Standard Missiles - Why Even Bother?

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Damage, for the main 3I campaign, have stuck with the limited damage in CRB and HG, but, if, in one round, a target is hit by enough conventional missiles to exceed the armour rating, +1, or enough nuclear missile to exceed half the armour rating, +1, then allow one roll on the hit location table. Obviously radiation effects may still apply.

So if a ship with armor 4 is hit by 5 missiles in one round, it takes a hit? I like it, simple way to make missiles (swarms of them anyway) somewhat useful, even against heavily armored ships!

Sorry, I should have included an example, in the case you cite, one in every three missiles would exceed the armour anyway, on average causing 2 hits, so no need for this amendment. However, if a target has armour 8, at the moment it is invulnerable to normal missiles, however, using this rule, if hit by 9 missiles in one turn, it will still suffer one hit of damage. This can be particularly useful if firing bays of 12 or 24 missiles.

Egil

 

[Reynard]

I was clarifying my point about the rocket package on a missile is quite different from the similar reaction engines on a jet and spacecraft.

 

[DickTurpin]

Well, yeah, put simply HG reaction drives won't fit in a missile any more than HG gravitic drives. The smallest reaction drive having a volume of 3.375 metres cubed. Neither type of HG drive is applicable, so something else must propel Traveller missiles.

Spaceship rated drives do not fit in missiles. You cannot extend that argument to mean that NO drives can fit into missiles, especially since they do in fact have drives.

MgT does not include rules for designing missiles, any more than they have rules for designing different ammo loads for slug guns. This lack does not prevent you from using missiles any more than it prevents you from using bullets.

 

[mr31337]

Well, yeah, put simply HG reaction drives won't fit in a missile any more than HG gravitic drives. The smallest reaction drive having a volume of 3.375 metres cubed. Neither type of HG drive is applicable, so something else must propel Traveller missiles.

Spaceship rated drives do not fit in missiles. You cannot extend that argument to mean that NO drives can fit into missiles, especially since they do in fact have drives.

MgT does not include rules for designing missiles, any more than they have rules for designing different ammo loads for slug guns. This lack does not prevent you from using missiles any more than it prevents you from using bullets.

DT, I'm in complete agreement with you. I never said that missiles are not propelled by reaction drives or gravitic drives, simply that it cannot be those types as listed in High Guard.... but exactly what does propel missiles I don't believe we are told anywhere, so looks like GM fiat.

 

[Reynard]

"DT, I'm in complete agreement with you. I never said that missiles are not propelled by reaction drives or gravitic drives, simply that it cannot be those types as listed in High Guard.... but exactly what does propel missiles I don't believe we are told anywhere, so looks like GM fiat."

Actually we are. It's on core book page 111. The missiles on those ships are TL 6 with a slightly more sophisticated one at TL 8. These are not complex items, they are tech when missiles became part of an arsenal replacing dumb rockets. What come out of a ship turret is a little energy seeker or an image recognizer with thrusters for turning. Cheap, simple warhead, guidance and propellant. They are probably larger versions of vehicle tac missiles meant to pierce ship armor.

"Missiles are powered by an engine, generally either a type of rocket or jet engine. Rockets are generally of the solid fuel type for ease of maintenance and fast deployment, although some larger ballistic missiles use liquid fuel rockets. Jet engines are generally used in cruise missiles, most commonly of the turbojet type, due to its relative simplicity and low frontal area."

Cruise missiles are above the Traveller ship missile as it can travel even greater distances looking for specific target. They would be more a hunter drone. That means ship missiles are simple rocket engine packages.

The biggest factor of a ship's missile is distance and that take a lot of propellant so those missiles are mostly propellant. This also explains the cost of each. Looking at the tac missile design system in Striker... yeah, for a warhead big enough to dent ship armor and fuel for flight time, you're getting a bargain at 1.25 kcr per unit.

One last thing. Zero armor in a ship is not unarmored, it is the minimal toughness (Hull and Structure) for a ship to prevent 'normal' wear and tear from high velocity debris. Considering the damage potential, that is still tough armor! Just to be sure though does anyone know if there's a rule comparing damage between ground weapons and armor and that of starships. Can't find it between the Core book and old Mercenary.

 

[Nerhesi]

Why even bother?

Why bother with beam lasers? Why bother with pulse lasers? Hell why bother with particle beams or anything that isn't a barbette/bay when you are dealing with TL14+ bonded super dense armor?

The fact that at certain technology/experience levels/tiers, you become immune to some weapons is really common to most RPGs.

I don't see this as losing anything but actually adding flavour. Once I'm in a military craft, your missiles, beam lasers, pulse lasers are effectively no different than micrometeorites and every-day space radiation to me - I completely ignore it.

 

[sideranautae]

The fact that at certain technology/experience levels/tiers, you become immune to some weapons is really common to most RPGs.

It' also common to real life. A modern TL 7 MBT is immune to TL 4 cannon. Why wouldn't an armored TL 14 armored starship be immune to puny TL 7/8 weapons?

 

[Infojunky]

The fact that at certain technology/experience levels/tiers, you become immune to some weapons is really common to most RPGs.

It' also common to real life. A modern TL 7 MBT is immune to TL 4 cannon. Why wouldn't an armored TL 14 armored starship be immune to puny TL 7/8 weapons?

Ah real life.... What's a Tech Level? What is its metric?

 

[sideranautae]

What's a Tech Level? What is its metric?

See the related game material printed since '77. After you study that you will know.

 

[Rick]

The fact that at certain technology/experience levels/tiers, you become immune to some weapons is really common to most RPGs.

It' also common to real life. A modern TL 7 MBT is immune to TL 4 cannon. Why wouldn't an armored TL 14 armored starship be immune to puny TL 7/8 weapons?

"Effectively" immune - you might still get a mobility kill on an MBT. That and jamming the turret traverse would effectively take an MBT out of the fight without penetrating armour, but it would certainly be highly improbable.

 

[sideranautae]

"Effectively" immune - you might still get a mobility kill on an MBT. That and jamming the turret traverse would effectively take an MBT out of the fight without penetrating armour, but it would certainly be highly improbable.

Sure, you go get a mobility kill on an M1A2 using a 19th Century 4 pounder and bring proof back to us.

 

[Reynard]

Didn't I see the Three Stooges do that or was it a 16 pounder and dynamite?

 

[hdan]

Sure, you go get a mobility kill on an M1A2 using a 19th Century 4 pounder and bring proof back to us.

Can I attack it from the rear?

Seriously though, for me it's a question of what makes for an enjoyable experience for my players.

Having the PC's ship with its triple turret b-las/sand/mrack be able to engage in combat against pirates makes for more fun. Also, having missiles be dangerous but expensive makes for a fun game as the players weight the more damaging attacks against the cost to their bottom line.

But if this thread has shown us anything, not everyone has the same goals for their games, nor do they consider the same things fun. I clearly err on the side of "space opera".

 

[sideranautae]

Seriously though, for me it's a question of what makes for an enjoyable experience for my players.

Truth

 

[Reynard]

Hear, hear! There's a reason munchkin is a dirty word.

 

[Meanderer]

(deleted)

 

[Meanderer]

(deleted)

 

[Meanderer]

There are some additional versatility with missiles. And multiple salvoes are possible.

The missiles have a limited number of turns of burn before they are no longer able to accelerate to match vectors with the target, but in space they don't need to be burning continuously. It's not like they are going to fall out of the 'sky'. So it is possible to launch a wave of missiles which continue on at the velocity of the ship that launched them while the next turn another wave of missiles are been loaded up and launched.

This is best done while closing in from longer ranges as the launching ship may not want to maneuver much.

If this is done for three turns a ship with two triple missile launchers will now have 18 missiles in space. It then activates the missiles to commence acceleration and they all maneuver towards the target together.

Even with such a tactic, I agree they must do more damage. If they don't stand out as an exceptional weapon why use a missile that costs thousands of credits per shot when the fusion power running the laser turrets is free.