Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

[swordtart]

Actually firm points ie fixed mount only hold 4 missiles and ships 100dt or more can’t use Firmpoints Highguard 2022
“A ship of less than 35 tons has one Firmpoint. A ship
of 35–69 tons has two Firmpoints and a ship of 70–99
tons has three Firmpoints. Beyond this size, ships use
Hardpoints. A firmpoint can hold only one weapon.”
Now if you had a odd dt ship say 150 dt I probably allow a turret and two firmpoints but that’s not RAW

“MISSILE RACK
Although missile racks require ammunition and the
warheads take time to reach distant targets, they
can be very powerful weapons and, when a range of
warheads is available, extremely versatile too. Each
turret with one or more missile racks holds 12 missiles
(missile racks on Firmpoints hold four missiles).
The missile rack listed in the table is equipped with
standard missiles

A "firmpoint" is different to a "fixed mount" (at least in MGT2 - Core rulebook P183 or High Guard P28) . A fixed mount can carry a missile rack plus it's normal complement of 12 missiles (or indeed any other weapon you can put in a turret) and does not use any power.

 

[swordtart]

Missiles should be LOAL. But "fixed mount" that takes 0 power and 0 space yet holds 12 missiles in some sort of astral pocket dimension and can be triggered by an unskilled guy doing something else at the same time shouldn't be a thing on a starship.

I disagree, tossing a self-guiding weapon off a rail or out of a tube in the general direction of an enemy that you designated by selecting it with a cursor (for example) doesn't sound excessive to me.

None of the other turret weapons take up space per se. It is the turret itself that requires the tonnage and power for the traverse mechanism. Bolting a weapon directly onto the hull shouldn't require internal space for example. Standard ships missiles according to the Robot Handbook are size 4, they take up a little less than a DTon and the tube itself won't take up much more space than the missile it houses. Once you start having reloads which are definitely internal then you need reloading mechanisms etc. so you start using tonnage.

 

[swordtart]

I am not aware of a specific statement that fixed mounts must to point forward - though that is most common in fighter configuration. If allowed then a triple Missile Racks facing aft might be marginally effective if you are in a stern chase anyway. Since it would take no tonnage and no power the only impact is cost. As you only have that one off investment and only incur recurrent costs if you actually fire it, then it might be more attractive to a trader as a deterrent. Reloads of course will still take up tonnage and do eat into profits whether you use them or not.

I could not find a rule that prevented you putting both your fixed mounts for a 200 ton ship into the same arc, but frankly missiles are an expensive proposition if you have to abide by the default rules. Missile robots on such a platform could be more effective and a genuine consideration.

 

[swordtart]

Specific missile launch systems can have slight tweaks that change some mechanics, whether that was the writer's intent, or not.

If you treat it like a vehicle that only needs to be given a target, you could throw it out the cargo hatch.

The Vehicle Guide and Field Catalogue has plenty of anti-aerospace weapons with DD damage class at a fraction of ship weapon costs that are theoretically capable of damaging unarmoured space and star ships and could be mounted in that manner as a stop gap for hard up trader captains. The range might be an issue, and you might not be able to reload them easily but for a close range scrap vs low quality pirates they might work.

Such ships would be an embarrassment in any formal navy, but where they would be needed there likely isn't a formal navy.

Pretty sure they used this in Firefly

 

[Condottiere]

You could clamp a tank on top of the hull.

Self contained power plant and sensors.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

You could clamp a tank on top of the hull.

Self contained power plant and sensors.

Well, Geir IS working on figuring out how to better meld Vehicle and Ship rules for the updated Vehicle book...
I could see the Oghmans, or a petty low tech dictator doing something like this.... or the average bunch of Traveler's.
Firefly meets Road Warrior.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I think at some point the whole concept of a Traveller missile needs to be revisited, much as computers were.

A 50kg missile just can not have the performance typical in Traveller, it would make much more sense if the missile is instead a smallcraft/vehicle in its own right.

 

[Condottiere]

A previous publication did have a breakdown of the missile.

Maybe we'll get a chance to customize them.

 

[CordwainerFish]

By coincidence, I am currently rereading Citizen of the Galaxy, and yesterday I got to the bit that mentions how missiles are hideously expensive to a Free Trader [1], but a bargain compared to losing your cargo, your ship, and your life (or worse, your freedom).

[1] Free Traders in that book are far larger ships than in Trav, but the point remains.

 

[Vormaerin]

I disagree, tossing a self-guiding weapon off a rail or out of a tube in the general direction of an enemy that you designated by selecting it with a cursor (for example) doesn't sound excessive to me.

None of the other turret weapons take up space per se. It is the turret itself that requires the tonnage and power for the traverse mechanism. Bolting a weapon directly onto the hull shouldn't require internal space for example. Standard ships missiles according to the Robot Handbook are size 4, they take up a little less than a DTon and the tube itself won't take up much more space than the missile it houses. Once you start having reloads which are definitely internal then you need reloading mechanisms etc. so you start using tonnage.

Except stuff glued to the outside of the ship does count against the ship's volume in most design instances.

However, this particular discussion is 100% a result of Traveller using volume instead of mass to make floorplans & other calculations easier. IRL, stuff outside the hull does not take up volume, obviously. But it does add mass. You can discuss it from a game play point of view (is it a good idea to have internal launchers vastly inferior to external ones & should fixed mounts rely on facing issues as their balance point when facing issues aren't actually a feature of the game).

Or you can have this discussion using one of the Traveller design sequences that actually accounts for surface area & mass, not just interior volume.

 

[Sigtrygg]

A previous publication did have a breakdown of the missile.

Maybe we'll get a chance to customize them.

The minimum size for a missile should be the smallest size for a smallcraft or space capable vehicle - 50kg is far too small for 6g and unlimited effective duration.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't think there's going to be much left over of the Scoutship, when a five tonne hull slams into it at acceleration factor/fifteen.

Or, you drop a five tonne hull, with an appropriately size nuclear warhead, on an urban area.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Acceleration isn't the issue - relative velocity is.

Acceleration is needed to achieve a hit in the first place:
to close range
to intercept or at least get in warhead range

 

[swordtart]

Ship to ship combat needs to consider relative acceleration also (since it is also a vector quantity - a rate of change of relative velocity). If that pirate is chasing you then you don't need to close the distance and you could just park up and wait for it to arrive. Ditto a missile you launched toward it could be pushed out of an airlock and just linger until it gets close and only fire up for the terminal manoeuvring. We tend to think in terms of missiles needing to move as we are used to earth-bound missiles having to constantly overcome gravity to stop them falling out of the sky. In space they can just hang there.

 

[Condottiere]

I think that's termed mining.

Also, booby trapping.

 

[swordtart]

By coincidence, I am currently rereading Citizen of the Galaxy, and yesterday I got to the bit that mentions how missiles are hideously expensive to a Free Trader [1], but a bargain compared to losing your cargo, your ship, and your life (or worse, your freedom).

[1] Free Traders in that book are far larger ships than in Trav, but the point remains.

Only if missiles have a significant likelihood of preventing that loss. Others have pointed out that until you get 10's of missiles en-route that isn't realistic.

In classic Elite, they were good as long as your opponent didn't have ECM, firing one was virtually a guaranteed kill, as most ships didn't have ECM they paid for themselves. I haven't run the number myself (a job for boxing day maybe) but it sounds like this isn't the case for the default traveller missile at least.

 

[swordtart]

I think that's termed mining.

Also, booby trapping.

Some tropes have space mines as effectively autonomous weapons platforms rather than the conventional mine that damages via massive explosion.

A robot brained missile could easily just lurk waiting for the enemy to come close. One of those cheap ground defence systems could have a robot brain and just be dropped out of an airlock probably for not much more than a single missile (much less a missile system).

 

[swordtart]

The minimum size for a missile should be the smallest size for a smallcraft or space capable vehicle - 50kg is far too small for 6g and unlimited effective duration.

Standard Missiles in MTG2 have thrust 10 and 10 rounds duration. They are a 1/16 of a DTon according to the robot handbook).

Thrust 10 requires 20% of the volume for a reaction drive. 1 hour of fuel requires another 25% of total volume. That leaves 55% of the volume for other systems and payload. Robot handbook indicates that 50% of the missile chassis is available for payload.

 

[Geir]

Well, Geir IS working on figuring out how to better meld Vehicle and Ship rules for the updated Vehicle book...
I could see the Oghmans, or a petty low tech dictator doing something like this.... or the average bunch of Traveler's.
Firefly meets Road Warrior.

Well, I'm already going with cloth drapery...

Thing is, you could get around the one hardpoint per 100 tons limit by putting docking clamps on your hull and fitting them with laser tanks... heck, you can already do that with fighters - nobody says you have to launch them...

 

[Condottiere]

That was a pretty obvious solution.

I always thought you can close that loophole, by insisting that anything that requires structural integrity, requires reinforcement, specifically a hardpoint.

That includes stuff like launch tubes.