Torpedoes vs the Sensop (Electronic Warfare)

[Condottiere]

Ten times smaller, at the cost of skipping a round to reload.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Maybe we should back up a bit and ask a very basic game design question;

What do we WANT a weapon called a "Torpedo" to be and what qualities do we WANT it to have?

This would be my answer:
Torpedo should be a bigger, heavier, more destructive weapon than a missile.
It should be harder to defend against and certainly not easier to defend against than missiles.
Its cost should scale with its increased abilities with regard to that destructiveness and durability.
HG seems to agree when on HG31="Torpedoes are treated in every way like missiles, although they tend to be a lot more powerful."
also, and this may seem odd but still important to me:
It should have some resemblance in its use and place in game-warfare to the use of real-world naval torpedoes in real warfare.
Lastly, there should be dramatic tension as a torpedo closes in on targets a v. long or distant range.

In trying to use the rules canon we have:
A standard Torpedo costs 2.4 times the cost of a missile.
It halves the effect PD defense vs. missiles which is only allowed once per salvo.
Launch rates of missiles vs torpedoes come out to be
Barbette=5 vs 1 (presumably, rof is not explicit)
Small Bay=12 vs 3 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Med Bay=24 vs 6 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Large Bay=120 vs 30 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Damage (standard) is 4D vs 6D

UPDATE: (this next section of this post has been edited to make the HR more closely align with existing rules of EW vs single salvos)

So after analyzing all of this, here is my house rule suggestion (until Mg agrees with me), "Due to more ECCM Hardware packed into their larger chassis, Torpedoes are much more difficult to defeat with EW. In order to defeat a torpedo or salvo of torpedoes, you must accumulate 4 points of successful effect for each torpedo defeated in a salvo. If all torpedoes in a salvo are defeated and there are still left over effect points, these are just lost. They cannot be used on another salvo.

This HR achieves all the design intentions I would have and I think what the RAW might prefer. They had some good rules but seemed to forget about EW and how the lower launch rate of torpedoes would make them particularly prone to it.

 

[Condottiere]

Half of them don't wander off after thirty minutes.

And, according to Robots, last two hours.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then what is the point of a torpedo barbette?

A torpedo barbette can launch 1 torpedo per 5 Dt and 1 hardpoint.
A Torpedo bay can launch 3 torpedoes per 50 Dt ≈ 1 torpedo per 17 Dt and 1/3 hardpoint.
Barbettes are more efficient by tonnage, bays are more efficient per hardpoint.
A 200 kDt battleship can launch more torpedoes by combining bays and barbettes to use hardpoints and tonnage optimally.


Fighters can theoretically launch masses of tiny salvoes, overwhelming EW and PD by sheer numbers.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

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

If you have perfect intelligence on your enemy, and know that they will be armed with torpedoes, and you can get a hold of this defense, and you have chosen to load racks with these instead of more effective missiles vs ships, then yes you have, and probably deserve, to make their torpedoes useless.

of course, in so doing, you have also made your own missile launchers dedicated to this nearly useless in terms of offense, until you spend the action steps to unload/reload with non anti-torp missiles.

This not always being the case, I think torpedoes still are alive and well in the age of the anti-torp missile.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In trying to use the rules canon we have:
A standard Torpedo costs 2.4 times the cost of a missile.

But torpedo bays are much cheaper than missile bays.
Isocost we get more torpedo ships than missile ships, at least in HG'16 that was significant.
You have to compare ships or fleets, not just the weapon system.

2 sensor operators, one on the bridge and one at an additional sensor station attempt to defeat a salvo of 3 inbound torpedoes. They make their rolls and each succeeds with an effect 5 totalling 10. This destroys 2 of the 3 torpedoes leaving 2 more points of effect on the 3 before it will be defeated...

By RAW only one EW attempt per salvo per turn.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If you have perfect intelligence on your enemy, and know that they will be armed with torpedoes, and you can get a hold of this defense, and you have chosen to load racks with these instead of more effective missiles vs ships, then yes you have, and probably deserve, to make their torpedoes useless.

It means that missile ships always defeats torpedo ships, so it you want salvo ships you build missile ships. Even secondary missile armament will defeat torpedo main armament.


If you want a missiles as main armament, your entire fleet will be built to maximise throw weight, something that will be apparent to any potential enemy decades in advance of any conflict. It's just as clear as battleships vs carriers was on Terra.

Or, if you wish, if another power takes a decade or two to develop and build a torpedo heavy fleet, I can negate that in six months by a crash program building anti-torpedo missiles. Are you entirely sure you can keep your fleet completely secret for decades?

 

[MasterGwydion]

A torpedo barbette can launch 1 torpedo per 5 Dt and 1 hardpoint.
A Torpedo bay can launch 3 torpedoes per 50 Dt ≈ 1 torpedo per 17 Dt and 1/3 hardpoint.
Barbettes are more efficient by tonnage, bays are more efficient per hardpoint.
A 200 kDt battleship can launch more torpedoes by combining bays and barbettes to use hardpoints and tonnage optimally.


Fighters can theoretically launch masses of tiny salvoes, overwhelming EW and PD by sheer numbers.

Thank you.

 

[collins355]

Maybe we should back up a bit and ask a very basic game design question;

What do we WANT a weapon called a "Torpedo" to be and what qualities do we WANT it to have?

Agreed. My question would be - why was it deemed necessary to add the "torpedo" to Traveller canon by Mongoose? What issue was it intended to solve?

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

But torpedo bays are much cheaper than missile bays.
Isocost we get more torpedo ships than missile ships, at least in HG'16 that was significant.
You have to compare ships or fleets, not just the weapon system.

Thanks, I didn't notice this till you pointed it out. Good to know but doesn't really tip the balance for me since that is a one-time cost vs the cost of missiles and torpedo's which are a consumable. (of course you can get into the idea that in the lifetime of a ship, it should hardly ever have to fire in anger no more than one battle). To fix this imbalance, if it is even that, the real solution is to raise the price of torpedoes or their launchers but I think there is a real world rational that they are generally easier and cheaper to launch as there are only a few of them and maybe use less hardware. I don't know. Navy guy would know more than me on this score.)

By RAW only one EW attempt per salvo per turn.

Which RAW? 2e gives us conflicting rules on this. You, of course, are correct for CORE, but HG directly contradicts this rule with the rules about extra sensor stations (HG52) and multiple inbound warheads (HG34)

When in conflict, I go with HG over CORE typically. And when in doubt, I go with the more interesting rules choice than the more boring one.

More sensops is more interesting, dramatically and tactically.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Agreed. My question would be - why was it deemed necessary to add the "torpedo" to Traveller canon by Mongoose? What issue was it intended to solve?

I don't think it was necessary or fixed anything. I think it gave more "flavor" and more interesting choices, or tried to. Science fiction navies in space constantly model their themes after real world wet navies. They have "torpedoes", and so our space navy should have something to call a "torpedo".

btw, ever play Traveller with Navy vets? I have played with a couple. You end up in hearing about how "That's not really a barbette!!!" and other details. LOL

 

[Vormaerin]

Because we all know that word meanings don't evolve and a space barbette will be exactly like a navy wet barbette (or the land barbette before that).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Thanks, I didn't notice this till you pointed it out.

As far as I know, it was intentional to boost torpedoes a little in HG'16.

Good to know but doesn't really tip the balance for me since that is a one-time cost vs the cost of missiles and torpedo's which are a consumable. (of course you can get into the idea that in the lifetime of a ship, it should hardly ever have to fire in anger no more than one battle).

You're probably not going to launch all that many missiles in anger, but for every missile fired you probably need ten (or something) missiles in warehouses to ensure you have functioning missiles of the right type at the right place at the right time...

To fix this imbalance, if it is even that, the real solution is to raise the price of torpedoes or their launchers but I think there is a real world rational that they are generally easier and cheaper to launch as there are only a few of them and maybe use less hardware. I don't know. Navy guy would know more than me on this score.)

It was intentional to balance torpedoes vs missiles, not a mistake.


Even so, the difference between a torpedo bay and a missile bay is MCr 10, and the missiles are MCr 0.1 more expensive per battery-round. So, for a small bay and 100 battery-rounds of ammo, the missile bay is MCr 20 more expensive...

Which RAW? 2e gives us conflicting rules on this. You, of course, are correct for CORE, but HG directly contradicts this rule with the rules about extra sensor stations (HG52)

Sensor Stations only says more sensor operators can perform more actions, not same action multiple times. One sensorOps can perform one action each round, two sensorOps can perform two actions, e.g. EW against two different salvoes, not the same salvo.

and multiple inbound warheads (HG34)

As does p34:

For example, a 75,000-ton ship would have 10 sensor operators on duty who could between them perform the Electronic Warfare action on 10 different incoming salvoes.

Ten actions against ten different salvoes, not ten actions on the same salvo.

There is no contradiction with Core.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

It means that missile ships always defeats torpedo ships, so it you want salvo ships you build missile ships. Even secondary missile armament will defeat torpedo main armament.


If you want a missiles as main armament, your entire fleet will be built to maximise throw weight, something that will be apparent to any potential enemy decades in advance of any conflict. It's just as clear as battleships vs carriers was on Terra.

Or, if you wish, if another power takes a decade or two to develop and build a torpedo heavy fleet, I can negate that in six months by a crash program building anti-torpedo missiles. Are you entirely sure you can keep your fleet completely secret for decades?

Valid points. Buuut.... AT-Missiles only come available at TL13. Torpedoes have been around since TL7. I think you are absolutely right but really it is a case of at TL13 torpedoes are obsolete, even though they might have been in use for all the past 6 TL's until AT-missiles were developed. Anymore, they are used against less developed navies in smaller polities.

They have a place in the catalog, but you are correct, probably not in a high stellar conflict of 3I slogging it out against the Zho.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Because we all know that word meanings don't evolve and a space barbette will be exactly like a navy wet barbette (or the land barbette before that).

that was my point exactly!! lol

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Ten actions against ten different salvoes, not ten actions on the same salvo.

There is no contradiction with Core.

I stand corrected!

 

[Terry Mixon]

I stand corrected!

That’s a lie. You sit corrected.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Valid points. Buuut.... AT-Missiles only come available at TL13. Torpedoes have been around since TL7. I think you are absolutely right but really it is a case of at TL13 torpedoes are obsolete, even though they might have been in use for all the past 6 TL's until AT-missiles were developed. Anymore, they are used against less developed navies in smaller polities.

They have a place in the catalog, but you are correct, probably not in a high stellar conflict of 3I slogging it out against the Zho.

Agreed, my point is only valid at TL-13+.

 

[Condottiere]

Getting chased by missiles keeps the other side distracted, and use up resources for countermeasures.

Also, the only real viable solution by offensive fighter jockeys.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Maybe we should back up a bit and ask a very basic game design question;

What do we WANT a weapon called a "Torpedo" to be and what qualities do we WANT it to have?

This would be my answer:
Torpedo should be a bigger, heavier, more destructive weapon than a missile.
It should be harder to defend against and certainly not easier to defend against than missiles.
Its cost should scale with its increased abilities with regard to that destructiveness and durability.
HG seems to agree when on HG31="Torpedoes are treated in every way like missiles, although they tend to be a lot more powerful."
also, and this may seem odd but still important to me:
It should have some resemblance in its use and place in game-warfare to the use of real-world naval torpedoes in real warfare.
Lastly, there should be dramatic tension as a torpedo closes in on targets a v. long or distant range.

In trying to use the rules canon we have:
A standard Torpedo costs 2.4 times the cost of a missile.
It halves the effect PD defense vs. missiles which is only allowed once per salvo.
Launch rates of missiles vs torpedoes come out to be
Barbette=5 vs 1 (presumably, rof is not explicit)
Small Bay=12 vs 3 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Med Bay=24 vs 6 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Large Bay=120 vs 30 = missile salvo 4 times effective vs. Torpedo
Damage (standard) is 4D vs 6D

So after analyzing all of this, here is my house rule suggestion (until Mg agrees with me), "Due to more ECCM Hardware packed into their larger chassis, Torpedoes are much more difficult to defeat with EW. In order to defeat a torpedo or salvo of torpedoes, you must accumulate 4 points of successful effect for each torpedo defeated.

For example, a barbette launches a torpedo in turn 1 and another in turn 2, then a third in turn 3. The sensor op attempts EW in turn 1 on the first one and gets an effect of 3, the first is still alive into turn 2. Then the sense op gets an effect of 2, this kills the first torpedo, and puts 1 point of effect on the second. 2nd torpedo is still inbound. 3rd turn, 3rd torpedo launches.

2 sensor operators, one on the bridge and one at an additional sensor station attempt to defeat a salvo of 3 inbound torpedoes. They make their rolls and each succeeds with an effect 5 totalling 10. This destroys 2 of the 3 torpedoes leaving 2 more points of effect on the 3 before it will be defeated... better hope they are at Long+ range if they want to reattempt.

This HR achieves all the design intentions I would have and I think what the RAW might prefer. They had some good rules but seemed to forget about EW and how the lower launch rate of torpedoes would make them particularly prone to it.

I want to make a correction here my HR; any effect points beyond 4 can only be applied to another torpedo in the same salvo.