Why I LOVE Missiles!
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
Patron Zero
Mongoose
Why do you like them?[/quote]
I just see a rail gun offering a potentially higher rate of fire as well as a wider selection of projectiles to select from. My personal leaning is that a rail gun, which I admittedly incorrectly refer to as a torpedo tube, could launch more than just solid shot projectiles. I see the possibilities for rescue transponders, scientific probes and other non-weapon related projectiles to employ the same launch system or torpedo tube. That said, a dedicated mechanism to selectively load specific torpedoes would be necessary other than employing a manual loading-crew operated technique.
One last thought might be said 'torpedoes' being composed of a standardized components, such only applying to items more sophisticated than the aforementioned solid shot loads.
Sometime back (read as several Presidential administrations) Dragon magazine published a great article about all the options rail guns might offer as well the pros and cons of such systems. Happy to repost said text here if not violating any forum rules.
I just see a rail gun offering a potentially higher rate of fire as well as a wider selection of projectiles to select from. My personal leaning is that a rail gun, which I admittedly incorrectly refer to as a torpedo tube, could launch more than just solid shot projectiles. I see the possibilities for rescue transponders, scientific probes and other non-weapon related projectiles to employ the same launch system or torpedo tube. That said, a dedicated mechanism to selectively load specific torpedoes would be necessary other than employing a manual loading-crew operated technique.
One last thought might be said 'torpedoes' being composed of a standardized components, such only applying to items more sophisticated than the aforementioned solid shot loads.
Sometime back (read as several Presidential administrations) Dragon magazine published a great article about all the options rail guns might offer as well the pros and cons of such systems. Happy to repost said text here if not violating any forum rules.
The launcher for the sandcaster and even missile rack might even be a mass driver of some sort, certainly I would feel a lot happier with an EM launcher rather than one that used explosives in case you get an Arizona result.
Alternative sandcaster loads:
Chaff/Window to create a false radar image to decoy radar homing missiles.
I like the idea of sensor packages.
Mines I am not sure about. They work if you have a fixed point to guard such as a jump point in other settings but otherwise I am not sure if you can make them stealthy enough to escape detection and destruction or long enough ranged to be a threat. CAPTOR type mines that fire a missile as their weapon might work as might detonation lasers.
Alternative sandcaster loads:
Chaff/Window to create a false radar image to decoy radar homing missiles.
I like the idea of sensor packages.
Mines I am not sure about. They work if you have a fixed point to guard such as a jump point in other settings but otherwise I am not sure if you can make them stealthy enough to escape detection and destruction or long enough ranged to be a threat. CAPTOR type mines that fire a missile as their weapon might work as might detonation lasers.
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
Patron Zero said:
My personal leaning is that a rail gun, which I admittedly incorrectly refer to as a torpedo tube, could launch more than just solid shot projectiles. I see the possibilities for rescue transponders, scientific probes and other non-weapon related projectiles to employ the same launch system or torpedo tube. [/quote]
Is there any evidence a railgun could launch more than a solid projectile?
I don't think current ones can, and you'd have to wonder about the impact of the heating and G's experienced in launching from a railgun.
I never got this "fire at eachother from thousands of km away" starship combat mentality. It's a really ineffective way to fight in space, especially given the distances involved.
Personally I'd prefer to see things like smart projectiles - drones and AKVs (Automated Kill Vehicles, a la Transhuman Space). Dumb projectiles (and laser beams) that just fire out of the gun and travel in a straight line can be easily avoided - but having a "projectile" that can follow, track and harrass the target (and even have built in short range weapons to engage the target within a range of a few km, where projectiles and lasers would be a lot more effective) would be so much more useful and effective.
Personally I'd prefer to see things like smart projectiles - drones and AKVs (Automated Kill Vehicles, a la Transhuman Space). Dumb projectiles (and laser beams) that just fire out of the gun and travel in a straight line can be easily avoided - but having a "projectile" that can follow, track and harrass the target (and even have built in short range weapons to engage the target within a range of a few km, where projectiles and lasers would be a lot more effective) would be so much more useful and effective.
Mass drivers have been mooted for 'cold launching' ICBMs. They would have no characteristic launch plume so launch would be hard to detect and the missiles could be a lot smaller. Of course that depends on how small, mobile and secret the launchers are. So yes, they should be capable of firing anything that has at least a conductive shell or even sabot. I think some tests with railguns used small plastic cubes with a film of aluminium on one side but that is a rather hazy memory.
I think this came from David Langfords War in 2080: The future of military technology which is rather elderly now (1979) but I remember enjoying it enormously at the time and he used to be a government weapons boffin as well as an SF writer so he should know what he was talking about. I picked up a copy on Ebay a year or two back so I must reread it and see if I can get anything useful from it.
I think this came from David Langfords War in 2080: The future of military technology which is rather elderly now (1979) but I remember enjoying it enormously at the time and he used to be a government weapons boffin as well as an SF writer so he should know what he was talking about. I picked up a copy on Ebay a year or two back so I must reread it and see if I can get anything useful from it.
EDG said:
I agree ... and I'd suspect a lot of others do.
However, there seems to be an occasionally vocal opposition (and occasionally vehemently so) to anything that smacks even vaguely of AI in anything much at all.
But, yes, they should be an option in High Guard ... so them as wants em can have em.
Phil
lastbesthope
Mongoose
EDG said:
Yes they would, burt in space all corse corrections require a delta-v which costs fuel or reaction mass. Dumb fire projectiles don't have that issue.
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Which is why they'd miss a lot
Besides, in Traveller you have a magic reactionless drive that just needs power. Load up your AKV with the smallest reactor you can find (which has enough fuel to last years), fit it with thruster plates, and away you go.
Effectively combat becomes "swarms of drones" vs "swarms of drones or anti-drone point defense systems" rather than two ships blatting it out with dumb munitions over ridiculous distances. Or you can replace the drones with actual one-man fighters, but that's a lot less efficient.
Gentleman John
Banded Mongoose
I recall that the K'Kree relied on drones a lot. Something to do with the fact that they don't like piloting fighters due to a racial claustrophobia.
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:lastbesthope said:
Which is why they'd miss a lot
Besides, in Traveller you have a magic reactionless drive that just needs power. Load up your AKV with the smallest reactor you can find (which has enough fuel to last years), fit it with thruster plates, and away you go.
Effectively combat becomes "swarms of drones" vs "swarms of drones or anti-drone point defense systems" rather than two ships blatting it out with dumb munitions over ridiculous distances. Or you can replace the drones with actual one-man fighters, but that's a lot less efficient.
Agreed. So long as the future brings faultless Identification Friend or Foe for the drones and the ability to distinguish civilian from enemy.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
aspqrz said:
I basically agree -for the fleet level. Although that's probably more an artifact of the scale of games I run and have been in. Fleet scale stuff -with serious military style ships and the associated uberweaponry, has never really worked all that well for character play in traveller (thats hardly unique to traveller though -very few RPGs of any genre work at that scale).
There has been quite a bit of development in that setting as boardgames (brilliant lances IIRC was quite crunchy that way), but not character driven play. HG was kind of a hybrid of an RPG suppliment for chargen, and a wargame; to that extent, I think it did a disservice to the game by implying that players should somehow be able to interact on the military level, but also that the military mostly just used bigger versions of the civilian guns from LBB2.
Most players don't have access to the resources to use real military weaponry -and if they are in a position to do so, they either aren't in control, or are in danger of obliteration (no saving throw style obliteration) from their opponents. In fact, most of the law enforcement or coast Guard/customs type forces they deal with similarly don't have access to anything approaching the sophistication of line ships. Which, for the RPG side of traveller is probably key. Player type combat is based on the asssumption that they are not navy ships, and consequently don;t have any of the sophisticated or ultraexpensive weapons even smaller military line ships have access to. Crappier weapons do allow more play -higher survivability, etc.
So, while all the ultra advanced weaponry is cool from a wargaming point of view, most of it is so out of the player league that it is at best, stage dressing. Sure: the Imperium should and would have AI kill vehicles, smart drones with standoff meson guns, all that - but there is no way in hell a player level game will deal with those; the cost, speed and lethality of real military weaponry is, will be, and has been (since about 1870) way out of reach of self defense, paramilitary or law enforcement groups; and so, no fun to play.
Okay. We set course for the jump point.
GM: roll 2d6, add sensor.
Ummm. Int modifier ?
GM: Sure
rollroll.
Uh...13.
GM: the kill drone hits you with a Graser burst. You're dead.
what about our kill drone ?
GM: Spoofed.
Got another character sheet ?
GM: actually, I'm out......
So, we have crappy missles that seem no tougher than modern TOW or simple IR missles like stingers, dumb slug throwers, low grade lasers, etc.
Even sensor systems available to civilians can't compete....military weaponry is too fast, not even considering stealth; but is also way too expensive. No coast guard cutter mounts sea dart or cruise missiles; pretty much a 20mm cannon is what they have, and it rules their league.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
collins355 said:
Well, it did. AND gave us Virus...... :twisted:
I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. There is an enormous disparity between the scale of the actions PCs will be involved in with their dinky little Wally World missiles (buy one and get a free microgravity mug) and the sort of things major league navies will be using. Of course the sort of things local navies out on the fringe will be using will be more of a match for the PCs where a Gazelle is a serious combatant. The model here might be the Nigerian navy – the engines failed on a DD and when they went to drop anchor it was gone, someone had sold it. Of course not all regimes will have the honesty and charm of South Vietnam but those are likely the ones that PCs will flock to like journalists to a house fire.
