Why I LOVE Missiles!

dmccoy1693

Cosmic Mongoose
Earlier this week, my group had their first space combat. Initially, it was just lasers and that was cool and all but was rather simple. Same session different combat, I had the crew against a modified police cutter armed with a laser and 2 missle launchers. So every turn the crewman maning the laser had to decide whether to hit the ship firing or fire at the missile not gotten in reaction.

Tactically, this is great. I have options to make my players thank about their actions instead of just, "I shoot at the ship." Its alot more fun making them decide their fate. :twisted:
 
dmccoy1693 said:
Earlier this week, my group had their first space combat. Initially, it was just lasers and that was cool and all but was rather simple. Same session different combat, I had the crew against a modified police cutter armed with a laser and 2 missle launchers. So every turn the crewman maning the laser had to decide whether to hit the ship firing or fire at the missile not gotten in reaction.

Tactically, this is great. I have options to make my players thank about their actions instead of just, "I shoot at the ship." Its alot more fun making them decide their fate. :twisted:

Fun, isn't it ? For one combat, I set up a circular tracking "screen" with a clear plastic cover (and overhead pen) , with the ship plotted at the middle and tracked the incoming missiles for the sensor guy (and gunner) - complete with helpful warnings from the ships computer (in my best Hal voice )like "ECM ineffective; continue evasive maneuvers"; "Impact predicted"; "countermissle laser hit: effect uncertain".

It was great. totally stressed them out.
 
captainjack23 said:
Fun, isn't it ? For one combat, I set up a circular tracking "screen" with a clear plastic cover (and overhead pen) , with the ship plotted at the middle and tracked the incoming missiles for the sensor guy (and gunner) - complete with helpful warnings from the ships computer (in my best Hal voice )like "ECM ineffective; continue evasive maneuvers"; "Impact predicted"; "countermissle laser hit: effect uncertain".

It was great. totally stressed them out.

:twisted: Ohhh this is so evil. I am totally doing this during next session.
 
I do like the spaceship combat. Lots of tense edge of the seat moments.

I never did quite get the different types of missile as presented however.

Basic missiles presumably are not homing missiles, or are they?
If they are, what are Smart missiles?
If they are not, then how on earth would they ever hit a moving target in 4D's

And Nuclear missiles?If they are that expensive I think I would make them "smart" too.

What do you fellows think?
 
Delerium said:
Basic missiles presumably are not homing missiles, or are they?
If they are, what are Smart missiles?
If they are not, then how on earth would they ever hit a moving target in 4D's

IMO, the difference between a basic missile and a smart missile.
Basic missile can minorly adjust course corrections for a poor gunner/dodge adjustment.
Smart missiles still do minor course corrections, but have the fuel capacity and hardware needed to circle the target until it finally makes contact. They're no better at fine tuning their flight path, but they can do gross course changes.
 
Quick question about missiles.

The rules state that missiles travel at 5 Thrust and would therefore take 10 rounds to impact with a Distant target.

However, if the launching ship was anything other than zero Thrust, the missile would have a Thrust equal to the ship's speed + 5 wouldn't it?

For example, a Thrust 2 ship has spent the last 3 rounds accelerating and is now traveling at Thrust 6. A missile launched from this platform would have a net Thrust of 11 - reaching that Distant target in less than 5 turns.

If this wasn't the case, the launched missile would somehow be launched with no inertia, in effect, the launching ship would speed away from the ordnance which would then struggle to catch up.

What are your thoughts?

Cheers
 
Yes and no. If the missile was fired directly ahead, then yes. Do a 180 degree turn and then you'd subtract it. So that same missile fired from the thrust 2 ship would be travelling 3 while the missile fired from the thrust 6 boat means the missile would travel at 1 in the wrong direction. Anywhere between perfectly fore and perfectly aft, you'd get some combination of that for the forward velocity and a sideways velocity as well.

But this is a game and some are not interested in doing parabolic algebra at the game table so calling it universally a 5 and being done with it is an easy way to handle it. Others may want something more complex. But just a simple 5 is a great place to start.
 
Actually I think it is nigh impossible to target missiles during the combat phase.
Page 149 states “The missiles can only be destroyed in the moments before they strike the spacecraft as they are too small and fast to effectively target at greater ranges”.
I’d say, this implies that Point Defence occurs at adjacent range (and therefore the range DMs should apply) and that the missiles cannot be targeted at any other range.
I assume it is indeed rare to actually have missiles adjacent to you in your combat phase. If you consider the range table on page 146 you only have several very few situations when this will occur, as the two opponent ships would need to have a very exact range to each other (unless you are actually applying thrust to change your distance to a missile).

As for inertia considerations of the missiles: luckily (?) MGT does not consider velocity in space combat but only thrust, so we can discard this item. (a spacecraft does not – as hogscape’s thread suggests – travel at Thrust 6...thrust is the change of velocity, not the velocity itself)

Basic vs smart missiles. Basic missiles will only ever try to impact once, whereas smart missiles will continue to harass your ship even if they failed to impact before.

I personally think missiles in MGT are crap. :evil:
A (non-nuclear) missile does only 1d6 points of damage. Most spacecraft have at least Armour 4, so the damage of a missile is only 1d6-4. Some ships even have higher armour. Without having any data for bigger Naval ships, I must assume that most of those have Armour 6+ and thus are invulnerable to (non-nuclear) missiles ! As nuclear missiles are only allowed on Naval spacecraft, I think your standard pirate is very unlikely to have nuclear missiles.

That subjective invulnerability has lead me to take these rules from personal combat and apply them to vehicular combat (I apply them for both beam attacks and missile attacks):
1) A hit with an effect of 6+ does at least one point of damage, regardless of armour
2) The effect of a hit is added to damage
#1 does not really help missiles as much as it does pulse lasers (for missiles your launching would need to have an effect of 6 AND your actually to hit roll would need to be a 12, as the missile itself cannot profit from software or gunner-bonuses), but it’s still something to make those high-armour vessels at least a bit afraid of missiles.

I remember playing “Wing Commander” where missiles were truly powerful.
I also saw a comment somewhere that in CT, missiles actually did 1d6 hits (as opposed to 1d6 damage)…
now that would truly be something to exclaim “Why I LOVE missiles!” :D

My 50 pence
 
I think that we are just seeing commercial missiles, small sealed cylinders with lots of warning notices such as: no user serviceable parts within, warranty invalid if seals are broken and insert this end only. They are small, cheap and simple. The navy in contrast is using big ship killers, even without nuclear warheads it is like comparing a toy poodle with a Newfoundland. Bigger, faster, smarter missiles with serious warheads, quite possibly two stage HEAT, self forging penetrators, depleted uranium rods or other exotic goodness – and those are just the pentetrators. Others might be discrete rod or even flechette to ablate sensors. Add in penetration aids and things get really interesting. They might not be the locomotive sized missiles of Battlefleet Gothic but they are big, quite possibly weighing a ton or more and are going to go through a basic scale ship as if it was made of tinfoil.

What are of the greatest interest are small but military grade missiles. The sort of things issued to small ships in naval service during a war or sought on the black market. Better sensors, warheads and drives than the plain vanilla missiles normally available. Time to dig out some old books and have a look at what can be done.

I think something like the old special supplement on missiles would be very nice. Maybe a nice little PDF?
 
klingsor said:
I think that we are just seeing commercial missiles, small sealed cylinders with lots of warning notices such as: no user serviceable parts within, warranty invalid if seals are broken and insert this end only. They are small, cheap and simple. The navy in contrast is using big ship killers, even without nuclear warheads it is like comparing a toy poodle with a Newfoundland.

Bingo!

Again, High Guard as the military-grade stuff. . .
 
klingsor said:
What are of the greatest interest are small but military grade missiles. The sort of things issued to small ships in naval service during a war or sought on the black market. Better sensors, warheads and drives than the plain vanilla missiles normally available. Time to dig out some old books and have a look at what can be done.

I think something like the old special supplement on missiles would be very nice. Maybe a nice little PDF?

Have you looked at the article that Bertil Jonell and Guy Garnett put
together called "More Missiles For Traveller: The New Era"? Lots of goodness including Kinetic Kill Missiles(KKM), KKE(HE), Cannisters, and
Proximity Nukes. It also has very good rules for using them.
 
hogscape said:
Quick question about missiles.

The rules state that missiles travel at 5 Thrust and would therefore take 10 rounds to impact with a Distant target.

However, if the launching ship was anything other than zero Thrust, the missile would have a Thrust equal to the ship's speed + 5 wouldn't it?

For example, a Thrust 2 ship has spent the last 3 rounds accelerating and is now traveling at Thrust 6. A missile launched from this platform would have a net Thrust of 11 - reaching that Distant target in less than 5 turns.

If this wasn't the case, the launched missile would somehow be launched with no inertia, in effect, the launching ship would speed away from the ordnance which would then struggle to catch up.

What are your thoughts?

Cheers
You don't have the Thrust/Speed of the target in the equation which makes the whole thing relative.
 
Likely opening an entirely fresh can of worms but I'd prefer a rail gun as an offensive weapon even if such admittedly being a 'fixed' mount rather than a standard turreted weapon.

And why not rules for adopting 'mini-turrets' usable only for a ship's defense in the design of CIWS utilized by modern naval vessels ?
 
Patron Zero said:
Likely opening an entirely fresh can of worms but I'd prefer a rail gun as an offensive weapon even if such admittedly being a 'fixed' mount rather than a standard turreted weapon.

Why do you like them?
 
msprange said:
Bingo!

Again, High Guard as the military-grade stuff. . .


Please tell me they were not done by the same "weapons designer" that did the support weapons in Mercenary. Please tell me that who ever did it has at least seen a copy of "Jane's Weapons Systems".

Failing that, tell me that he or she is a real fan of the Honor Harrington series
 
As a person with some knowledge in the field of offensive whoosh bangs (technical term for missiles :lol: ) I'll certainly be interested in what they come up with.

LBH
 
I must admit I like mass drivers as well - they just feel right for a fairly plausible SF setting.

I think I first ran across them in Harry Harrison's Wheelworld series. The rebel ships were armed with them firing something like 18 pounder roundshot - which set the Hornblower fan in me laughing like a drain. Incredible cheap, simple rounds though in space I suspect you would not have chipping them free of rust available as a punishment detail and the shot gauge would be quite a bit tighter as well.

They would be lethal against targets that could not manoeuvre but against targets that could manoeuvre you would be trying to lay down fire on where they might be - scattering your shot over a space predicted from the targets known course.

You could also use them to fire more interesting projectiles, even missiles.
 
Back
Top