Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

Traveller has always been more of an RPG with wargaming bolted on to it, thus it's combat system is, charitably, fuzzy at best.
Actually Traveller is a RPG the combat was a part of that and never meant to be used as a war game. GDW produced wargames for the Traveller universe. I’d say that’s one of the problems people keep trying to make Traveller itself a war game
 
Let’s break this down again Multilaunchers: Multi means multiple, Launchers means plural when put together as a single word it means multiple launchers. That is how the word breaks down.

Dogfighting rules break everything it’s kind of like the Battletech dueling rules that FASA came out with for the Solaris box set it doesn’t make sense and breaks the game. Also like everything in the companion the dogfighting rules are optional ie not core and in this case doesn’t really work with the core.

Traveller is not and never was meant to be a war game! If you want that look elsewhere or ask mongoose to make one but Traveller is a RPG

This is turning out to be the same as the vehicle thread where a bunch of gear heads kept arguing for changes that would make a Great War game supplement but distract from the purpose of being a RPG supplement. I’m signing of this thread it’s been chewed to death and no one’s yet counter my original response which was from the RP side giving all the reasons that a merchant is unlikely to arm his ship with missiles.
 
Actually Traveller is a RPG the combat was a part of that and never meant to be used as a war game. GDW produced wargames for the Traveller universe. I’d say that’s one of the problems people keep trying to make Traveller itself a war game
Well, that's getting a bit murkier into things. High Guard was created to allow for wargaming, though not like other games produced by GDW or other publishers. It was somewhere between an RPG and actual wargame. Striker rules would, I think, be considered detailed enough to be classified as wargaming rules. And therein lies another rub - Striker is an adjunct addon, but also not part of the RPG really or the ship combat system.

And, to your point, I completely agree. With the rules as they are, Traveller remains with feet in both parts of the gaming world (RPG and wargaming), and the rules / game are not structured to accommodate it as such. It's not like say Renegade Legion universe that game up with different rule systems for different parts of the game (fighter combat, capital ship combat, vehicle, world invasions and then RPG).
 
Let’s break this down again Multilaunchers: Multi means multiple, Launchers means plural when put together as a single word it means multiple launchers. That is how the word breaks down.

Dogfighting rules break everything it’s kind of like the Battletech dueling rules that FASA came out with for the Solaris box set it doesn’t make sense and breaks the game. Also like everything in the companion the dogfighting rules are optional ie not core and in this case doesn’t really work with the core.

Traveller is not and never was meant to be a war game! If you want that look elsewhere or ask mongoose to make one but Traveller is a RPG

This is turning out to be the same as the vehicle thread where a bunch of gear heads kept arguing for changes that would make a Great War game supplement but distract from the purpose of being a RPG supplement. I’m signing of this thread it’s been chewed to death and no one’s yet counter my original response which was from the RP side giving all the reasons that a merchant is unlikely to arm his ship with missiles.
It's a terrible word salad label for things. Due to the poor word choices it's what driving this disagreement over exactly what the hell things are. I do have to take exception though to how you are interpreting the word "multilaunchers". As an MLRS crewmember (Multiple Launch Rocket System) we had arguably, one launcher with two launch bays, or 'multi-launchers' since we had two distinct launch bays, each equipped with 6 individual rockets in a single rocket pod. It's a messy word describing an interpretable definition.

For me, personally, I would consider "multilauncher" to mean multiple launch mechanisms (i.e. like my MLRS launcher I had two independent launchers encapsulated in a single launcher. A VLS system on a Tico-class cruiser is multi-launcher by dint of having two distinct sets of VLS launch cells, and within each VLS array you have individual missiles that are individulally loaded and fired individually. This, of course, requires you to further parse the word "launcher' into some meaning. Is an individual rocket in it's own individually loaded and encapsulated tube a "launcher"? Expansively I would say yes. For my MLRS system we had a single pod with six rounds, and I would consider each pod to be distinct, even though each rocket was individually encapsulated. Why? Because all 6 rockets made up the pod and you never had pods without 6 rockets until you fired one.

Yar, the dogfighting rules of Traveller fly in the face of the rest of the game mechanisms because one cannot "dogfight" in space like that using newtonian movement rules. Babylon 5 series showed it, somewhat, though the animators cheated a bit for television goodness - much like Traveller does to make fighters and small craft able to 'dogfight'. The drive system tech of Interceptor allowed for this (as does other game systems, such as SFB, or Starfire to name a few).

I commented in the other response about Traveller and it being a wargame or not. Parts of it do have wargaming-type rules, but the implementation across the gaming system has been poorly implemented for decades. It retains parts of each and does neither superbly well due to it's botched hybirdization.

I haven't commented on the idea of a merchie arming his ship with missiles, though I will comment now. I agree with you that it would be very unlikely. Merchants do not profit from combat with other ships. They lose money, and can lose a lot of money simply buying and having to maintain missiles, the targetting systems, the software and crew training to effectively use them - even fire and forget missiles require some training (and that's not even getting into weapons ops and dealing with targetting, ECM/ECCM issues, etc). That means unless your ship regularly fights you are paying lots of credits for a purely offensive platform.

Merchies are, bless their tight-fisted hearts, loathe to spend credits on something that brings them no return. Lasers are offensive/defensive, sandcasters are mostly defensive and cheaper than lasers. Expect the cheaper guys to use sand to scuttle away from pirates, while the more adventurous ones will opt to use lasers in off/def modality - though mostly defensive since ship combat impacts the bottom line.

Players who do not have to worry about the bottom line, or increased repairs from combat will opt for heavy strike power. While historically SOME freighters mounted SOME armament, I can't recally any actual warships that converted into armed merchantmen. Merchantmen, however, did get armaments added, and in WW1 both the English and Germans used liners with light cruiser armaments and torpedoes to great effect - except when they had to fight actual warships. And if I recall correctly, in every instance going ujp against a real cruiser they lost. I need too find the book I am reading that has this info in it that I can share as backup to the discussion. Finding exampled in age of sail ma also be present, but those are in different books.

Hopefully you don't leave the conversatoin. Disagreements are fine so long as the don't get to the neener-neener level. Thsis where ideas are exposed, processed, debated and ultimately adopted or discarded. Please do stay. Aplogies for the por typing, the ambien is kicking in hard and i gotta end it here.
 
Let’s break this down again Multilaunchers: Multi means multiple, Launchers means plural when put together as a single word it means multiple launchers. That is how the word breaks down.
Except that the "multi" prefix pluralises a non plural; word and often indicates compound plurality e.g. multiverse = many universes overlayed on each other, multipack = many packs in a single larger pack, multiplex (e.g. cinema) = many (cinemas) in one, multimillionaire = one person who has many millions. So multilauncher could definitely mean many launchers in one. It does not indicate what elements are shared. As you point out launchers is plural making the multi part redundant if the intent was simply to mean multiple launchers.

While your opinion may be valid, arguing on grounds of grammar is futile as the wording is ambiguous (and in such a large book the odd grammatical error is going to creep in anyway). The only safe ground to argue on is the wording of the game effect.
Dogfighting rules break everything it’s kind of like the Battletech duelling rules that FASA came out with for the Solaris box set it doesn’t make sense and breaks the game. Also like everything in the companion the dogfighting rules are optional ie not core and in this case doesn’t really work with the core.
Arguably the main space combat rules are the things that should be changed since dogfighting uses the same timescale as the non-space combat rules. The movement rules in space combat are an abstraction that does not agree with the rules for moving your ship through normal space when not in combat so it "breaks the game". If you get close enough for boarding you are going to drop into 6 second turns anyway, so why not once you get to close range.
I know why they abstracted space combat, as otherwise it does become a boardgame (and with 6 second turns a pretty tedious one). It doesn't mean it is better than dogfighting in "preserving" the rules.
Traveller is not and never was meant to be a war game! If you want that look elsewhere or ask mongoose to make one but Traveller is a RPG
We used to have this this wargame vs RPG on the car wars forums. The fact is that any RPG that has a tactical movement either built-in or decided to add one (Striker, Ashanti High) has a wargaming element (when the position and armament of the character is more important than their motivation). As many of those 70's games were hybrids (and their authors and player base often has grown out of the wargaming hobby) it is a fairly pointless distinction and is a matter of belief rather than fact.
This is turning out to be the same as the vehicle thread where a bunch of gear heads kept arguing for changes that would make a Great War game supplement but distract from the purpose of being a RPG supplement. I’m signing of this thread it’s been chewed to death and no one’s yet counter my original response which was from the RP side giving all the reasons that a merchant is unlikely to arm his ship with missiles.
I did try to engage with your original posts but as your first few posts were based on misquotes of the wording in the rules it was difficult to agree with you without first establishing what we were discussing. I tried to explore the various decision points systematically from various angles but you got offensive fairly quickly and accused people of going off topic because you did not agree with discussion of things outside your interpretation of the problem space.

I don't think the answer is a cut and dried as you think and the exploration has been useful in forming an opinion. I can see cases where missiles might be useful.
 
Last edited:
Who is liable for the loss of freight to pirates?

Pirate - heave to me hearties and hand over yer booty

universe 1 - ship is liable - Merchant Captain - launch missiles, target lasers, give em so much damage it will cost them more in repairs than the cargo is worth
Pirate - bollocks, runs away and jumps before missiles hit.

universe 2 - freight owner is insured and ship is not liable - merchant captain - sure, here take it, we've been paid anyway.
 
Traveller LBB:1 combat - range bands, morale rules, weapon matrices (very wargame like)
Traveller LBB:2 ship combat - vector wargame
Traveller LBB:4 unit vs unit abstract wargame
Traveller LBB:5 abstract fleet wargame.

Snapshot, AHL, Striker, Mayday - all wargames
Imperium, Dark nebula, Invasion :Earth, Fifth Frontier War - all wargames

It's almost as if GDW made wargames for a living...

it strikes me that there is actually more individual player agency in Striker and AHL (wargames) than there was in the LBB:1 rules.

An AP system was used as the combat resolution system for FASA's Star Trek rpg.

I sat down and made a hybrid of the Snapshot and AHL AP systems and was stunned (not really) to see that I had reinvented the MegaTraveller personal combat system (which basically just files off the spending of action points)
 
Who is liable for the loss of freight to pirates?

Pirate - heave to me hearties and hand over yer booty

universe 1 - ship is liable - Merchant Captain - launch missiles, target lasers, give em so much damage it will cost them more in repairs than the cargo is worth
Pirate - bollocks, runs away and jumps before missiles hit.

universe 2 - freight owner is insured and ship is not liable - merchant captain - sure, here take it, we've been paid anyway.
Yes, this is the traditional model of piracy.

Give me your clients cargo and I'll let you go. Most pirates would even allow the crew to keep their personal effects. If this is the way it works in YTU then arming the ship at all is a waste of revenue generating opportunity and having a weapon makes you look like a pirate. Of course not all players are just traders and not all traders are wholly on the level.

If the pirates in the campaign have been portrayed as steal the ship and space the crew then you will fight to the death (since surrender is death as well). In that case armament on traders would be the default.

If that cargo is your own speculative cargo your insurance may only cover the value at book rate (that's the way I have been playing it) or not at all. If your cargo is for a specific mission that pays more than book rate then scaring off pirates might be worthwhile.

I tend to assume that a ship with a mortgage is ensured by the lender, but they may impose a level of responsibility to protect the investment on the borrower. That may impose conditions like carrying a self-defence weapon as a deterrent. A weapon like the Container Missile with shed loads of retaliatory power that would make even a Corsair wince would fulfil that requirement, especially as it doesn't seem to require sacrificing any cargo tonnage (unlike a turret). The capital cost is pretty low (and will be amortized) and if you don't need to fire it, then the only recurrent cost is its share of the maintenance. If you do need to fire it, then only the outcome will determine if it was worth the money.

All these decision points will need to be determined in reference to your specific campaign since as far as I know the core rules are silent on these aspects (other than stating that weapons are often put on Free Traders by adventuring groups).
 
Last edited:
Merchantmen do have some options:

1. Second party arms them to ensure safe delivery.

2. If ensured mission kill weapon system, kept as insurance.

3. Salvage damaged pirate vessel, and/or collect bounties on the pirates.

4. Load cheap or dummy rounds in the magazine, but advertize the fact that you do have missile launchers.
 
Mulitilancher. Let’s look at a use of the same kind of word in a science fiction setting. Multipass. A single pass that allows multiple rides.

That doesn’t guarantee it is meant that way here, but it demonstrates the more likely way the work breaks down.

If there is more than one multilauncher, it would still be a collection of single launchers that could fire multiple missiles each.
 
Last edited:
It's another example of Mongoose authors changing things.

The original CT version has it as follows:

MISSILE STORAGE
Each standard missile rack can hold one missile ready to fire and two additional missiles ready for future game turns.*The role of the gunner in the turret is to aim and fire the weaponry in the turret; once the missile racks and ready missiles are exhausted, the gunner must reload them with new missiles. A gunner can load new missiles into the racks and still operate the weaponry in a game turn.
The standard turret has room to store an additional 12 missiles in it. **Once these missiles have been used, the turret must be restocked with missiles carried elsewhere in the ship (usually in the cargo hold).
Restocking a turret with missiles is accomplished during the game turn inter-phase. If the gunner participates in restocking, he may not operate weaponry in the turret in the next game turn. It is possible for non-gunner crew members who are not otherwise engaged to perform restocking instead. One person can restock a turret in one game turn.

The Mongoose authors deleted the missiles in the launch rack and only account for the stored missiles in the turret, regardless of the number of weapons in the turret.

In CT turret by mounts: ready to fire, reload, in turret storage
s turret 1+2+12
d turret 2+4+12
t turret 3+6+12
 
It's another example of Mongoose authors changing things.

The original CT version has it as follows:

MISSILE STORAGE
Each standard missile rack can hold one missile ready to fire and two additional missiles ready for future game turns.*The role of the gunner in the turret is to aim and fire the weaponry in the turret; once the missile racks and ready missiles are exhausted, the gunner must reload them with new missiles. A gunner can load new missiles into the racks and still operate the weaponry in a game turn.
The standard turret has room to store an additional 12 missiles in it. **Once these missiles have been used, the turret must be restocked with missiles carried elsewhere in the ship (usually in the cargo hold).
Restocking a turret with missiles is accomplished during the game turn inter-phase. If the gunner participates in restocking, he may not operate weaponry in the turret in the next game turn. It is possible for non-gunner crew members who are not otherwise engaged to perform restocking instead. One person can restock a turret in one game turn.

The Mongoose authors deleted the missiles in the launch rack and only account for the stored missiles in the turret, regardless of the number of weapons in the turret.

In CT turret by mounts: ready to fire, reload, in turret storage
s turret 1+2+12
d turret 2+4+12
t turret 3+6+12
And isn't that just silly? Why would you carry missiles as cargo instead of as ready munitions in a magazine either adjacent to, or with a feed mechanism? Will the Captain say "Excuse me Mr. Enemy, I have exhausted my ready munitions, but I promise you we can still volley missiles at each other if you'll only give me some time to transfer them from the cargo hold to the missile magazine. Would you care for some Words with Friends while we wait?"

Missiles are not fired from breech loaders like artillery is. They are launched and nothing remains. This goes back to the idea that player gunners have something to do. When they conceived Traveller in the 70s naval crew still did do something for each missile launched (depending on the type, an example is the Terrier) - and that was to attach fins to the missiles because they were not stowed with them attached. That has not been the issue in many decades, yet the authors have not changed this. Maybe in a few more decades we'll see this corrected...
 
And isn't that just silly? Why would you carry missiles as cargo instead of as ready munitions in a magazine either adjacent to, or with a feed mechanism? Will the Captain say "Excuse me Mr. Enemy, I have exhausted my ready munitions, but I promise you we can still volley missiles at each other if you'll only give me some time to transfer them from the cargo hold to the missile magazine. Would you care for some Words with Friends while we wait?"

Missiles are not fired from breech loaders like artillery is. They are launched and nothing remains. This goes back to the idea that player gunners have something to do. When they conceived Traveller in the 70s naval crew still did do something for each missile launched (depending on the type, an example is the Terrier) - and that was to attach fins to the missiles because they were not stowed with them attached. That has not been the issue in many decades, yet the authors have not changed this. Maybe in a few more decades we'll see this corrected...
IRL missiles carried as cargo often take up more space than missiles in a ready to fire configuration due to the packaging to make them less vulnerable to damage in storage and transit. To a degree they are also "peace-bound" which means civilian carriers can move them without them being classed as armed. Finally it provides anti-tamper evidence.

Complex weapons also require varying degrees of preparation when transitioning them from long term storage to firing readiness (e.g. fuelling, charging, cooling of sensors and initiation with current mission parameters). You would not bother with this for missiles in storage as it takes time and exposes the interfaces to damage (and inspection by undesirables) and in some cases this is something that can only be done once in the lifetime of the missile (e.g. activating a thermal battery).

Missiles carried in cargo can replenish any of the turret magazines, missiles in a turret magazine can only feed that turret. Whilst an edge condition in most Traveller combat, this could be important if you are carrying a variety of missile types (but not enough of any specific one to fully load all of your various turrets, or if a turret (including its munitions stockpile) was knocked out.

Missile are sometimes fired from breech loaders. Many missiles use the container as the breech, but there are certainly missiles that launch from tank barrels. Traveller does not describe the missile launcher mechanism, so as long as it doesn't affect the game mechanics, you are free to chose whether they are carried on a rail like an on an aircraft, in a case that is disposable like many ground launched missiles or feed into a non-disposable tube like some tank and submarine missiles.

Finally cargo, does not necessarily mean the main cargo hold with your paying cargo. Cargo can be carried in other places as well. The books suggests positioning munitions held in cargo close to the turret they will be used to avoid people having to schlep them the length of the ship in combat. Of course if you do decide to build a ton or so of cargo capacity near the turret and later decide you do want to use it for regular cargo, it will probably need to be break-bulk cargo since getting a shipping container into it might be difficult.
It's another example of Mongoose authors changing things.

The original CT version has it as follows:

MISSILE STORAGE
Each standard missile rack can hold one missile ready to fire and two additional missiles ready for future game turns.*The role of the gunner in the turret is to aim and fire the weaponry in the turret; once the missile racks and ready missiles are exhausted, the gunner must reload them with new missiles. A gunner can load new missiles into the racks and still operate the weaponry in a game turn.
The standard turret has room to store an additional 12 missiles in it. **Once these missiles have been used, the turret must be restocked with missiles carried elsewhere in the ship (usually in the cargo hold).
Restocking a turret with missiles is accomplished during the game turn inter-phase. If the gunner participates in restocking, he may not operate weaponry in the turret in the next game turn. It is possible for non-gunner crew members who are not otherwise engaged to perform restocking instead. One person can restock a turret in one game turn.

The Mongoose authors deleted the missiles in the launch rack and only account for the stored missiles in the turret, regardless of the number of weapons in the turret.

In CT turret by mounts: ready to fire, reload, in turret storage
s turret 1+2+12
d turret 2+4+12
t turret 3+6+12
Can you give a page reference to this, I could only find the below in LBB2(81) p32:
Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.
When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.


It seems odd to me that a turret that is the same size regardless of the number of launchers fitted is capable of carrying more missiles. Common sense would indicate that the more launchers in a turret, the less space would be available for for missiles (either as part of the launcher or in the 12 missile reserve).

Mongoose allows 12 missiles per turret regardless of the number of launchers. Presumably one loaded per launcher and the rest in an autoloader ready for use which makes a bit more sense to me (and is easier to manage).
 
Last edited:
Technically speaking, it's called hammerspace.

I don't think it's ever been addressed.

In theory, you could have one missile chambered.
 
And isn't that just silly? Why would you carry missiles as cargo instead of as ready munitions in a magazine either adjacent to, or with a feed mechanism? Will the Captain say "Excuse me Mr. Enemy, I have exhausted my ready munitions, but I promise you we can still volley missiles at each other if you'll only give me some time to transfer them from the cargo hold to the missile magazine. Would you care for some Words with Friends while we wait?"
It's probably worse than silly. A gunner is allowed to build missiles from components prior to loading into the launch system.
The rules as they stand allow for crew other than the gunner to be reloading the 12 ready to load missiles in the turret. Replace that crew member with a robot and you have an autoloader. Build a cargo compartment next to the turret with the robot in it and you have an autoloading magazine.

It would be much easier if they just added rules for a missile magazine and autoloaders lol.
Missiles are not fired from breech loaders like artillery is. They are launched and nothing remains. This goes back to the idea that player gunners have something to do. When they conceived Traveller in the 70s naval crew still did do something for each missile launched (depending on the type, an example is the Terrier) - and that was to attach fins to the missiles because they were not stowed with them attached. That has not been the issue in many decades, yet the authors have not changed this. Maybe in a few more decades we'll see this corrected...
Some missiles are breech loaded. Quite a few tank guns have been designed to launch missiles rather than fire cannon rounds. There are still modern tanks with a loader crew member, but a lot are going the way of autoloaders.

I would be interested to talk to one of the original designers to find out exactly what they had in mind.

Mongoose authors have the benefit of foty eight years of real world weapon development to base weapon systems off, but it once gain boils down to author knowledge and ability to extrapolate weapon systems from TL7 to TL15+

For a 50kg standard civilian missile I would have all 12 in a VLS configuration, or in individual "blisters" just under the hull, but that would require a surface area data point. For barbettes I would add more missiles and of a larger size. A magazine and autoloader are difficult to justify for a civilian vessel, but should be standard on a warship. For bays it goes without saying that an autoloader and magazine may be added internally.
 
Can you give a page reference to this, I could only find the below in LBB2(81) p32:
Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.
When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.


It seems odd to me that a turret that is the same size regardless of the number of launchers fitted is capable of carrying more missiles. Common sense would indicate that the more launchers in a turret, the less space would be available for for missiles (either as part of the launcher or in the 12 missile reserve).

Mongoose allows 12 missiles per turret regardless of the number of launchers. Presumably one loaded per launcher and the rest in an autoloader ready for use which makes a bit more sense to me (and is easier to manage).
Apologies I sometimes forget that this is Mongoose and not everyone is familiar with the CT corpus (I would recommend ever single Traveller fan get the cd/thumbdrives/dropbox versions from Marc direct - $35 for everything is too good a deal and I don'e know if Mongoose will continue it)

In GDW JTAS several special supplements were released - Merchant prince, Exotic Atmospheres, and number 3 was Missiles.
These are now available on the CT cd/USB/drop box, or alternatively the GDW JTAS cd/USB/dropbox.

So my quote above is taken from Special Supplement 3: Missiles.
 
Back
Top