Point Defence

[Nerhesi]

I really like the new point defense batteries idea. Some feedback:

A single turret functions in the same manner... No sane designer will give up TWENTY weapon slots, not even 2-3 weapon slots for automated defence. I will just get a guy and stick him in a turret - and profit immensely. Way cheaper on power costs too!

Lets make a quick comparison:

Beam Laser:
a) Requires a warm-body to use.
b) Can intercept multiple targets at -1
c) 1 dton
d) 1 power
e) 1 hardpoint
f) Can be used offensively
g) Much cheaper

Point Defense:
a) Doesn't require a warm body
b) Can intercept multiple targets at -1
c) 20 dtons
d) 80-240 power
e) 20 hardpoints
f) Cannot be used offensively
g) As expensive as some ships..

B is identical. We drop it.
Point defense has advantage a)
Beam turret has advantages d), e) & f)

There is no way one can validate that point defense savings value of "1 crew" (even with half a double occupancy stateroom and costs, +2 tons), as balanced versus 80 to 240 TIMES more power. 20 times reduced weapons capacity, 20 times the weight (or 6 - 7 times if you include half a stateroom)

Recommendations:

a) Drop Point Defense to 1-hardpoint. I think this is key. For me to give up a weapon slot (think on it, even a BAY slot), I have to see some value. This isn't a benefit here - this is a bare minimum to even consider it.
b) Power usage by a factor of 10. So 8, 16, 24...
c) Drop cost by a factor of 10. MCr 4, 6, 8
d) Drop weight to that of a barbette - remember, this is like a beam laser, 5 times is already a lot (5 tons each)
e) Add a TL14, 5+ intercept options.

See now you're making me think... hmm.. do I want a triple beam laser.... or do I want automated, skilled point defense network?

Now translate into capital ships. With these 50 hardpoints.. .do I want 10 heavy bays? 50 bays? 50 triple turrets? Or 50 point defense batteries? Hmm.. 5 triple beam turrets are almost just as good but now I need 50 crew, and how skilled will they be? Are they as good as TL14 Point defense? Because 50 triple lasers are much cheaper and only 50 dtons, but 50 PDB is 250 and sucks back way more power!... hrmmm..

It's all about making it a meaningful choice with present advantages

 

[AndrewW]

I really like the new point defense batteries idea. Some feedback:

A single turret functions in the same manner... No sane designer will give up TWENTY weapon slots, not even 2-3 weapon slots for automated defence. I will just get a guy and stick him in a turret - and profit immensely. Way cheaper on power costs too!

The original plan here was to make it equivalent to 20 turrets, as an option to putting in 20 beam laser turrets on larger ships for point defence.

It's meant as a series of 20 linked turrets, hence the hardpoint and power requirements. When this was originally written the point defence rules wheren't in yet so that part was added later. I may have to bop someone over the head for the implementation (now where did I leave that force axe¿).

 

[cmdrx]

I like this, as I've had PD laser systems written up for TNE and GURPS Traveler which was then retrofired into Classic High Guard rules and even T20.
However, we started at the turret level and then scaled it into full batteries of 10 triple turrets, as in Classic HG.

We came up with a point defense turret back in the TNE and GURPS days using the technical architecture rules of that time. I'll spare the details and all the maths but essentially the QuadPulse point defense laser was 4 smaller pulse lasers linked together Gatling-style to provide a more rapid fire and higher target saturation (in GURPS the more rate of fire the higher the bonus to hit, etc.) I've even used this system for MGT 1e. The range was limited to 0 hexes, but this is a point defense system after all. One of these short raged 4 barreled pulse lasers could fit where a single standard laser could in a turret so effectively a full turret had 12 small pulse lasers. I believe the bonus to the point-defense roll was based on the old HG USP ratings. One single QuadPulse canon gave the same bonus as a triple turret (+2 here) and so on. Yes this worked on small ship point-defense just fine, but capital ships did end up being a die-roll fest. 30+ missiles coming at the ship and you have a full battery of QuadPulse lasers starting at a +12(or something) to kill a missile... Eventually at that point we just used barrage rules or used the old HG tables comparing the USPs of the missile bay v. that of the QuadPulse lasers.

I like Nerhesi's suggestion above. Scaling these down is a good idea. Perhaps have some type of modifier for those who use multiple units as we do now with standard turrets? (+1 for 2, +2 for 3, etc...) The progression should be geometric of course.

 

[phavoc]

I would think conceptually point defense should remain at the turret level and not be scaled up into bays. Point defense needs to engage targets at the last minute before they strike the hull. A system that takes 20 separate firing points and puts them into a single one makes less sense than having 20 potential firing angles on your target.

Also if you keep point defense at the turret level the rules scale up easily. When you get into many point defense turrets defending against many multiples of missiles you should use barrage-style rules. After all, the entire point of sending a swarm of missiles at the target is the hope that at least some of them saturate your defenses and overload them to the point where you get some hits.

 

[Condottiere]

Smart projectiles, like small anti-missile missiles could be scaled to bays.

 

[ErinPalette]

I would recommend you look at Gypsy Knight Games' Anderson & Felix Guide to Naval Architecture for their Clement Sector setting. They have something known as Point Defense Nodes.

PDNs work thus:
* You can mount one node per 100 dtons, just like hardpoints
* They do not cost tonnage
* They are not mountable on small craft
* They work automatically but require software to operate
* They come with various weapons of various ranges and damage
* Some weapons are more accurate than others

So for example, a PD Laser has a range of Medium and a bonus of 1. So depending on what level of PD software you are running (1 to 3 in TL 12 Clement Sector), your automated node has between +2 and +4 to shoot down missiles or torpedoes.

Upside: Automatic point defense; don't need to spend precious turret space on defenses; not vulnerable to critical hits
Downside: Doesn't cost tonnage, which some GMs might want, but that could be changed for the Traveller version; requires software to function; doesn't benefit from a high Gunnery skill

Worth looking at for ideas, I think.

 

[phavoc]

The problem with "free" point defense is that it can render missiles useless. To balance it out you need to increase the rate of fire for missiles.

I prefer the idea that point defense is done through dedicated point defense batteries that take up hard points and operate only at point blank range. They should be gating style lasers, able to engage multiple missiles, say 4 to 6, with torpedoes requiring 2 or 3 hits compared to a missile. And no gunner skills should ever be used for point defense, except maybe luck. They are going to travelling too fast and are too small for skill to help shooting them down, it's all just computers reacting.

To offset the additional protection missiles rate of fire should be doubled. Though that does change the underlying nature of game play, which may or may not appeal to everyone. I still think the idea of a point defense bay is not the right direction to go. It's really meant for a capital ship, and if it's an automated conglomeration of 20 turrets, make it an automated system operated by the ships computer and a fire control station. It should still have a crewmember involved just so you can prioritize targets. That's a humans job. Or a sophont, in the Traveller universe.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think two things have come to light with this convo:

1) The relationship between hardpoints and dedicated poin defence. This needs to be carefully balanced. Yes it should be more effective than a turret, but it shouldn't be excessively so because missiles roll to hit-twice, can be shot down, have minimum range, etc

2) The need for a smoother system to determine missiles getting through point defense (whether turrets or dedicated).

Now, possible solutions:

1) Keep point defense mapped as to 1 shot per hardpoint. Dedicated point defense just allows for the shot to be automated (no crew), and at a lower target number (lets say 5+). Like turrets, this "point defense" roll can be made multiple times a round at cumulative -1s

2) This really comes into play for larger battles, and when you're in those 1on1 fights that has a combatant with like 2 medium missile bays or so. In this case, rather than make a ton of rolls, you would consult a table that has the ratio of point defense/missiles versus the 2d6 rolled - modified by any skill bonuses (e.g. Any bonus that reduce the 8+ normally required).

The result intersection would be % of missiles shot down, and this would take into account cumulative firing by the same turret and so on.

So you have let's say 30 missiles, and 20 point defense mix of guys in turrets and automate point defense, with an average skill of +2, you roll 2d6 +2 - consult the 3:2 ratio, and end up with anywhere between 100% to let's say 25% of missiles shot down.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, going to try something here...

The idea is that a point defence system is something that will normally be installed on much larger ships, so you can basically power up the system and then forget about it (as players).

So...

I am going to remove the DM-1 per subsequent Intercept - so, you always Intercept on the roll listed on the table, no matter how many shots are coming in.

It is still possible to overwhelm systems by multiple shots (some will get through), and you can always beef up the system itself (either by upgrading to the next level, or installing multiple point defence systems). And it is better than 20 turrets against truly massed attacks (which is what it is really intended for) because there is no negative DM. For that one nuclear missile coming in, you probably do want Larry in a single turret...

* Looks around cautiously *

Should get the desired effect?

 

[ErinPalette]

* Looks around cautiously *

Should get the desired effect?

Well, maybe. Do they still take up 20 hardpoints and 20 dtons? Because that seems rather excessive to me.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Well, maybe. Do they still take up 20 hardpoints and 20 dtons? Because that seems rather excessive to me.

Think about them on large ships - very large ships. Those 20 hardpoints/dtons might become a bargain...

 

[ErinPalette]

I daresay that most PC groups don't play on, or with, very large ship, but rather ships in the 100-1000 ton range.

If you only want point defence available to ships 2k dtons and larger, I suppose that's fine. But I'll wager there are many more players looking for useful PD options for their adventure-class ships.

 

[phavoc]

Okay, going to try something here...

The idea is that a point defence system is something that will normally be installed on much larger ships, so you can basically power up the system and then forget about it (as players).

So...

I am going to remove the DM-1 per subsequent Intercept - so, you always Intercept on the roll listed on the table, no matter how many shots are coming in.

Weeeeellll, point defense has always been a concept that has scaled up and down across the entire Traveller ship size spectrum. As it should be. You can put a Phalanx on a 80ft yacht if you wanted to, but most don't. Missiles are now much more deadly like they should be. Defending against them, both passively and actively, is going to be important to those people who'd prefer to run rather than fight.

The idea of the point defense system is still one that's kind of broken, in my opinion. I think it would be better to simply have a point defense system that scales up and down just like turrets do. ANY ship should be able to install as many point defense turrets (a dedicated one, NOT a beam/pulse laser) as it has hardpoints. To keep it simple each one takes 1 point of power. Use the standard capital ship scaling rules for bringing % weapons to bear to bring % of your point defense system to bear. For capital ships you should have bands (X amount of turrets gets you X number of intercepted missiles). Smaller-scale ships should still roll because that's what small-scale ship combat is for. Capital ships are already getting into massed attacks, so keep the system the same way.

It is still possible to overwhelm systems by multiple shots (some will get through), and you can always beef up the system itself (either by upgrading to the next level, or installing multiple point defence systems). And it is better than 20 turrets against truly massed attacks (which is what it is really intended for) because there is no negative DM. For that one nuclear missile coming in, you probably do want Larry in a single turret...

* Looks around cautiously *

Should get the desired effect?

It should always be possible to overwhelm a ships defenses. I just don't think a separate mechanic or concept is needed for capital ships. IF they want more missile defenses, then let them add more point defense turrets. Problem solved. By definition, a point defense system on a capital ship IS a capital ship point defense system, or grid, or whatever you want to label it.

I'd also trade off a higher ROF (say 4 targets, or maybe 5, per PD turret?) with a PD turret with a lower-range (the turn of impact) and a limitation on engagement parameters to being only missiles, torpedoes, and MAYBE small craft that say have an armor factor of 1 or less. Oh, and it should be fine against vehicles, though maybe you'd want to put an upper limit on it so you couldn't take out say a real tank. That way you could use it against pesky drones or say unarmored boarding shuttles.

 

[Nerhesi]

So I'm not against this in any way Matt - I actually think ships do need a more robust point defense to simulate the general weakness of missiles/torps.

I would definitely think Matt you're along the right lines of thought for an over-all defense grid point-defense type system. I think we need to consider the following details:

a) The size/hardpoints/power usage of said system should variable, which will determine (b) below
b) The variance of it's size should have a "threshold" of "total number of missiles/torps engaged per round"

This opens up some rich tactical options. First, you now have cool dedicated point defense choices. Second, rather than spending 5-%10% of the battleship on point defense, perhaps it can have a few picket ships with point defense.. like few corvettes or so. This would be like screens.

 

[Condottiere]

Merchant shipping may be more interested in point defense, say naval hospital ships, than truly offensive armament.

 

[arcador]

This turns some great ideas!

I like this one:

The automated point defence which can be scaled and has a threshold on attempts to stop a missile sounds like a good idea.

For example hardpoints # = attempts per round it can make, similarly to turrets. It doesn't have triple weapon per turret (+2 to hit a missile), but it doesn't have a penalty for each consecutive attempt either.

Then perhaps some higher TL upgrades to allow better accuracy, or perhaps firing solution which uses more beams vs single missile to increase the probability of hitting (although I don't think chance wise it's much more than simply having more attempt vs the same missile).

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

How about exchanging 1 hardpoint for 3 effectively pintle-mounted, fully automated, point-defense lasers that can be divided up and deployed anywhere? That way, you're getting improved coverage in exchange for the inability to fire back with a full turret.

 

[Chas]

For this discussion there is a standard weapon feature that makes a very good base line.

As single weapons, or turret weapons, the missile and the laser options should balance out. They are fundamental aspects of every traveler ship design that have been looked at since forever and used time and time again in game play. Well they should anyway One hard point = 1 turret of missile fire power = whatever the balancing paradigms of your equivalent laser turret is (the game is designed for low turret numbers of these weapons and balances out at low numbers).

However once you get into capital ship combat you have a salvo effect of the bays, which drastically changes the small ship paradigm. In capital ships, your 1 turret of 3 missile firepower becomes a simultaneous shot of 24 missiles in a 100 ton bay for the same 1 hardpoint, totally different. This has a lot of various implications (more on that shortly in another thread I'm preparing ), however regards point defense I think the key point is that that it should provide ship designers a counter balance to the missile salvo. If you choose to pay extra for dedicated missile/torpedo protection you get this good option. I haven't worked through the numbers yet on the point defense, but that's what I'll be looking for as a first pass.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, putting some scaling rules in, but keeping them simple. However, also adding rules to allow dedicated picket ships to intercept attacks meant for other targets...

 

[Chas]

Okay, putting some scaling rules in, but keeping them simple. However, also adding rules to allow dedicated picket ships to intercept attacks meant for other targets...

Ah, picket automated drone ships. Yes please.

Errm... on second thoughts probably too big to be automated, heh.

Perhaps these could break the 1 hard point/100 tons rule? Or give them a +1 advantage somewhere due to being dedicated to the task?