Torpedoes vs the Sensop (Electronic Warfare)

[Yenaldlooshi]

Torpedoes cost over twice a normal missile and less can be launched at a time.

They do half as much more damage and the are twice as good at getting past PD.

But what about the sensop?

At very long range, with equal skill levels, more missiles will be defeated by the sensop's repeated EW attacks than by the PD gunner's single shot at the end of the missiles run. With their lower numbers at launch, unless they get a buff vs the sensop, it really does not make any sense to ever even have and use torpedoes ever unless you only intent to use them at Medium or less range.

What say you, forum folk?

 

[MasterGwydion]

Torpedoes cost over twice a normal missile and less can be launched at a time.

They do half as much more damage and the are twice as good at getting past PD.

But what about the sensop?

At very long range, with equal skill levels, more missiles will be defeated by the sensop's repeated EW attacks than by the PD gunner's single shot at the end of the missiles run. With their lower numbers at launch, unless they get a buff vs the sensop, it really does not make any sense to ever even have and use torpedoes ever unless you only intent to use them at Medium or less range.

What say you, forum folk?

Given the mechanics? Get as close as possible before launching your torpedoes. Best if they arrive the same round they are launched.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Given the mechanics? Get as close as possible before launching your torpedoes. Best if they arrive the same round they are launched.

I hear ya. I thought of that but does that sound like it "should" be? Are torpedoes basically "naval knives" in a knife fight? Maybe that matches the history of weapons named "torpedo".

 

[MonsterX]

As it stands, of course the target ship is going to concentrate its EW on the high damage torpedoes rather than the low damage missiles. Seems like a torpedo would have more space for ECCM than a missile, so maybe it would be possible to buy torpedoes that have more of that.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

As it stands, of course the target ship is going to concentrate its EW on the high damage torpedoes rather than the low damage missiles. Seems like a torpedo would have more space for ECCM than a missile, so maybe it would be possible to buy torpedoes that have more of that.

I was thinking maybe since PD is only half effective vs. Torps. Maybe effect should be halved vs Torps in EW. Or maybe that is not enough because of their smaller numbers. Or maybe that would be too much because it was only ever meant to be a Medium range or less option just like the old torpedoes IRL. I am torn both ways on this.

 

[Condottiere]

As I understand it, the torpedo hull is tougher than a missile's.

No idea if there's any significant difference in electronic efficacy.

Outside that what is a stated effect, like high speed anti radiation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Given the mechanics? Get as close as possible before launching your torpedoes. Best if they arrive the same round they are launched.

You'll be dead by then...

Missiles (and torpedoes) are a stand-off weapon, but replaced by particle bays as the Distant range weapon of choice.


Torpedoes were superior to missiles in large numbers in HG'16. They were cheaper per broadside and did more damage through armour. EW was, and is, irrelevant if you launch thousands in a salvo, i.e. from large ships.


HG'22 nerfed large warships and missiles. Massed particle beams will kill anything at Distant range, so no real need to plan for shorter range combat, at least at TL13+ or so.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I was thinking maybe since PD is only half effective vs. Torps. Maybe effect should be halved vs Torps in EW. Or maybe that is not enough because of their smaller numbers. Or maybe that would be too much because it was only ever meant to be a Medium range or less option just like the old torpedoes IRL. I am torn both ways on this.

They were for long range, large ship combat in HG'16.

They are useless in HG'22, because of the Anti-torpedo missile...

 

[ChrisJ]

As I read the core rulebook - EW only affects missiles. While the core rulebook only deals with Missiles as weapons, it does reference HG for non-standard missiles. The Section on Torpedoes in HG makes no mention of EW, except for the Anti-Radiation torpedoes (which implies the defender can either use EW on missiles, and be hit by the Anti-radiation torp). This implies that EW is ineffective against Torpedoes. Which given the presence of Anti-Torpedo Missiles (which can take affect at range vrs PD which is only vrs attacking Torpedoes), kind of balances Torpedoes in my mind.
Chris

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

As I read the core rulebook - EW only affects missiles. While the core rulebook only deals with Missiles as weapons, it does reference HG for non-standard missiles. The Section on Torpedoes in HG makes no mention of EW, except for the Anti-Radiation torpedoes (which implies the defender can either use EW on missiles, and be hit by the Anti-radiation torp). This implies that EW is ineffective against Torpedoes. Which given the presence of Anti-Torpedo Missiles (which can take affect at range vrs PD which is only vrs attacking Torpedoes), kind of balances Torpedoes in my mind.
Chris

Look at the pop-out on HG34 titled "Multiple Warheads Incoming!". It states "When multiple salvoes of missiles (or torpedoes) are incoming,
even the finest sensor operator can become quickly overwhelmed..."

Thus clearly indicating by inference that Torpedoes are countered by EW. The lack of mention in the EW rules is just as stated earlier, a glitch.

I think saying that they are totally not affected by EW is a bit overpowering them, but saying that they are as resilient against EW as they are PD, ie. the effect is halved, is a better balance and fits rulebook intent best.

 

[ChrisJ]

If your argument is citing flavor text - I'll cite some flavor text of my own - also on the same page - the text for Torpedo Bays implies Missile Salvoes are all well and good but Torpedo Salvo's are the real problem case for a ship's captain. However Torpedo bays launch 1/4 of the number of projectiles per salvo when compared to Missile bays - if they were subject to EW in the same way they don't seem that threatening.

In fact Torpedoes are not overpowered with the introduction of the Anti-Torpedo Missile - which neuters most Torpedo attacks. Allowing Torpedoes to be affected by EW is definitely pushing them into a Short Range Threat which seems counter to the flavor text.

Both positions are well and good - perhaps the rules compendium out next year will provide clarity (cough)

Till then we'll have to keep to using our own interpretations of the current text.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

If your argument is citing flavor text - I'll cite some flavor text of my own - also on the same page - the text for Torpedo Bays implies Missile Salvoes are all well and good but Torpedo Salvo's are the real problem case for a ship's captain. However Torpedo bays launch 1/4 of the number of projectiles per salvo when compared to Missile bays - if they were subject to EW in the same way they don't seem that threatening.

In fact Torpedoes are not overpowered with the introduction of the Anti-Torpedo Missile - which neuters most Torpedo attacks. Allowing Torpedoes to be affected by EW is definitely pushing them into a Short Range Threat which seems counter to the flavor text.

Both positions are well and good - perhaps the rules compendium out next year will provide clarity (cough)

I agree with all this but... I can't agree that what I quoted was not simply "flavor text" compared to the text you indicated. Torpedoes being a problem for a sensop doing EW is a pretty binary conclusion. Either the sensop can affect the torp or it cannot. If it can, then that means EW applies.

What you are pointing states; "A flurry of missiles will panic any ship’s captain but a salvo of torpedoes is real cause for concern." I can see why you would call that flavor text because of how subjective it is with the phrase "cause for concern". Is that because of the diminished PD defense? The higher damage?

...and while we are on it, torpedoes specifically mention that PD effect is halved but are expressly silent about EW in this description. Yet, PD in core only refers to being an antimissile defense too with no mention of torpedoes. I think it's a biig stretch to say that EW does nothing. It's more likely the rules writers neglected to write the rule because they forgot to specify and assumed all would assume. In that view, EW has full effect... which I think is a mistake.

Till then we'll have to keep to using our own interpretations of the current text.

^^THIS though.. we are both on the same page about this. Me, being someone who when I buy rule books, I like them to actually contain rules and not just allusions to rules and "adventure seeds", would love to do less of having to use my own interpretations.

 

[MasterGwydion]

^^THIS though.. we are both on the same page about this. Me, being someone who when I buy rule books, I like them to actually contain rules and not just allusions to rules and "adventure seeds", would love to do less of having to use my own interpretations.

Yes! Very much this!

 

[phavoc]

I agree with all this but... I can't agree that what I quoted was not simply "flavor text" compared to the text you indicated. Torpedoes being a problem for a sensop doing EW is a pretty binary conclusion. Either the sensop can affect the torp or it cannot. If it can, then that means EW applies.

What you are pointing states; "A flurry of missiles will panic any ship’s captain but a salvo of torpedoes is real cause for concern." I can see why you would call that flavor text because of how subjective it is with the phrase "cause for concern". Is that because of the diminished PD defense? The higher damage?

...and while we are on it, torpedoes specifically mention that PD effect is halved but are expressly silent about EW in this description. Yet, PD in core only refers to being an antimissile defense too with no mention of torpedoes. I think it's a biig stretch to say that EW does nothing. It's more likely the rules writers neglected to write the rule because they forgot to specify and assumed all would assume. In that view, EW has full effect... which I think is a mistake.

I've always considered the torpedo the equivalent of a capital missile. The standard missile should be too small to do much, if any, damage to a capital ship. Progression of aerial-carried rockets and torpedoes goes from 70mm-equivalent to the FFAR to aircraft being able to carry a single torpedo. Rockets were ok against lightly armored ground targets and naval vessels, but weren't really much dangerous than gunfire. Torpedoes were capital ship killers due to their large warhead (and for how torpedoes worked against naval vessels). Gravity bombs factor in there somewhere, but let's skip for now.

Next you get into the jet age and you get smaller missiles, then smaller(ish) anti-ship missiles like Exocet or Harpoon - can be heavily damaging, but only because warships don't carry armor like they used to. Bombers are able to carry some of the bigger missiles that carry some pretty big warheads - talking like B52, B1/B2 and Bear/Backfire bombers. All non-nukes though. Essentially ship-launched missiles are pretty equivalent to air launched ones. Cruise missiles I'd put into the bomber-class ones.

The above is why I'd think that torpedoes are gonna mess somebody's world up - if they can hit. With point defense you can take out large, or small, inbound missiles and torps simply because they are fragile little things. Since the advent of point defense the idea has always been that you need to overwhelm a targets defenses (active) and defeat or ignore them (passive). ECM can be considered both active and passive since an operator is actively trying to jam an inbound round and it's also throwing up a lot of static, sensor echoes and other garbage trying to make the ship look like it's not really the target. So that's gonna be in both categories in my opinion.

RPG capital ship combat is kinda odd. Traveller itself is not a wargame system. There are much better starship combat game systems out there because they are designed as such from the ground up. At best your better crews get a slight die modifier. But most everything is table-based. SFB and Starfire are pretty decent systems for ships that scale relatively easy between smaller and larger ships. The old RL Leviathan system was ok as well (I did like how RL had the different types of damage from different weapons, some peeling back layers of armor and others just punching straight through - made for good reasons why you SHOULD mix armaments).

I think Traveller should finally bite the bullet and leave small-ship combat with RPG-type playing, and make the HG and fleet combat more wargame-like. As far as I've seen you don't really get a lot of overlap for the people to play out capital ship campaigns with PC's. I know there's been the attempt to try and bridge it, but I can't really say how successful it's been.

^^THIS though.. we are both on the same page about this. Me, being someone who when I buy rule books, I like them to actually contain rules and not just allusions to rules and "adventure seeds", would love to do less of having to use my own interpretations.

Can't agree more. I buy games for a few reasons - one to support the publishers because w/o them it would be, well, kinda sad. Though I refuse to buy schlock for that reason. They don't DESERVE my gaming dollars, but they can certainly earn them. And your point about the rule books containg actual rules and not some mish-mash of suggestions w/o committent is spot on. The entire point of buying a rule system is to have a rule system. If everything is "well, if you feel like doing X, or Y, or et, cetera, what's the frigging point? I can do that myself. Professionally published rules need to be professional - that means they need to be consistent, well-thought-out and complimentary to the rest of the gaming system. I think we are well-passed buying our games in baggies at the local hobby store, treating each one like its Christmas and hoping we get a good "present" this time around.

 

[Condottiere]

You could kamikaze an unmanned, self guided, five tonne spacecraft.

Packed to the gills with explosives.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

You could kamikaze an unmanned, self guided, five tonne spacecraft.

Packed to the gills with explosives.

the fact that under RAW, your example above would not be included as it is not a missile or torpedo by definition means that they should put a rule that states something like "for the purposes of these rules, all unmanned self-guided weapons, vehicles or spacecraft can be considered "missiles" " if the intent is that they have no special qualities that thwart EW or do so to some degree (or not at all).