defense vs other missiles as well? Their description seems to indicate they would be perfect for stopping a salvo of incoming missiles/torpedoes...

 

[Nerhesi]

Ok, thanks. BTW, I really like the flavor change on the whole missile/energy weapons area. Reminds me of David Weber's Honor Harrington universe.

Another point... Fragmentation Missiles. Should these be allowed in some type of point defense vs other missiles as well? Their description seems to indicate they would be perfect for stopping a salvo of incoming missiles/torpedoes...

Thats a very good point and I do hope that in the Traveller Companion there would be options for missile on missile interception, because fragmentation missiles would seem perfect for that.

The trick is not making them overly powerful... Technically, if you just abstract as is, they damage two (2) more adjacent targets, which would indicate that a fragmentation missile could perhaps take out 3 normal missiles, or 1 torpedo (or 1 and a half torps). Again, we'd have to run the numbers and see what makes sense, although it does sound cool have the "flak defense" against missiles

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would call this a known issue. Multi-Warhead Missiles launched at civilian ships means that the first salvo kills the target.

A triple missile turret launches 3 MWMs. Each does average 3,5 * 3D ≈ 37 damage for a total of 110 damage, killing 110 * 2,5 ≈ 275 dT of ship. Civilian point defence is not likely to be very effective.

So, two or three missile turrets are likely to kill a Corsair with a single salvo.

MWMs are not effective against heavy armour, so very limited military value.

 

[phavoc]

The best counter to shooting down a missile would be a dedicated anti-missile missile. The seeker in a anti-ship missile would be different than one designed to destroy another missile. And this also goes down the potential path of how fragile a missile would be. We know Traveller ships have near magic armor and can travel at high speeds and not worry about space debris (this is more of an abstraction than anything else). In theory missiles could have the same sort of protection and thus be immune to essentially ball bearings in space (i.e. fragmentation). So you'd want a missile that would seek out another missile and destroy it with a localized energy blast, or even a very directed fragmentation warhead.

 

[kevinknight]

Ah ok, but I believe I spot a slight flaw in your logic. The description of Fragmentation missiles includes this quote: "When fired in mass barrages this dense volley is enough to cripple entire bomber waves and disperse fighter screens." I would think a weapon capable of doing that would make mincemeat of missiles and torpedoes.

Regarding the duration of missile fuel. The core rulebook states that missiles have enough fuel for 10 turns. Does that hold true for all missiles? If that is the case then what is the point of the Long Range missile? It is the same TL, Damage, & Thrust of the Fragmentation missile but costs 2.5 times as much and does not attack multiple targets.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ah ok, but I believe I spot a slight flaw in your logic. The description of Fragmentation missiles includes this quote: "When fired in mass barrages this dense volley is enough to cripple entire bomber waves and disperse fighter screens." I would think a weapon capable of doing that would make mincemeat of missiles and torpedoes.

You would think so, but the rules do not allow it. It would make missiles too powerful, it's already the most powerful weapon in the game.

Regarding the duration of missile fuel. The core rulebook states that missiles have enough fuel for 10 turns. Does that hold true for all missiles? If that is the case then what is the point of the Long Range missile? It is the same TL, Damage, & Thrust of the Fragmentation missile but costs 2.5 times as much and does not attack multiple targets.

The Long Range missile has higher acceleration so arrives at the target quicker.

 

[kevinknight]

kevinknight wrote:
Regarding the duration of missile fuel. The core rulebook states that missiles have enough fuel for 10 turns. Does that hold true for all missiles? If that is the case then what is the point of the Long Range missile? It is the same TL, Damage, & Thrust of the Fragmentation missile but costs 2.5 times as much and does not attack multiple targets.

The Long Range missile has higher acceleration so arrives at the target quicker.

Not according to the High Guard from last week. Both are Thrust 15...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, sorry, you're right.

The Long Range Missile has the same performance as the Fragmentation Missile, but the Frag is cheaper and attacks three targets. No one will buy the Long Range Missile.

Neither can penetrate Hi-Tech armour in the basic system.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - the Long Range missile was at least not supposed to suffer any penalty from being fired from Distant Range.. but I guess that never made it either