Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

With energy weapons, the limitations are energy pool and overheating.
neither are an issue in Traveller, unlimited power unless you totally suck at ship designs and the laws of thermodynamics don't exist in Traveller.
Probably sensors.
Only part of the combat paradigm, and should also change across the TLs
With missiles, it's magazine size, and reload time.
All of which have rules to cover them
Even at six seconds, it probably takes a bunch of those per shot.
?
 
Few people use the dogfight rules for large ships and a fighter that still has missiles to use in a dogfight is what you call a tactical error.
 
You miss the point. Once the missile salvo gets in dogfight range the defending ship should then use dogfight rate of fire to take down the missiles.

Which then begs the question why a rapid pulse plasma gun can't take down missiles at longer ranges with dogfight rate of fire.
 
Actually, it begs the question: Why can't ship's weapons fire, while casually maneuvering, every six seconds at range if they can do so while also making while maneuvers up close? The entire dogfight mechanic is flawed.
 
Exactly my point, the dogfighting rules should be removed, they cause more inconsistencies and contradictions.

Dogfighting in atmospheres at atmospheric speeds no problem, move the rules to vehicle combat. But in space, at 100km/s... no, just no.

No u-turns in space, no dropping bombs, remove every Star Wars trope and put them in an options book or section labelled non-Newtonian cartoon action hour star wars physics.
 
It never says it has five pods. Which, by the way, is a new word that is just muddying the waters. A barbette has multiple multilaunchers {or perhaps only one and it’s just badly stated) but the number of them is unstated. You’re trying to shoehorn multilaunchers into being just another word for launchers and that just isn’t in evidence. While we don’t know what they are, they are different, which is the whole point I was making.

A missile barbette has 25 missiles. A triple launcher turret has 36. If it had five normal missile racks, it would have 60 missiles. It doesn’t, so that means it isn’t the same as just putting more missile racks in.

Why does a barbette have fewer missiles yet takes up extra tonnage over a triple turret if it is just going to behave the same? I submit that it is becuase the multilaunchers take up more room. The text could read like it is more than one multilauncher, but I think that is likely sloppy wording and there is only one in there. Whatever is there fires a flurry of missiles in a very short period of time compared to normal racks, and that mechanism is why it takes up more space.

As I’ve said multiple times, the book wouldn’t use a different word if a missile barbette wasn’t different. Trying to say it’s just more of the same ignores the clearly stated intent that it is in fact different.
First off if does not say it has multiple Multilaunchers. I’m tired of of trying to explain how the word Multilauncher means but I’ll try one more time maybe you actually read it. Multilaunchers means multiple launchers that’s exactly the way the word and syntax reads ask anyone who teaches English they will tell you the same. The Barbette does not have a magic missile system that’s never been used anywhere else before are now. I have to think you are just lying to yourself to justify your fantasy of a special launcher that fires multiple missiles. I’ve broke it down over and over and every time you keep either changing the wording or the syntax to justify your fallacy. So don’t respond I only talk to people that’s actually think.
 
First off if does not say it has multiple Multilaunchers. I’m tired of of trying to explain how the word Multilauncher means but I’ll try one more time maybe you actually read it. Multilaunchers means multiple launchers that’s exactly the way the word and syntax reads ask anyone who teaches English they will tell you the same. The Barbette does not have a magic missile system that’s never been used anywhere else before are now. I have to think you are just lying to yourself to justify your fantasy of a special launcher that fires multiple missiles. I’ve broke it down over and over and every time you keep either changing the wording or the syntax to justify your fallacy. So don’t respond I only talk to people that’s actually think.
Plural of multilauncher is multilaunchers. You've come at me for using singular, now for plural. Make up your mind.

The system is different, hence a name that is unlike anything else used in the game. If it was a regular launcher, it would say so. You just refuse to see anything that doesn't fit your narrative and get insulting when your word isn't accepted as gospel.

To be clear, you're the one that keeps moving the goalposts and attempting to change words and their meanings. I'll stick with the only word that matters. Multilancher (or plural since you seem to alternately freak out about singular vs plural). It's mentioned nowhere else, and the barbettes unleash a "flurry of missiles". The other launchers only fire one at a time per launcher. No flurry there. Odd how that sounds different, eh?

As for how you respond (or don't), feel free to stop responding to me. In fact, feel free to go to my profile and ignore me, but I'm not going to stop telling things the way I see them, no matter how insulting you insist on being since only you seem prone to hurling insults and personal attacks. This isn't the first time you've done so and I'm sure it won't be the last. It seems to be a pattern with you.

This boils down to us not seeing things the same way and I'm not going to be bullied into shutting up. Do whatever you like, but I'll be here when you inevitably respond.
 
Last edited:
This is how it’s described in the LBB and nothing in mgt2 counters it. Each missile rack hold a missile in the launch position (this is sometimes called the rail) once the rack Launches its missile the reload system moves another missile from the magazine onto the launch rail. In a barbette you have five of these but because of the required space it only carries 5 reloads (I can only suggest that the reason for this is balancing it with the small bay which has 12 launchers with 12 reloads each but requires a minimum of 30 tons vs the Barbette’s 5 tons). My guess as to why it takes more tonnage the more missiles in the barbette/bay is possible an issue with targeting and possibly the drives interfering with each other. No regular missile launcher be they in a turret, barbette, or bay can launch more that 1 missile every 6 minutes (I’m guessing this has to do with the reloading process and possibly syncing with the ships system maybe even charging the drive batteries tho if this is the case the energy requirements are minimal at best).

Now in the Companion they add container-launchers “ A container-launcher can be fitted on a hardpoint (not a firmpoint) and contains four missiles or one torpedo in a ready-to-launch configuration. These can be fired individually or all at once, enabling a craft to make a single overwhelming missile attack.” Now reading this it gives you a slight increase in missile density allowing you to fire 4 from the Hardpoint instead of the max of 3 from a turret but at the cost of being single use “ Container-launchers offer a greater ‘surge’ missile capacity, although once expended they cannot be reloaded in time to fire again in a typical combat.” To be honest I’m not sure one more missile per Hardpoint is worth it 90% of the time but I can see some cases where it would be. The container-launchers are like our current day rapid fire missile systems with a bunch of missiles in a ready-to-launch configuration but lacking an internal magazine.
 
I don't buy it. You can have a quad turret that takes up one internal dton, and that gives you four missile launchers, which do not interfere with each other, along with 12 missiles - 3 salvos.
For five internal dtons, you get multi-launchers that spit out a combined five missiles, and then you get an additional one dton of missile storage plus one missile... for five dtons.

The missiles are not getting in each others' way, and they are not doing the Robotech missile bloom dance of knocking out half the missiles against themselves before they reach a target.
There is no power involved in launching missiles, at least not measurable in ship-scale power points.
The missiles don't care about how many there are, and in a dogfight, as pointed out above, they can be fired every six seconds until they run out of missiles.
So, for some reason, a missile launcher, whether a bay, barbette, turret or firmpoint CAN launch missiles as fast as once every six seconds - because Dogfight rules in the Core update. They suffer no ill effect from doing so, either - other than both ships potentially getting deconstructed ten times as fast.
But they normally do not. Why? Because game balance says so.

Kind of stupid, right?
Not as stupid as arguing over semantics, though. Stop arguing the semantics of a broken mechanic. It is NOT worth it.


Edit: Make that 60 times as fast, not ten times.
 
1. The rules are a mess.

2. If you can measure something, chances are that you know how it will perform.

3. We know how much energy is required per six minutes.

4. We know how much energy a given power plant produces per six minutes.

5. We know how many missiles a launcher launches per six minutes.

6. We know that, in theory, you could fire off a weapon system every six seconds, if within close range of a target.

7. And if you can shoot every six seconds at something within a kilometre, you can also have that rate of fire against a target a hundred thousand klix distant.

8. Even if the chances of scoring that hit per shot are less.

9. And I just remembered, we do have the automatic trait for at least one spacecraft weapon system.
 
The missiles are not getting in each others' way, and they are not doing the Robotech missile bloom dance of knocking out half the missiles against themselves before they reach a target.
I didn’t say that I said that the drives might interfere with each other (it’s call interference who knows how overclocked maneuver drives work )it’s an explanation for the rules.
For five internal dtons, you get multi-launchers that spit out a combined five missiles, and then you get an additional one dton of missile storage plus one missile... for five dtons.
Don’t you start with missreading the combined word Multilaunchers (the word base is multiple launchers). There is not magic launcher that fires faster than all others just because it’s in a Barbette.
There is no power involved in launching missiles, at least not measurable in ship-scale power points.
I literally never said a measurable amount of power considering the size of the drive and the energy costs of maneuver drives it would be negligible but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to charge the missiles battery.
Not as stupid as arguing over semantics, though. Stop arguing the semantics of a broken mechanic. It is NOT worth it.
i gave a lore explanation and your having a fit because you don’t like it maybe you should stop arguing.
 
Okay here’s the thing you literally have a container launcher each pod has a missile in it. In fact every rapid firing missile system uses multiple pods and launches 1 missile per pod. The container launcher from the Companion is the same. Great for a single punch but how l9ng did it take to reload those pods once fired?

A missile rack has a single rocket pod that’s has a reloading system, a Barbette has 5 rocket pods with a reloading system and the bays have 12, 24 and 120 respectively. That’s literally how it’s described in the CRB and HG
We reloaded in 3-5 minutes if we were in a hurry and nothing went wrong on us. Reloads were pre-positioned on the ground by the ammo crew (I did both). Two pods are dropped about 12-18 inches apart. The launcher pulls up alongside the pods, the LLM (the launcher) rotates - usually - to the opposite side of where the reload pods are, you drop the empty pods, spin the LLM to the new pods and pick them up. Each bay has it's own cable/pulley system and you have some leeway to pick them up (i.e. it doesn't have to match perfectly), hook on to the pods and reel them up and stow them. Stow the LLM in drive mode and off you go. It was pretty straightforward and fast. Because the rate of fire was so high each launcher has two ammo trucks w/trailers so that you have 16 total pods per launcher for ammo. We never had ATACMS, but the whole pod is same size, if a bit heavier, same principle applies though.

VLS systems on Navy ships are essentially the same way - each missile is in a self-contained pod, and you can ripple-fire them almost as fast as each missile clears the launch tube. I don't know the launch velocity off top of my head for a Standard missile, but MLRS missiles are going supersonic about the time the rocket engine clears the tube. While it's rare to fire multiple missiles at the same exact target, you can. In that case you can ripple fire them every second. If you were doing area denial (like an entire grid squre, which is 1km by 1km) the launcher has to reposition itself between rounds, which is why the ROF is 5 seconds between rounds.

One thing about naval VLS systems is that the Navy is just now deploying a reload capability to reload a ship at sea (under really good weather conditions). Otherwise they have to return to port for reloads. For MLRS we did it in the rain, the mud, all weather - we just were not happy campers to do so. Obviously in space reloading a ship is under vacuum and zero-g conditions, so not as fast as MLRS, but not as long as VLS. Plus in combat you can't do anything other than what is in your magazines, so the reloading is for combat. You'd call up your fleet train to perform the re-ammo process for your ship.

The thing that gets me with the reloads for any Traveller missile system is the time. It's way too long. I think some of that come from the original LBB that literally had a crewman manually reloading missiles (stupid!). The Oliver Hazard Perry Mk13 missile system had a single launch arm and two rings of missiles and it's firing rate was every 8 seconds (this included rotating your rounds, loading them from below deck and the arm moving to firing position (angled) and then going back to a vertical position to take the next load. Machinery should be far faster for reloads for such small missiles. The last of the twin-arm launchers for the Navy was the Mk 26 and it had a ROF of 2 missiles every 9 seconds.

Personally I think the descriptions could use some tweaking. "A turret can launch up to 3 missiles per round, a barbette can launch 5 and bays can launch 12/24/120. Ready ammuntion (w/o additional magazine storage being allocated) is ....". Using terminology like pods is confusing and inaccurate. The ready ammunition may also confuse those who are not savvy on that term, which can easily be tweaked to being "ammunition stored on-mount" or somesuch idea.

Based on the tonnage allocation I would discount the ammunition storage other than 1 round in the pipe(s) and one round in the reload machinery. Anything else requires tonnage to be allocated. Otherwise a single turret costs you one ton, you get 12 rounds (which also are supposed to displace one ton) and your reload equipment, access area, power systems, etc, are all given for free. When the LBB's were first published everything was very basic. However when HG came out (and later iterations started providing more details) this was never looked at and the free space conundrum has continued. Not how I'd have done it.
 
Missile Pack: A way of giving a ship a lot more firepower in the short term, the missile pack is a set of twelve missiles set directly into the hull of a ship. Each missile pack takes up a turret hardpoint and weighs one ton but fires all loaded missiles at once and uses the Gunner (bay) skill. However they can only be reloaded in a starport. The cost of a missile pack is twice the cost of one ton of the loaded missiles.
Oh I like this. This would make missiles potentially useful as a one shot desperate measure. Which edition was this in?
 
It really boils down to how you want to make the game mechanics work. The current rules limit anti missile defenses to instances per salvo. So bigger salvoes are obviously better. But it has no provision for Time On Target or other techniques that would create the same effect.

And part of the question is: How effective to we want missiles to be, especially at the player scale. If a ship can launch 12 missiles in a salvo, that's pretty much game over for the opponent at the adventure class ship scale. Is that desirable?
Agreed. Fixing this requires addressing the length of a combat round and reducing it from 6 minutes to something like 60 seconds. Combat would be more brutal once ships got into range and started slugging it out, but that's generally how modern combat works. Firing at longer ranges would allow for more TOT, but that also potentially requires some explanations about missile drive systems (are the standard propellant or gravitic? Can they be ramped up/down as needed for a TOT launch to work??). The obvious counter to that is counter missiles at medium range and point defense at close range. And THAT begets the question of just how much weaponry you can stuff into a hull and still make it mission-capable. Once can do a compare/contrast between western and soviet-style weaponry systems and reasonably ask - which design philosophy is better? Soviet designs were meant to destroy carrier task forces, and western were meant to be (somewhat) more generalized so that they could do fleet support or operate indepently with basic capabilities in all areas (aks Oliver Hazard Perry frigate design that did everything, excelled in nothing).

Traveller has always been more of an RPG with wargaming bolted on to it, thus it's combat system is, charitably, fuzzy at best.
 
Back
Top