Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

[swordtart]

You can only clamp down on a sock and yank it side to side so long before your teeth get sore.

I will be using this metaphor the first chance I get

 

[phavoc]

Oh I like this. This would make missiles potentially useful as a one shot desperate measure. Which edition was this in?

This is a VLS system. And it still kinda cheats the idea of your launcher costing you zero space, you are just paying the stowage price for 12 missiles. If you went this direction you should really pay 1 ton for the missiles, 1 ton for everything else and consume the single hard point.

Reloading should not require a star port, just no combat and having to either pull a new pod from your hold or reload individual cells - though having rounds in pre-packaged containers makes for some easy-peasy book keeping.

 

[swordtart]

Right. So for purposes of the game, it needs to be designed such that missile fire rates (or decoy options) relative to defensive capabilities achieve the desired outcome.

Games generally dramatically reduce real world fire rates to minimize die rolls or time consuming calcuations.

That is true, but in the case of the Container-Launcher in the Companion you would only be doing it once per combat.

Container-Launchers are relatively cheap and when combined with Interceptor Missiles would give a craft with a hardpoint 8 missiles with bonuses to hit. They only do 2D damage but with so many missiles launched they are more likely to get through and actually score that damage. At Medium range or less this could well be terminal for a peer-level opponent.

 

[swordtart]

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.

Not if they are specifically Dogfight Missiles from the companion.

 

[Condottiere]

Oh I like this. This would make missiles potentially useful as a one shot desperate measure. Which edition was this in?

Trillion Credit Squadron.

 

[Sigtrygg]

First off if does not say it has multiple Multilaunchers.

No it doesn't I posted the exact quote above. It says barbettes are equipped with multilaunchers, it does not say "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.

The multilauncher in a barbette can fire 5 missiles in one salvo, with 4 reloads.

A missile rack fires 1 missile in one salvo (11 reloads)
a dual rack fires 2 (5 reloads)
a triple mount fires 3 (3 reloads)
and a quad turret if you use them fires 4 (2 reloads)

 

[Sigtrygg]

Space combat rounds are 6 minutes

Not when dogfighting.

 

[Sigtrygg]

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).

This is incorrect. The barbette has 25 missiles total, so after the first salvo it has 4 reloads, not 5. I know, I am being a pedant. But we do want to get things right don't we?

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).

Which is why a VLS system is superior to a single launch rail and reload mechanism. The advantage with the latter is that it is usually easier to reload the weapon from stores.

 

[Condottiere]

It's inconsistent.

However, assuming that the missile pack is still valid, it does mean that missile (solo) launcher and the missile packing case have the same dimensions.

 

[Arkathan]

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.
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.
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.
i gave a lore explanation and your having a fit because you don’t like it maybe you should stop arguing.

I gave a rule explanation, which breaks the whole thing. And the word multilaunchers is THE word in the book, which is why I used it.
Your lore is only conjecture, and the rules break it.
I called out the argument because it boils down to semantics. All launchers can fire at a rate of one missile per six seconds because Dogfighting.
The only reason they do not do it all the time is for game balance. That means it is an inconsistent game mechanic, and not worth arguing over.

Edit: Equipped with multilaunchers, a missile barbette

That is what the book says. plural multilaunchers, singular barbette.
Now how does that make sense?
One with two tubes and one with three is just odd, so no.
Multiple five tube launchers then?
With that in mind, two configurations make sense:
Two multilaunchers, one in the firing position and one in a loading position; OR
Five multilaunchers which rotate in and out of firing position. Each launcher is preloaded, and either one or two are in a position to be reloaded by crew equipped with a munitions cart at any given time.

But the above, after the quote, is MERELY conjecture, and still not worth arguing over. Just possibilities to be accepted, built upon constructively or rejected as each person sees fit.

 

[phavoc]

Which is why a VLS system is superior to a single launch rail and reload mechanism. The advantage with the latter is that it is usually easier to reload the weapon from stores.

VLS has the advantage of faster ripple-fire of a large salvo, standard launchers have the advantage of longer engagement times, assuming you devote more space to a magazine. While Traveller doesn't model it, an advantage that a turret system could have is that a hit on a VLS could destroy your launcher and magazine. A turret system could have multiple turrets feeding from one or more magazines and a hit to a turret does not impact your magazine capacity, just your salvo weight.

Most of this argument is semantical as the game does not account for much of this.

 

[Arkathan]

VLS has the advantage of faster ripple-fire of a large salvo, standard launchers have the advantage of longer engagement times, assuming you devote more space to a magazine. While Traveller doesn't model it, an advantage that a turret system could have is that a hit on a VLS could destroy your launcher and magazine. A turret system could have multiple turrets feeding from one or more magazines and a hit to a turret does not impact your magazine capacity, just your salvo weight.

Most of this argument is semantical as the game does not account for much of this.

They sort of implement it in the Sword World's Integrated Munitions System. Distributed ten ton launch modules with their own ready storage. All missile storage is interconnected with an auto-loading system, that can even unload a disabled module.

Its billed as a spinal mount for missile boats, but the implementation is underwhelming, IMO.

 

[Condottiere]

I had a go at that.

It's all or nothing, in order to eke out any advantage.

 

[swordtart]

It's inconsistent.

However, assuming that the missile pack is still valid, it does mean that missile (solo) launcher and the missile packing case have the same dimensions.

I am finding stuff scattered all over the place

Companion has the Container Missile. If loaded with Interceptor Missiles this has an all up cost of MCr1.2. My reading is this will hold 8 missiles that have +2 to hit and each do 2d damage. All missiles can be launched in a single salvo. The chance of one or more of these missiles reaching the target is significantly more than a Triple turret of Missile Racks and therefore the damage potential, especially at medium range or closer is higher. It also spreads the bet and will be cheaper.

The disadvantage is you only get that one Salvo per hardpoint, but for a merchant this might not be a bad option. A pirate might consider an attack uneconomical if the merchant could deliver potentially 16D damage since each hit they scored in point defence only removes 2D. If the do attack they will suffer one massive retaliation. If that retaliation fails then the merchant is in the poop, but you were in trouble anyway (unless you have a second hardpoints worth).

The main issue to date for me is getting sufficient weapons into the fight, but this dodad ticks that box. The problem of fielding enough racks or a barbette is the cost.

Laser will still be cheaper in the long run, but if you are only doing a few dice a turn you may not have a long term.

 

[Condottiere]

We all know how missiles are handled in real life.

Our issue seems more how they are packaged, and delivered.

In theory, you could package a spacecraft missile like a Javelin anti tank missile, and set it up on the hull.

 

[phavoc]

We all know how missiles are handled in real life.

Our issue seems more how they are packaged, and delivered.

In theory, you could package a spacecraft missile like a Javelin anti tank missile, and set it up on the hull.

Unless the electronics are hardened against radiation for longer periods than its flight time, then you run the risk of damaging the electronics and firing a dud. They are protected inside the hull from radiation and other exposure to long-term space hazards (rapid heating/cooling is a real thing for anything in space as it transits between sun exposure time frames).

All of this could be accounted for (hardened electronics - which maybe they already are if they are expected to operate in a nuclear detonation environment, or hardened launch cannisters). However there should be an accompanying cost and other potential penalties for the tradeoff. The game Starfire utilized external racks for warships what allowed them to double their initial salvo and then go to internal launchers only. However the issue there was any damage to a ship that had live birds in the external racks meant they were considered destroyed because they were exposed. Reloading had to occur after a battle and the missiles were taken from your internal magazines or your fleet train. Because of the use-em or lose-em idea, both in the games and in the fiction you always saw the heaviest salvo's in the first round.

 

[phavoc]

They sort of implement it in the Sword World's Integrated Munitions System. Distributed ten ton launch modules with their own ready storage. All missile storage is interconnected with an auto-loading system, that can even unload a disabled module.

Its billed as a spinal mount for missile boats, but the implementation is underwhelming, IMO.

I don't have the SW supplement, so I haven't seen that. Shared magazines between launchers seems like a good idea.

The thing that's always bugged me was seeing missile turrets literally mounted right above say a passage way. Traveller missile turret illustrations always show smooth blisters, and there's no way 12 missile rounds could fit there when there is zero room below the turret. At most one round in the tube and then you are done (which seems pretty stupid to me).

I wish they had made magazines a thing in the LBB and carried them forward.

 

[Arkathan]

I don't have the SW supplement, so I haven't seen that. Shared magazines between launchers seems like a good idea.

The thing that's always bugged me was seeing missile turrets literally mounted right above say a passage way. Traveller missile turret illustrations always show smooth blisters, and there's no way 12 missile rounds could fit there when there is zero room below the turret. At most one round in the tube and then you are done (which seems pretty stupid to me).

I wish they had made magazines a thing in the LBB and carried them forward.

It starts with 5% of the hull for the transfer system, then adds ten ton modules that have a ready storage of 36 missiles (plus four in tubes) and fires four missiles per turn. Any missile storage is automatically attached to the system for free. The system eats 10% of the ship's hardpoints, and each launch module costs another one.
About the only good part, beyond the initial module load of forty missiles is that missile magazines hold twenty missiles per ton instead of twelve... because Viking magic.

Edit, and the constant replenishment from the magazines to ready storage.

 

[phavoc]

It starts with 5% of the hull for the transfer system, then adds ten ton modules that have a ready storage of 36 missiles (plus four in tubes) and fires four missiles per turn. Any missile storage is automatically attached to the system for free. The system eats 10% of the ship's hardpoints, and each launch module costs another one.
About the only good part, beyond the initial module load of forty missiles is that missile magazines hold twenty missiles per ton instead of twelve... because Viking magic.

Edit, and the constant replenishment from the magazines to ready storage

so it's a quad missile launcher with jiggered missile storage stats? I guess I'm missing something in the usefulness of the system other than the cheating on missile storage (which MGT has screwed like every other version has).

 

[Arkathan]

And the bottomless cup effect. And it steals ten percent of your hardpoints up front.