Torpedoes vs the Sensop (Electronic Warfare)

[Yenaldlooshi]

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

TL13+ or below that level is the difference between:

"Damn the Torpedoes!"
and
"Damn! Torpedoes!"

 

[phavoc]

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

Packed to the gills with explosives.

This is self-defeating. It's been proven time and again throughout history. When your soldiers are ready to die for the glory of the nation in the vain attempt at sacrifice, you've already lost. When you are so desperate to throw ill-trained personnel on one-way missions, you've already lost. When you are trying to hold the line against the Minbari to give a few more minutes for the evacuation transports to flee, you've already lost.

 

[phavoc]

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.

We have 'torpedoes' because they refused to create the missile chart the way it should be. Much the same reason we have hordes of lasers instead of fewer, bigger lasers. And everybody thinks the idea of a "torpedo" is cool. US Army engineers used torpedoes, too (called Bangalore torpedoes) in order to clear obstructions. No ships were sunk on Juno, Sword, or Gold beaches the day they were used though.

Let's just confront the elephant in the room - Traveller starship rules make little sense beyond 5k dton ships. Traveller is NOT a starship combat game - it's just an RPG with elements of starship combat bolted on to it. For those that remember the RPG Ultima I, it had starship combat in it.. but it was an RPG game from start to finish. The space portion was there for, well, I dunno, it was just there for some reason. If you blew up 20 starships you got a title. Not a goal for a game.

In an age where missiles are effective, you will have starships that are of three types - missile heavy, missile balanced, and missile light (I guess 4, if you consider missile-less). Missiles have always been a way to project power without directly exposing yourself to attack. And once you get the ability to either shoot them down or confuse their guidance systems, the method of attack becomes one of trying to overwhelm your enemy's defenses enough to inflict damage. Ideally catastrophic, but generally it's more of a rinse and repeat at some point.

The original Traveller missile was one that gunners could/did hand load like an artillery shell. That puts them at about the size of a sidewinder. Way too small for a conventional explosive to damage the very strong hull of a starship - even those with 0 armor factor. Make them a nuke and yeah, you can do a lot more damage - but in the original game nobody but the Navy has nukes. Silly design, but potentially playable when your ships are 5k Dtons or smaller. Beyond that it gets very silly, much like a Monty Python skit. One should almost expect the ghost of Graham Chapman to show up at the beginning of the battle and telling us to get things along, but he'll not be having it be silly.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

This is self-defeating. It's been proven time and again throughout history. When your soldiers are ready to die for the glory of the nation in the vain attempt at sacrifice, you've already lost. When you are so desperate to throw ill-trained personnel on one-way missions, you've already lost. When you are trying to hold the line against the Minbari to give a few more minutes for the evacuation transports to flee, you've already lost.

umm.... he did say "unmanned" in the comment you were responding to.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

We have 'torpedoes' because they refused to create the missile chart the way it should be. Much the same reason we have hordes of lasers instead of fewer, bigger lasers. And everybody thinks the idea of a "torpedo" is cool. US Army engineers used torpedoes, too (called Bangalore torpedoes) in order to clear obstructions. No ships were sunk on Juno, Sword, or Gold beaches the day they were used though.

In their defense, the idea of a torpedo is cool... and yes, there are many different uses of the word "torpedo". They used it in the oil industry and the railroad industry.... but probably here we just care about the naval usage of the term.

One should almost expect the ghost of Graham Chapman to show up at the beginning of the battle and telling us to get things along, but he'll not be having it be silly.

well, if he shows up at my Traveller table, I am thinking the first thing he will tell me is, "Isn't it your turn to buy me lunch since I picked up the tab for our lunch back in 1985 at the Phoenix Marriot in Arizona?".. which is a true story btw. He had lunch with myself and 2 other friends and picked up the tab. I had clam chowder. Clams come from the sea. The sea is where real Navy's fight and nautical terms come from. Which are the inspiration of for science fiction navies, which clearly goes to show that even if you are at 5,000 tons or smaller, you want to decide exactly how torpedoes are going to work if you are going to have such a thing in your RPG system.

 

[MasterGwydion]

This is self-defeating. It's been proven time and again throughout history. When your soldiers are ready to die for the glory of the nation in the vain attempt at sacrifice, you've already lost. When you are so desperate to throw ill-trained personnel on one-way missions, you've already lost. When you are trying to hold the line against the Minbari to give a few more minutes for the evacuation transports to flee, you've already lost.

Guide by wire. We have this technology now. Can't be EWed and the operator does not die when kamikaziing.

This is not self-defeating at all.

 

[Condottiere]

We do have viable lasers in Traveller.

 

[phavoc]

umm.... he did say "unmanned" in the comment you were responding to.

Fair point. Though an unmanned craft can't really kamikaze anything, since it's not manned.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Fair point. Though an unmanned craft can't really kamikaze anything, since it's not manned.

I believe they were using the word kamikaze as a description of a flight maneuver, not as a description of a pilot.

 

[phavoc]

In their defense, the idea of a torpedo is cool... and yes, there are many different uses of the word "torpedo". They used it in the oil industry and the railroad industry.... but probably here we just care about the naval usage of the term.

Yup. That's why they exist in most games - for the coolness factor.

well, if he shows up at my Traveller table, I am thinking the first thing he will tell me is, "Isn't it your turn to buy me lunch since I picked up the tab for our lunch back in 1985 at the Phoenix Marriot in Arizona?".. which is a true story btw. He had lunch with myself and 2 other friends and picked up the tab. I had clam chowder. Clams come from the sea. The sea is where real Navy's fight and nautical terms come from. Which are the inspiration of for science fiction navies, which clearly goes to show that even if you are at 5,000 tons or smaller, you want to decide exactly how torpedoes are going to work if you are going to have such a thing in your RPG system.

Cool Graham Chapman story. Never met any of the Troup (seen a few of them live in Spamalot though).

To your point you'd want to sketch out ALL combat and systems and how they work prior to publishing. At least that's the best way to do things. And then once you figure out you've got some holes you use either errata or a 2nd edition to fix them rather than continue on with the same flaws for decades and multiple versions.

I forgot who posted the links to the FFE forum where they had done a Q&A with one of the designers talking about the timelines for publishing materials. As one of those customers I can say that I much prefer the quality done right the first time than pushing the next item out the door. I fully realize there is an economic factor involved. This is me, the consumer, voting with my gaming dollars. Which is why we sometimes see gaming companies fold because too many consumers voted with their gaming dollars to go elsewhere for their reason(s).

 

[phavoc]

Guide by wire. We have this technology now. Can't be EWed and the operator does not die when kamikaziing.

This is not self-defeating at all.

We do - but it's fairly limited. The FOG-M missile never got beyond design because it was too impractical. There are a few missiles out there that are wire guided and operator controlled (including the USN Mk48 torpedo - it's capable of self-homing or wire-guided). I don't think any space combat missiles could ever be in this class simply due to the range - it would be far too long of a cable, and maneuvering and such would almost guarantee they would fail. It would be better to actually use tight-beam lasers or else some sort of localized command missile that communicated to the other missiles in the group. Much more doable in space combat scenarios.

Still, you start getting into light-speed delays for any sort of long-range combat. Traveller doesn't really posit long-range missile combat as the missiles are far too short-legged for that to occur.

 

[MasterGwydion]

We do - but it's fairly limited. The FOG-M missile never got beyond design because it was too impractical. There are a few missiles out there that are wire guided and operator controlled (including the USN Mk48 torpedo - it's capable of self-homing or wire-guided). I don't think any space combat missiles could ever be in this class simply due to the range - it would be far too long of a cable, and maneuvering and such would almost guarantee they would fail. It would be better to actually use tight-beam lasers or else some sort of localized command missile that communicated to the other missiles in the group. Much more doable in space combat scenarios.

Still, you start getting into light-speed delays for any sort of long-range combat. Traveller doesn't really posit long-range missile combat as the missiles are far too short-legged for that to occur.

Wouldn't most of this be overcome with a robot brain?

 

[MonsterX]

It’s the fault of Star Trek with the photon torpedos. Whatever the hell a “photon torpedo” really is. Since Traveller torpedos are just big missiles it sort of feels like having different sizes of missiles would have been the way to go.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It’s the fault of Star Trek with the photon torpedos. Whatever the hell a “photon torpedo” really is. Since Traveller torpedos are just big missiles it sort of feels like having different sizes of missiles would have been the way to go.

At what size does it become more than a missile? Is 10 dtons still a missile? If it is, should PD laser batteries have a damage rating against them so that they can be used against 10-ton fighters as well? How about armored or Reflec missiles to shrug off the puny PD lasers? Different sizes of missiles mean you can customize different sizes and type of warheads. Maybe 5 in a multi-warhead missile or even 12 depending on the size missile.

 

[phavoc]

Wouldn't most of this be overcome with a robot brain?

Sure. Onboard guidance systems would be the norm. Unless you have very short ranges where light-speed communication is possible (or FTL capabilities) you have to rely upon local control at some point. Technically if they are human brains the same thing occurs when you are out of range of your leadership.

The issue is that the missile brains and sensors are usually going to be inferior to anything that a ship can mount in terms of capability and power. Ships have much more power to put into their sensors, and many more sensors - not to mention more capable computers and human operators. A missile is limited in what it can keep onboard and can power using onboard energy resources (usually a battery). So I fully expect any ship to have the upper hand against a single missile. Against a swarm it will have to spread its capabilities among many, so odds start decreasing with more missiles.

 

[phavoc]

It’s the fault of Star Trek with the photon torpedos. Whatever the hell a “photon torpedo” really is. Since Traveller torpedos are just big missiles it sort of feels like having different sizes of missiles would have been the way to go.

I would much prefer a missile system of the type that we see with naval (today) or something along the lines of Starfire/Honor Harrington. Whether you like his writing or not, Weber was a wargame designer and the system works fairly well to scale up sizes from smaller ships to the larger ones. A destroyer-class missile is much like a gun - the bigger the ship the bigger round you can throw. Which means DD missiles are less capable and less damaging than CA or BB ones.

 

[phavoc]

At what size does it become more than a missile? Is 10 dtons still a missile? If it is, should PD laser batteries have a damage rating against them so that they can be used against 10-ton fighters as well? How about armored or Reflec missiles to shrug off the puny PD lasers? Different sizes of missiles mean you can customize different sizes and type of warheads. Maybe 5 in a multi-warhead missile or even 12 depending on the size missile.

That's an entirely reasonable question. Can you spend more credits to give your missiles better defenses? Can you build a missile 'bus' that closes with the enemy, launches its' missile and then returns for reload (a robotic fighter/missile carrier)?

I'd think kinetic strikes would be deadly to most missiles (reflec might require a 2nd PD shot defeat it).

 

[MasterGwydion]

That's an entirely reasonable question. Can you spend more credits to give your missiles better defenses? Can you build a missile 'bus' that closes with the enemy, launches its' missile and then returns for reload (a robotic fighter/missile carrier)?

I'd think kinetic strikes would be deadly to most missiles (reflec might require a 2nd PD shot defeat it).

Yeah. I was thinking they'd need actual Armor against the gauss PD, but the lasers should be easy to defeat with a Reflec coating on all missiles as it states that PDs are too weak to actually do any damage to ships and Reflec blocks ship lasers.

 

[Condottiere]

Lasered turrets are dual purpose.

And, you can stack missile defences with the Traveller version of Aegis.

In theory, you ionize salvoes, if they seem too shiny.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Yeah. I was thinking they'd need actual Armor against the gauss PD, but the lasers should be easy to defeat with a Reflec coating on all missiles as it states that PDs are too weak to actually do any damage to ships and Reflec blocks ship lasers.

I don't think you can coat missiles with reflec. This is due to-- INSERT QUANTUM HANDWAVIUM REASON HERE.

(See, if you could coat missiles with reflec, you could coat starships with reflec and that would remove lasers from the space combat battlefield. We don't want that.)