Would a far/free trader ever use missiles?

[phavoc]

Here’s the problem I’ll whisper it back to you it does not say multilauncher!! It says Multilanchers plural. so mister see the Different wait a minute there is no difference!
To prove my point I’ll copy and paste the section again! “Equipped with multilaunchers,” now i don’t know if English is your first language or not but adding that “s” at the end of the word means more than one. See under bays “Packed full of launchers” so there is no difference in description “Multi-Launchers” “Pack full of Launchers”. So there is no Multilauncher. Multi means more than one not we launch multiple missiles in fact to make the sentence say what you want it to it would have to say “Multiple-Launcher” which it doesn’t.

To throw you own settlement back at you Quit trying to mislead and misrepresent what is actually written

Ok, so I worked in MLRS in the US Army. We had a single launcher with 2 launch bays,and each launch bay had 6 individual rocket pods in each bay (this was before the age of GPS guidance or ATACMS). So under the definition above, was equipped with a multi-launcher (one bay), or multilaunchers (2 bays)? We could salvo fire in 60 seconds 1-12 rounds with each one targeted at a different location within a grid square. Each round contained about 700 cluster bomblets. My job at the time was to sit outside the Fulda Gap, survive as long as we could and take out Russian artillery brigades.

I think, like most of the explantiions of the weapon systems in Traveller, they are not well written to actually reflect the good field operation of the system. One thing holding us all back is they do not exist today. So while we can speculate and up-scale existing tech and procedures, everything we do is based upon multiple assumptions and occassional common sense. Would we have more VLS - type cells that would allow you to ripple fire your entire load, or would we have more protected turret launchers with hardened defenses and magazines to slug it out over a period of time rather than blow your load on the first round? Each has a philosphy behind it that is sound, but again, we have no relevant battle history to really tell us which one is most effective on the battlefield and not in a gaming simulator. Additional clariaty in the rules would be nice to stop the incessant rule bickering due to the wishy-washy interpretable way that seems to be creeping in.

Personally I think you'd see navies with a bit of a mix, or else they'd equip theirs one way and their opponent may do the opposite and all their tactics are built around such systems.

 

[tytalan]

Ok, so I worked in MLRS in the US Army. We had a single launcher with 2 launch bays,and each launch bay had 6 individual rocket pods in each bay (this was before the age of GPS guidance or ATACMS). So under the definition above, was equipped with a multi-launcher (one bay), or multilaunchers (2 bays)? We could salvo fire in 60 seconds 1-12 rounds with each one targeted at a different location within a grid square. Each round contained about 700 cluster bomblets. My job at the time was to sit outside the Fulda Gap, survive as long as we could and take out Russian artillery brigades.

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

 

[tytalan]

Probably not the best insult to be throwing around on an international sci-fi board, just because someone doesn't see it your way on something that in the end doesn't even matter that much.

Maybe but than I originally didn’t mean it as an insult. It was only after he purposefully misrepresented what was written in the book to prove a point that I started getting insulting with it.

Would it surprise you to know that more than one author for Mongoose is multi-lingual and English was not the first?
That sort of insult only makes you look either silly or petulant, especially for people who KNOW. (If you know, you know... Oh, the irony.)
You don't want people to avoid your comments because they expect something like this. (and I know certain people avoid my comments because of what I argue for or against)

No it wouldn’t and yes it does by the same point purposefully dropping a ‘S’ from a word to change its meaning is even more antagonistic.

So, advice: Craft your arguments better, using facts and examples and try not to get upset when someone has a different point of view that they are set on.

If you look things over I started just this way even copying and pasted from the CRB and High Guard and he over and over dropped that Stupid ‘S’ in order to make what was written mean something entirely different. Sorry my first major before I changed to MIS and Finance was Computer Science and this type of thing really get to me. Syntax and grammar in gaming just like programming is everything.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Quite why, by the 57th century, all knowledge of the VLS cell system for missile has been lost is beyond me.

Now, in the 57th century, that's a "bay."

 

[tytalan]

Now, in the 57th century, that's a "bay."

More like a container launcher from the companion. Bays can reload themselves

 

[Sigtrygg]

Not sure what that has to do with anything but if your talking about the navy the used multiple tubes to get a high rate if fire. They were effectively a bay

A Traveller turret missile is 50kg
A hellfire missile is 50kg
They produced a 15 cell vehicle mounted VLS for it, so not a bay weapon, in point of fact pretty much a turret volume weapon.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Now, in the 57th century, that's a "bay."

A Traveller turret missile is 50kg
A hellfire missile is 50kg
They produced a 15 cell vehicle mounted VLS for it, so not a bay weapon, in point of fact pretty much a turret volume weapon

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yup from the companion but also a one and done great for an ambush not good for defense or regular combat and as describe it’s got a tube for each missile. Same system our navy and Airforce uses to get rapid firing from a missile system and decidedly not the same as a missile rack it’s a one shot bay.

A Traveller turret missile is 50kg
A hellfire missile is 50kg
They produced a 15 cell vehicle mounted VLS for it, so not a bay weapon, in point of fact pretty much a turret volume weapon

 

[Sigtrygg]

Let's see what it actually says:
"TURRETS AND FIXED MOUNTS
Turrets and fixed mounts use the same type of weapons but whereas a fixed mount can only fire at targets directly ahead of it, a turret rotates and can engage any target in sight. One turret or fixed mount may be attached to each Hardpoint on a ship.

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.

BARBETTES
Barbettes are effectively heavy turrets. Barbettes are typically only for military use and not available for purchase by civilians except under unusual circumstances. However, there are unscrupulous ports where they can be obtained on the black market.
A barbette uses a single Hardpoint, and requires the Gunner (turret) skill but also consumes additional tonnage inside the ship, as its larger weapons need more space for capacitors, targeting mechanisms, ammunition feeds and other components. Like turrets, barbettes require just one gunner to operate. Most barbettes consume 5 tons each.

MISSILE BARBETTE
Equipped with multilaunchers, a missile barbette can unleash a flurry of warheads at a target. A missile
barbette fires five missiles at a time and holds enough missiles for five full salvos (a total of 25 missiles).
Missile barbettes on Firmpoints consume an additional two tons of space."

So there we have it.
A turret can have one, two, three or four missile racks.

Barbettes are equipped with multilaunchers.

So the question is what are you arguing about?

In context it is pretty obvious that a single multilauncher is different to a missile rack, a single multilauncher fires five missiles in one go, rather than the one missile.

(A VLS missile turret should have 12 missiles and be able to fire from one to twelve missiles in a single salvo

A VLS barbette should be able to fire one, five or all twenty five missiles in one salvo.)

 

[Condottiere]

You should always bear in mind that the rules tend to be based on the weapon systems descriptions given in the text.

The second part being what we know works in real life, and what would make sense.

Which is why I tend to think you can selective fire a missile pack.

 

[Terry Mixon]

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

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.

 

[Jame Rowe]

A Traveller turret missile is 50kg
A hellfire missile is 50kg
They produced a 15 cell vehicle mounted VLS for it, so not a bay weapon, in point of fact pretty much a turret volume weapon

I wouldn't mind if that got ported over to starship scale turrets.

Though maybe we could just say that's how the missiles are stored in civilian ships.

 

[Jame Rowe]

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.

Sigtrygg mentioned the existence of a vehicle turret with missile cells in it.
Perhaps we could just say that a missile turret is organized like that, and the missile storage tonnage is there instead of inside the ship. If we did that, then a turret being single, double or triple is how many it can launch at once.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Nice video of it:

Multi-Mission Launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Vormaerin]

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?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Sigtrygg mentioned the existence of a vehicle turret with missile cells in it.

Vehicle scale, the video gives you an idea of the size.

Perhaps we could just say that a missile turret is organized like that, and the missile storage tonnage is there instead of inside the ship. If we did that, then a turret being single, double or triple is how many it can launch at once.

it can ripple fire the lot. in a 6 min turn.

 

[Sigtrygg]

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?

A point defence laser should be able to target the lot of them considering the range of laser weapons and how many times a laser can fire in a turn. Even a VRF gauss gun in PD mode could likely splash a lot of them.

To ensure a hit I would launch lots of decoy missiles along with the real missiles.

It's worth a trip over to the Atomic Rockets web site to view the argument over missiles vs lasers (TL differences could/should shift the dynamic, especially if one system is of a higher TL than the other)

The rules from Striker are what I would use for point defence...

 

[Vormaerin]

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.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It's the old decide the outcomes you want for your combat system before you start, then design accordingly.

But please make TL differences meaningful, because at the moment I am not seeing a great deal of difference across the TLs of starships compared with HG80

 

[Condottiere]

With energy weapons, the limitations are energy pool and overheating.

Probably sensors.

With missiles, it's magazine size, and reload time.

Even at six seconds, it probably takes a bunch of those per shot.