Ship's missile rack help

[MountainMan]

Our group has had a long discussion on exactly what and how a starship's missile system works. This conversation has led into a divergence of thinking and how gameplay is effected. The books are not clear and this lack of clarity is causing some friction in the ranks. The three main concepts are:

1) The missile system works like a submarine torpedo system. Missiles are loaded one at a time by trained persons from a ship's magazine. This is facilitated by either semi automated machines or robots. This means another person besides a turret operator is needed to allow for reloading of the missile system.

2) The missile reload system is like a T-72 MBT auto load system. The gunner(turret operator) uses controls to choose a missile from a central ship's magazine. The missile is then loaded into the launcher by fully automated equipment. There is no need for a "loader" who is independent from the turret operator.

3) A ship's missile rack is like a modern day MLS system. The missiles are prepackaged in a modular rack which is loaded into/onto a ship. While the turret operator can choose from each specific rack the specific missile they want, once a certain ammout of missile type is expended, the rack would have to be changed. This change would have to be done in port,by trained crew, or by some means other than a simple switch selection (i.e., see #2).

Perhaps there are other choices. What I don't want to hear is that the GM is always right. :roll: I've been doing gaming for 35 years and I've heard that enough. What I'm looking for is the generally accepted concept on what and how most starship missle systems work and the needed game mechanic. Your help is appreciated.

 

[barnest2]

I think we had a thread on this recently. I posted this video, of a dual missile launcher loading and firing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgU9B6tQnZM

Question answered? (I think I went with option 2)

 

[bonni56]

Our group has had a long discussion on exactly what and how a starship's missile system works. This conversation has led into a divergence of thinking and how gameplay is effected. The books are not clear and this lack of clarity is causing some friction in the ranks. The three main concepts are:

1) The missile system works like a submarine torpedo system. Missiles are loaded one at a time by trained persons from a ship's magazine. This is facilitated by either semi automated machines or robots. This means another person besides a turret operator is needed to allow for reloading of the missile system.

2) The missile reload system is like a T-72 MBT auto load system. The gunner(turret operator) uses controls to choose a missile from a central ship's magazine. The missile is then loaded into the launcher by fully automated equipment. There is no need for a "loader" who is independent from the turret operator.

3) A ship's missile rack is like a modern day MLS system. The missiles are prepackaged in a modular rack which is loaded into/onto a ship. While the turret operator can choose from each specific rack the specific missile they want, once a certain ammout of missile type is expended, the rack would have to be changed. This change would have to be done in port,by trained crew, or by some means other than a simple switch selection (i.e., see #2).

Perhaps there are other choices. What I don't want to hear is that the GM is always right. :roll: I've been doing gaming for 35 years and I've heard that enough. What I'm looking for is the generally accepted concept on what and how most starship missle systems work and the needed game mechanic. Your help is appreciated.

I too would be interested in this. Although I have to admit that option number 3 isn't really a third option but more of a result of either one or two, depending on what is said about them.

It was my understanding that the missile racks are bought in groups of 12 so that would put them in a rack position but the turrets aren't built to house it directly so the missiles would have to get from point a (the missile rack) to point c (the turret loaded and ready to fire). So really it is the nebulous point B (getting from point A to point c) that is in question.

It's good that you have a GM that is open to what the players think (even if the book says they are always right).

 

[bonni56]

I think we had a thread on this recently. I posted this video, of a dual missile launcher loading and firing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgU9B6tQnZM

Question answered? (I think I went with option 2)

So in a ship that has, for instance the following turrets how many gunners are needed. Would it be 1 or 2?

sandcaster/laser
sandcaster/laser

missile/missile
missile/missile

(2 double turrets). Would it be one gunner for each turret. In this case one gunner for sandcaster/laser and one gunner for missile/missile (x2) or do you need one gunner to handle the two sandcaster/laser turrets and another to handle the two missile/missile turrets.

 

[barnest2]

One gunner per turret. The sand-casters have auto-loaders, like the missile racks. lasers don't need reloading.
So if you have 4 twin turrets, you need 4 gunners.

 

[MountainMan]

Thanks for your input. I would say "Ha, I told you!" to my GM if they were watching this thread, but that would be shallow on my part..........

 

[rust]

I would consider both method 2) and method 3) as plausible, but I would
tend to vote for method 2).

There is no loader, such a position is not mentioned in any of the Traveller
versions I know, and the fact that a turret can also be operated from the
bridge by a single person also excludes the existence of a loader.

Unless I did misread the ship design rules badly, it is possible to design
missile magazines of different sizes / multiple missile magazines. For ex-
ample, the Sylea Class battleship on page 101+ of High Guard carries a
total of 32,400 missiles for its 300 triple missile turrets outside of the tur-
rets, and in my view this would only make sense if the missiles could be
transported quickly from the magazine(s) to the turrets to be loaded and
fired there.

 

[DFW]

I use option 2. I think automation increases with TL. Also, there is no need for a gunner to be in or near a turret. Given proper rating of s/w, I allow a gunner to control any number turrets if they are of same type & firing at same target.

 

[AndrewW]

One gunner per turret. The sand-casters have auto-loaders, like the missile racks. lasers don't need reloading.
So if you have 4 twin turrets, you need 4 gunners.

1 per turret or barrage. Although having fire control software can eliminate or reduce this need.

 

[SSWarlock]

I also have always used option 2 but with the difference of no auto-loader for civilian ships as a cost-saving measure. I've let players save 1/3 the weapon cost that way.

They usually end up learning the concept of "false frugality". :twisted:

 

[phavoc]

I would say option 2 is your best bet. Manually loading missiles is just a dumb idea. So scratch #1

To give some background on the tank example, the US M-1 has a 4man crew, and of those crewmen is a loader. But is by design, because the US realizes that having a 4man crew means the tank can be better maintained by its crew. The Russians try to eliminate the number of crewmembers, and hence they have gone with an auto-loader (though don't ask about the stories of where the autoloader sometimes selected 'crewman' as the most appropriate round! .

A naval analogy is probably better. There they are looking to reduce the number of crew running the ship. So they want as much automation as possible. This line of logic holds true for Traveller too. Except they have much better tech to work with. Having machinery to load the turrets just makes more sense - especially with the size and mass of the missiles. Sure, you could make the area low-G, or even zero-G, but you still have mass to move around.

Option 3, about VLS systems. The rules simply don't take that into account. A VLS system would not have the firing restrictions currently in place (nor would a modern fast-loading missile system for the extremely long Traveller combat turns.. but I digress), and thus would allow you to ripple-fire your missiles in a single combat turn (more digression...).

If you search through some other threads you'll find a few discussions on VLS systems in Traveller.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Our group has had a long discussion on exactly what and how a starship's missile system works. This conversation has led into a divergence of thinking and how gameplay is effected. The books are not clear and this lack of clarity is causing some friction in the ranks. The three main concepts are:

1) The missile system works like a submarine torpedo system. Missiles are loaded one at a time by trained persons from a ship's magazine. This is facilitated by either semi automated machines or robots. This means another person besides a turret operator is needed to allow for reloading of the missile system.

2) The missile reload system is like a T-72 MBT auto load system. The gunner(turret operator) uses controls to choose a missile from a central ship's magazine. The missile is then loaded into the launcher by fully automated equipment. There is no need for a "loader" who is independent from the turret operator.

3) A ship's missile rack is like a modern day MLS system. The missiles are prepackaged in a modular rack which is loaded into/onto a ship. While the turret operator can choose from each specific rack the specific missile they want, once a certain ammout of missile type is expended, the rack would have to be changed. This change would have to be done in port,by trained crew, or by some means other than a simple switch selection (i.e., see #2).

Perhaps there are other choices. What I don't want to hear is that the GM is always right. :roll: I've been doing gaming for 35 years and I've heard that enough. What I'm looking for is the generally accepted concept on what and how most starship missle systems work and the needed game mechanic. Your help is appreciated.

Dear MountainMan,

I will begin to answer your proposals with the following questions:

1) What size ship is this?

2) Do the Ship plans have laid out for the missile turrets (You did not mention these as "bay weapons" of missiles, my presumption bespeaks here) any missile magazines?

3) If the ship plans do not show any magazines, this does not mean they do not exist, but as a general rule extra missiles are carried as cargo outside of a designated magazine (1 dton/ 20 missiles). Does your ship have any cargo space left?

4) Is this a demilitarized, former warship?

sincerely,

Liam Devlin

 

[locarno24]

Thanks for your input. I would say "Ha, I told you!" to my GM if they were watching this thread, but that would be shallow on my part..........

Note that the 'full strength' crew requirements (which military and paramilitary ships should aim for) say two gunners per turret or bay.

This isn't because both are needed simultaneously, it's to allow the ship to continue to fire if one of them is injured, and to allow the ship to remain at full battle readiness for sixteen hours rather than eight.

 

[AndrewW]

Note that the 'full strength' crew requirements (which military and paramilitary ships should aim for) say two gunners per turret or bay

For capital ship, two crew per bay is the normal staffing level, still one per turret though.

 

[locarno24]

When you get up to capitl ship levels, it becomes the default assumption that turrets will be firing in barrages, which only requires gunners on a per-barrage basis.

 

[DFW]

This isn't because both are needed simultaneously, it's to allow the ship to continue to fire if one of them is injured, and to allow the ship to remain at full battle readiness for sixteen hours rather than eight.

Most likely it would be like sub's 6 on 6 off...

 

[phavoc]

I would think that improvements in automation would render the gunner obsolete - at least for most civilian ships.

I understand the desire to have on-mount gunners in the situation where damage to the bridge or fire control section rendered your centralized fire control useless. However we are talking about the potential to engage targets at very long ranges.

Traveller ship combat doesn't take into account multiple targetting scanners and such around the ship that are linked back to each and every individual weapon. That's one of those 'assumptions' I believe. But I also would 'assume' that non-military ships would mount missiles in launch cannisters because a) they are low-maintenance and therefore appeal to a merchant's sense of cost, b) merchant crewmen are not going to train regularly on sims like a military ship would, and c) merchants aren't going to invest in highly-skilled gunners and redundant targetting and tracking systems because they aren't a warship. Merchants may be armed, but there's a limit to how nasty their teeth are going to be - especially if they are travelling in mostly lawful spacelanes.

 

[DFW]

I would think that improvements in automation would render the gunner obsolete - at least for most civilian ships.

MRB

"Automated Positions
The ship’s computer can cover several positions if it is running the
appropriate software:
• Fire Control programs can either act as gunners or aid existing
gunners."

 

[AndrewW]

When you get up to capitl ship levels, it becomes the default assumption that turrets will be firing in barrages, which only requires gunners on a per-barrage basis.

Yup, I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Though barrages aren't limited to capital ships, non-capital ships can use them as well.

 

[phavoc]

I would think that improvements in automation would render the gunner obsolete - at least for most civilian ships.

MRB

"Automated Positions
The ship’s computer can cover several positions if it is running the
appropriate software:
• Fire Control programs can either act as gunners or aid existing
gunners."

Yar. The joys of computers. Actually we have that today, but we leave a human in the loop. Gotta keep the machines down yanno...