Things I don't like about 2e missiles

[ErinPalette]

Capacity: Per the current rules, a 1 dton hardpoint can magically hold 1 dton of missiles, a missile launcher, and potentially 2 more weapons. You do realize this means that a triple missile turret effectively holds 3 dtons of missiles in 1 dton of space, yeah? And this doesn't seem broken or illogical to anyone?

Price: 1e smart missiles were 30,000 per 12. 2e standard (smart) missiles are 250,000 per 12. That's over eight times the cost! I understand that the price ought to go up given that 2e missiles do 4d6 damage as opposed to 1e's 1d6 damage... but not 8x. I could see 4x, though.

Thrust: 1e's Long Range missile used to have Thrust 15. Now it has Thrust 12, which wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that Decoy and Fragmentation missiles have the exact same thrust. I'd like to see the Long Range going back to being king of thrust, please -- either boost it back to 15 or reduce the others.

 

[Belisknar]

Capacity: Per the current rules, a 1 dton hardpoint can magically 1 dton of missiles, a missile launcher, and potentially 2 more weapons. You do realize this means that a triple missile turret effectively holds 3 dtons of missiles in 1 dton of space, yeah? And this doesn't seem broken or illogical to anyone?

I had noticed that and it was bothering me. I was just going to have my own games have hardpoints limited to only one rack or caster mount.

Then again, they could just be constructing the missiles and sand canisters out of Metacarpusbeconium.

 

[phavoc]

Capacity: Per the current rules, a 1 dton hardpoint can magically 1 dton of missiles, a missile launcher, and potentially 2 more weapons. You do realize this means that a triple missile turret effectively holds 3 dtons of missiles in 1 dton of space, yeah? And this doesn't seem broken or illogical to anyone?

Price: 1e smart missiles were 30,000 per 12. 2e standard (smart) missiles are 250,000 per 12. That's over eight times the cost! I understand that the price ought to go up given that 23 missiles do 4d6 damage as opposed to 1e's 1d6 damage... but not 8x. I could see 4x.

Thrust: 1e's Long Range missile used to have Thrust 15. Now it has Thrust 12, which wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that Decoy and Fragmentation missiles have the exact same thrust. I'd like to see the Long Range going back to being king of thrust, please -- either boost it back to 15 or reduce the others.

Yes, the capacity issue has been a long running error waiting to be fixed. A projectile mount should get one round in the tube for free. Beyond that the 10dton space should be for machinery, loading mechanisms, power cabling, etc. Unless you pay for, or at least set aside magazine space, you get zero extra shots.

 

[wbnc]

The 1 d-ton is for machinery that is inside the hull, the rest extends outside the hull. It is there, it just doesn't count toward the volume of the ship.

 

[ErinPalette]

The 1 d-ton is for machinery that is inside the hull, the rest extends outside the hull. It is there, it just doesn't count toward the volume of the ship.

That's BS, and I can prove it:

1) Take a 1000 dton ship.
2) Fit its 10 turrets with triple missile launchers.
3) Ship is now carrying 30 dtons of missiles outside the ship, or the equivalent of one Ship's Boat, for free. This is legal per 2e rules.

4) Remove missile turrets.
5) Replace 30 dtons of missiles with 30 dtons of small craft.
6) This is suddenly not legal, and the 1000 dton ship is now a 1030 dton ship. See also: Docking Clamp.

A ship’s Thrust and jump capability must be recalculated when another ship occupies its docking clamp, using the combined tonnage of both ships. This will likely mean the manoeuvre drive will be operating at a lower Thrust and the jump capability may be reduced.

I fail to see why turrets are special cases, unless they're made out of TARDISes.

 

[wbnc]

.

That's BS, and I can prove it:
[/quote]

try again without the BS part....

 

[ErinPalette]

try again without the BS part....

Okay.

1) Take a 1000 dton ship.
2) Fit its 10 turrets with triple missile launchers.
3) Ship is now carrying 30 dtons of missiles outside the ship, or the equivalent of one Ship's Boat, for free. This is legal per 2e rules.

4) Remove missile turrets.
5) Replace 30 dtons of missiles with 30 dtons of small craft.
6) This is suddenly not legal, and the 1000 dton ship is now a 1030 dton ship. See also: Docking Clamp.

A ship’s Thrust and jump capability must be recalculated when another ship occupies its docking clamp, using the combined tonnage of both ships. This will likely mean the manoeuvre drive will be operating at a lower Thrust and the jump capability may be reduced.

I fail to see why turrets are special cases, unless they're made out of TARDISes.

 

[wbnc]

try again without the BS part....

Okay.

1) Take a 1000 dton ship.
2) Fit its 10 turrets with triple missile launchers.
3) Ship is now carrying 30 dtons of missiles outside the ship, or the equivalent of one Ship's Boat, for free. This is legal per 2e rules.

4) Remove missile turrets.
5) Replace 30 dtons of missiles with 30 dtons of small craft.
6) This is suddenly not legal, and the 1000 dton ship is now a 1030 dton ship. See also: Docking Clamp.

A ship’s Thrust and jump capability must be recalculated when another ship occupies its docking clamp, using the combined tonnage of both ships. This will likely mean the manoeuvre drive will be operating at a lower Thrust and the jump capability may be reduced.

I fail to see why turrets are special cases, unless they're made out of TARDISes.

Okay a few things.

Turrets( all types) are a special case ... it's not because it's a mistake...or an oversight. the design system models things in a very loose way to simplify book keeping.

if you figure in all the hardware for a triple missile launcher you get something within a ton of a barbette. so Unless you drop the missile turret all together.

you have to allow for some wiggle room....which would be absorbed by giving the designer 10% of the ships total tonnage to handle odd bits and pieces that aren't detailed out....

so the fact the ammo canister and reloading gear is not detailed is....One, to save book keeping and simplify the design process.

If you have no desire to make those allowances just use a missile barbette instead.

 

[ErinPalette]

if you figure in all the hardware for a triple missile launcher you get something within a ton of a barbette.

If you have no desire to make those allowances just use a missile barbette instead.

Or we could just go back to the sensible way 1e did it, where each launcher kept one missile in the tube and the rest were in magazines.

 

[wbnc]

if you figure in all the hardware for a triple missile launcher you get something within a ton of a barbette.

If you have no desire to make those allowances just use a missile barbette instead.

Or we could just go back to the sensible way 1e did it, where each launcher kept one missile in the tube and the rest were in magazines.

By the way I've tried to work out how the systems work and what they have looked at which led to a rather lengthy discussion..http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=117126

If you put the missiles anywhere, it leads to someone having questions objections.put them on the exterior and say "okay their in an armored box on the outside of the hull,, dont sweat the associated machinery.) leads to your objections..

Put the misssiles inside with a loader to rearm the rail...you have to answer a laundry list of questions.

1) where is the magazine
2) how does the missile gt to the launcher
3) where is that on the deckplan
4) how many tons does that take up, and how much does it cost.
5) how long does it take to reload the launcher from the magazine
6) why does it take so (insert time frame) to reload the missile and not (insert alternate time frame)
7) if the magazine is internal why doesn't it blow up the ship when it gets hit.

And there is no answer to any of those questions that wont draw objections, so missiles end up in an armored box on the outside of the hull, don't count towards tonnage...

few numbers, fewer headaches, few numbers for someone who want to build a ship for use in one scenario...in a game that will probably get canceled due to someones kid catching the flu...Or the party finds a way to mess up the whole scenario and you never even use the ship to begin with.

I like dealing with he details, It's what I do for giggles and grins.And yes I have issues with the way some things are done....but sometimes ya have to let one or two things go...simply so you don't end up with a design system that has it's own shelf in the gaming room.

 

[ErinPalette]

few numbers, fewer headaches, few numbers for someone who want to build a ship for use in one scenario...in a game that will probably get canceled due to someones kid catching the flu...Or the party finds a way to mess up the whole scenario and you never even use the ship to begin with.

That's your argument?

Really?

Look, if you're going to state that "It doesn't matter, the game won't be played anyway," you really don't belong in a playtest discussion. Let those of us for whom it matters work it out, and then you can accept or house-rule them for your game which will likely get canceled anyway.

I argue because it does matter, to me and to the group for whom I've GM'ed for the past three years.

 

[wbnc]

few numbers, fewer headaches, few numbers for someone who want to build a ship for use in one scenario...in a game that will probably get canceled due to someones kid catching the flu...Or the party finds a way to mess up the whole scenario and you never even use the ship to begin with.

That's your argument?

Really?

Look, if you're going to state that "It doesn't matter, the game won't be played anyway," you really don't belong in a playtest discussion. Let those of us for whom it matters work it out, and then you can accept or house-rule them for your game which will likely get canceled anyway.

I argue because it does matter, to me and to the group for whom I've GM'ed for the past three years.

It matters to me.and I have my reasons for accepting the current model even if i think it's not optimum.And that's after some fairly intense work on the subject.

first:
I'm the guy who sat down and modeled out a dozen probable layouts for missile batteries and how they could connect with turrets.I watched hours on video, and read god knows how many articles, and technical documents on missile systems..I even called up an old buddy who was a crewman on a missile cruiser, and another who manned a patriot battery....

I sat down and drew up a model of a 100 ton bay just so I had the actual scale, and layout in my head ...all of that to try and come up with a layout and mechanic that didn't make my teeth grate...

and after all that I moved my notes over to the back burner. I decided that unless I am going to do a lot more work than the issue demands...At east until I am getting paid to put that effort into it..I still have a book to rewrite....

With a good bit of disgust on my part. I decided the current explanation will have to do I cant come up with a better solution that isn't a bigger pain in the backside. And as you will see further down my preferred solution is more radical than yours....

I am a pragmatic person...don't pick a fight that there isn't a practical answer too...until you have all bigger fish caught, gutted, scaled, and sizzling next to a nice big batch of fresh chips...preferably with a nice tall glass of something hoppy and dark in hand.

second
As I said don't have an easy answer to the solution..one solution works equally unwell as the other.

mathematics, and comparisons of cost vs damage/volume, and simple mental sketches do not show the depths of the problem a realistic simulation of a missile weapons system on a starship.

once you actually look at the physical requirements, the logistics, and mechanical complexities involved..you very quickly shut that door,lock it, and try to erase the horrors you have seen from memory..I would not wish that on any designer I know.....and right now I have bigger fish on the hook.

Third:
personally I don't think missiles should be turret weapons at all... Shifting missiles over to a separate category. with ("Pods") at 5 ton ( turret equivalent)and 10 tons ( barbette equivalent).With one, and three tons of missiles ready on the repective mounts....and then bay type weapons.

all of which are capable of unloading either one missile, a successive stream of missiles,or all their ready rounds at once is more accurate.

and I definitely don't think missiles and other weapons should compatible on the same mount...EVER.

But I don't see ever getting that series of suggestions approved, or implemented in the near future.that solution turns missiles into a truly lethal system capable of overwhelming any defense in short order.

If a pod is capable of launching a ton of missiles at once,...would you really like to see the massed firepower of a missile cruiser with multiple 100 ton bays capable of salvo fire??????

I didn't go..oh bother that's good enough..or decide at random it was more trouble than it was worth..I did my homework...I came up with alternatives, and then decided the current model was the least problematic.

 

[PsiTraveller]

The Honor Harrington series of novels shows a pod based salvo missile combat Navy Doctrine. Thousands of missiles in a mass of destruction heading toward targets. And these are big missilles pulled by monster sized ships.

I can see the issues of modern missile tech able to unleash a barrage of missiles at a target. Glossing over the tech makes the game faster and annoys the more realistic oriented gamers. I have a player that tries to redo maps to show how the ships would really look.

I think on this issue a certain amount of hand waving is unavoidable or you have to redo the entire weapon and ship design rules.

 

[wbnc]

The Honor Harrington series of novels shows a pod based salvo missile combat Navy Doctrine. Thousands of missiles in a mass of destruction heading toward targets. And these are big missilles pulled by monster sized ships.

I can see the issues of modern missile tech able to unleash a barrage of missiles at a target. Glossing over the tech makes the game faster and annoys the more realistic oriented gamers. I have a player that tries to redo maps to show how the ships would really look.

I think on this issue a certain amount of hand waving is unavoidable or you have to redo the entire weapon and ship design rules.

Roll barrels = somebody gonna die...

an Aegis missile ship can engage multiple targets at once form a single system...and link it's fire control systems into other ships in the fleet, while directing CIWS gunfire....and that's without human intervention.

A book once described an integrated Aegis system on full automatic as" Armageddon Mode." quite simply because anything in the air, or sea, around it was about to think the world was ending...

if you made missiles as lethal as they should be there would be nothing but missile cruisers and missile armed fighters linked into integrated fir control networks....those pretty shiny multi-ton multi Mcr spinal mounts would never get a chance to fire a shot.

I know this...so I don't push upgrading missiles to where I think they should be. Because, it would rewrite the basics of ship to ship combat. And move it away from where the setting ( and it's creator)intends for it to be.

 

[Condottiere]

Weber pretty much modernized comparatively rapidly from Nelson to Yamamoto to whoever you can iconify that established modern naval doctrine and technology.

The system has to conform to paper-rock-scissors, otherwise it becomes borrowing.

 

[phavoc]

I think on this issue a certain amount of hand waving is unavoidable or you have to redo the entire weapon and ship design rules.

Roll barrels = somebody gonna die...

an Aegis missile ship can engage multiple targets at once form a single system...and link it's fire control systems into other ships in the fleet, while directing CIWS gunfire....and that's without human intervention.

A book once described an integrated Aegis system on full automatic as" Armageddon Mode." quite simply because anything in the air, or sea, around it was about to think the world was ending...

if you made missiles as lethal as they should be there would be nothing but missile cruisers and missile armed fighters linked into integrated fir control networks....those pretty shiny multi-ton multi Mcr spinal mounts would never get a chance to fire a shot.

I know this...so I don't push upgrading missiles to where I think they should be. Because, it would rewrite the basics of ship to ship combat. And move it away from where the setting ( and it's creator)intends for it to be.[/quote]

Nah. But you can't adjust missile technologies with also looking at adjusting missile defenses. That's been the entire process for military technology since it's inception.

In the Weber universe you have massive increases in missile salvos, but you also quickly see counters and improved defenses to offset it as well.

For gaming you do want a method that allows you to choose where on the spectrum you want to be. Most players do the min max ship design rather than a balanced design that you see in the real world.

 

[wbnc]

Nah. But you can't adjust missile technologies with also looking at adjusting missile defenses. That's been the entire process for military technology since it's inception.

In the Weber universe you have massive increases in missile salvos, but you also quickly see counters and improved defenses to offset it as well.

For gaming you do want a method that allows you to choose where on the spectrum you want to be. Most players do the min max ship design rather than a balanced design that you see in the real world.

I agree, min/maxed perfectly optimized designs exist only in the minds of gamers.

Sometime you have to take a few factors that could be better...and go with it. It is not perfect..but, to paraphrase.... The perfect is the enemy, of the adequate.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, time to step in

I am actually not too worried about the capacity issue - the design rules have been put together with a 10-20% leeway to aid deck plan drawing and remove issues, well, like this one! Basically, there are lots of different ways to build the same spec ship, and one vessel with bloated missile turrets may have a more efficient life support system that takes up less space.

What I am more concerned about is the cost of missiles, as raised in the first post.

They _are_ more powerful. But the cost may be an over-reaction.

So, how much should the standard missile cost?

 

[Condottiere]

Should priced/prized by performance, with a separation between military versions, and those available to the general public, after suitable background checks.

 

[wbnc]

Okay, time to step in

I am actually not too worried about the capacity issue - the design rules have been put together with a 10-20% leeway to aid deck plan drawing and remove issues, well, like this one! Basically, there are lots of different ways to build the same spec ship, and one vessel with bloated missile turrets may have a more efficient life support system that takes up less space.

What I am more concerned about is the cost of missiles, as raised in the first post.

They _are_ more powerful. But the cost may be an over-reaction.

So, how much should the standard missile cost?

honestly i'm not very good with cost issues..but off the top of my head I'd say start at 30K for standard missiles.

I'd suggest adding a civilian missile, with a bit less damage, or slower...at a better price for those on a budget. It make sense to me, due to the fact i can see the military and security forces wanting to keep an edge over civilian/merc vessels.

say something like
2d6 thrust 6-10 for a basic of the shelf self defense missile. price them at 15K like the old version. A touch more powerful, and still fast enough to chase down pirates, and other modified commercial vessels.