Revised Missile Article

[apoc527]

Hey all,

This is a revised version of my Missile Article. I include some rough missile combat rules as well, including control linkages and electronic warfare.

The rules are intended to be "light" enough to be playable yet to at least address certain aspects of missile engagements that have never been covered before.

The "feel" of the rules are intended to be somewhere between the modern day missile paradigm (just a few missiles that are impossible, more or less, to shoot down) and the Honorverse paradigm (Good God, that's a lot of missiles!!!).

Please let me know what you think.

https://sites.google.com/site/apocfs/trav-docs/MissileArticle.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

 

[billclo]

I have to say that so far I like the rules you posted.

One thing that concerns me though is having to keep track of missile endurance and guidance limits. While realistic, it's a lot to keep track of.

After reading the article again, another concern comes to mind: missile armor. While realistic, it renders any missile larger than light immune to sandcasters I believe.

Another issue already there, before your article, concerns smart missiles. It's going to keep significant extra recordkeeping keeping track of how many smart missiles are in the air, who they are targeted at, and how much endurance they have left.

 

[apoc527]

Hi billco,

In order that you asked:

Missile endurance is already part of Traveller, and I think for the most part, it's fairly painless. It would only start to matter if we extended the range at which they could be fired...

Missile armor actually wasn't my idea, but I like it. As for the immunity to sandcasters, I read the core book again and discovered that sandcasters were never usable against missiles. Only lasers can be used as point defense against them. I suppose pebble rounds might be more effective, but the basic "sand" isn't.

The extra record keeping really doesn't go beyond MGT Core rules. The same issues arise there. The only additional issue is the control linkage, but that actually works to keep recordkeeping down by simply limiting the number of missiles in flight at any given point.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[SSWarlock]

Nicely done, apoc527; I'm keeping your rules as "optional" if the players in my campaigns want to use them. One torpedo type you may want to add is the armored stealth torpedo from the Darrians supplement. Well, it's not armored per se; it uses the Resilient upgrade option from HG to negate the first hit.

By the way, are any of the missile options incompatible with other missile options? Ex: combining multi-warhead with long range.

 

[billclo]

Missile armor actually wasn't my idea, but I like it. As for the immunity to sandcasters, I read the core book again and discovered that sandcasters were never usable against missiles. Only lasers can be used as point defense against them. I suppose pebble rounds might be more effective, but the basic "sand" isn't.

I note that in High Guard, page 74, bottom left paragraph, it mentions sand:
"Sand protects against incoming laser AND missile attacks fired from medium range or longer..."

I hate the way Mongoose Traveller has so many inconsistencies. Don't get me started on the crappy barrage rules.

 

[SSWarlock]

I note that in High Guard, page 74, bottom left paragraph, it mentions sand:
"Sand protects against incoming laser AND missile attacks fired from medium range or longer..."

Hmm. I'd forgotten that; good catch. With that in mind, I'm considering removing the actual armor factors from the various missiles and allowing them to automatically incorporate the Resilient option instead. That way, they can still make it through the first hit from laser or sand but can be taken out by layered point defense. Needs some play-testing though.

 

[SSWarlock]

One comment re:

For game balance purposes, it is NOT possible to combine flights or salvos or to program them to attack all at the same time, as often occurs in the Honorverse.

While the flights cannot be pre-programmed, different flights of missiles with different accelerations can be assigned to the same target which may allow those flights to "just happen" to arrive on-target in the same turn. For example, launching a flight of slower multi-warhead missiles then launching a flight of much faster long range missiles at a range in which the acceleration of the faster missiles cause them to arrive at the same turn in which the slower missiles arrive.

It may take some careful coordination with the firing ship's closing the range but I've done it using the HG options and the Core rules as originally written. The flights are treated separately as far as point defense rolls are concerned.

Even if the lighter warheads on the long range missiles don't do anything, their providing a target rich environment for the opposing point defense gunnery tasks really helps boost the target player's "pucker factor". :twisted:

Edit: apoc527, I noticed the section on missile control uplinks refers to "missile bank". Shouldn't that read "missile bay"?

 

[SSWarlock]

apoc527, keep in mind the use of the anti-armor effects from the CSC are rated for personal combat rather than star/spaceship armor. I'm not sure how they'd perform vs. ship armor.

Edit: Here's a thread in which I discussed how the CSC armor-piercing rounds could be used against ship armor.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46903&highlight=central+supply+catalog+catalogue+armor+armour+piercing

 

[Kromodor]

I note that in High Guard, page 74, bottom left paragraph, it mentions sand:
"Sand protects against incoming laser AND missile attacks fired from medium range or longer..."

I don't have my book here.

Aren't those rules effective about the laser-missile type only?

Otherwise - houserule create type of "sand" effective only VS missiles.

 

[Jeraa]

I don't have my book here.

Aren't those rules effective about the laser-missile type only?

Otherwise - houserule create type of "sand" effective only VS missiles.

It says "Sand protects against incoming laser attacks and missile attacks fired from medium range or longer." on that page. No mention of only specific types of missiles, so it works against all missiles.

 

[Solomani666]

I don't have my book here.

Aren't those rules effective about the laser-missile type only?

Otherwise - houserule create type of "sand" effective only VS missiles.

It says "Sand protects against incoming laser attacks and missile attacks fired from medium range or longer." on that page. No mention of only specific types of missiles, so it works against all missiles.

I would only allow this with a bomb pumped torpedo vs standard sand.
Or a standard missile/torpedo vs chaff.

.

 

[billclo]

I don't have my book here.

Aren't those rules effective about the laser-missile type only?

Otherwise - houserule create type of "sand" effective only VS missiles.

It says "Sand protects against incoming laser attacks and missile attacks fired from medium range or longer." on that page. No mention of only specific types of missiles, so it works against all missiles.

I would only allow this with a bomb pumped torpedo vs standard sand.
Or a standard missile/torpedo vs chaff.

.

That's the way I would interpret it as well.

 

[Solomani666]

I would eliminate the medium and heavy missiles because they require a totally different weapon system with little benefit.

Having barbettes and bays that fire torpedoes at one rate and fire lower caliber missiles at another rate makes little or no sense IMO.

What you did with 'missile sizes' I would do with tech levels instead

The standard Traveller missile ranges from 'next to worthless' to 'completely worthless' against a capital ship. A heavy cruiser doesn't even need turrets to defend against them if they are nuclear:
2 <nuke> - 6 <armor> - (6 * 2) <dampers> -1 <dodge> = -15 Defense

Torpedoes in HG are grossly under-powered. A torpedo is 30x the size of a standard missile but only does 4x the damage with a conventional warhead and 3x the damage with a nuclear warhead. With a missile 30x the size I would expect at-least a 6x to 10x increase in performance over a standard missile.

I really like where you are going with the torpedoes. You increased the damage and you added different types of warheads. I am not certain all of those different types of warheads would fit on a standard missile.

I would increase the Torpedoes G rating based on warhead type every few tech levels and probably max out at 20 G's with a conventional warhead at TL 16.

You might also consider some options:
* Resilience
* High Yield
* Very High Yield
* Stealth
* Reflec
* ECCM
* Decoys
* Evasion
* Armored (ignores sand)


.

 

[Kromodor]

With risk of going again in the off-topic.

Check out page 50 in HG.

Left column, middle, just before the Screens section.

"Sandcasters are as effective as lasers as long as the missile it is
defending against is fired from at least medium range."

So, I guess, this is stealth upgrade of the default sandcaster usage.
This, also justifies putting more than 1 sandcaster in 1 turret.

However, I believe it can be house ruled, that the sheep needs special "anti missile sand".

 

[apoc527]

Yes, missile bank= bay. MGT Core calls it a bank for some reason.

As for Sandcasters vs missiles, I don't like it unless the sand pebble rounds are used.

Finally, as to the CSC armor piercing rules, I'm really just using them as a reference to describe the same concepts and rules for ship combat. Your thread is about using CSC weapons with AP against starships, my idea is to apply the same terms to starship scale weapons. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Solomani666]

Any chance of an S&P article?

.

 

[barnest2]

Any chance of an S&P article?

.

I doubt it, particularly not at the moment since S&P has been shut down till next year.

 

[apoc527]

An S&P article had been the plan, but it's not running currently. When it comes back, perhaps perhaps!

 

[Garuda]

What I'd like to see is some simple yet comprehensive rules for missiles used in vehicle and aircraft combat. Anti-air and anti-armour light tac missiles.

Its possible to codge something together from snippets of information in the CSC but there's no official rules for a robust vehicle system.