Lasers in FF&S

[Libris]

I got bored waiting on SJG new vehicle design system so I dug out FF&S to rummage through. Lasers seem a bit... complicated. I'm assuming that Penetration (7C, page129) is the amount of DV lost per armour value. So a laser with Pen of say 1/8 (a 100MJ output) and DV25 would lose 1 DV per 8 levels of armour. Yes?

They also seem to amazingly long ranged to the extent that a starship x-ray laser has no discernable drop in energy over all combat ranges.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Libris:
Lasers seem a bit... complicated. I'm assuming that Penetration (7C, page129) is the amount of DV lost per armour value. So a laser with Pen of say 1/8 (a 100MJ output) and DV25 would lose 1 DV per 8 levels of armour. Yes?

Yes.

They also seem to amazingly long ranged to the extent that a starship x-ray laser has no discernable drop in energy over all combat ranges.

Ged rid of gravitic focussing and ranges drop to a more realistic level. You'll probably have to change the scale of ship combat though.

 

[Scott Martin]

Change the exponential coefficients on Grav focusing (to say 3/2) and ranges also drop appreciably.

X-Ray lasers are the weapon of choice for "deep space" fleets, but you *must* have grav focusing (or some other handwavium tech) to use these: I got a chuckle out of the piles of designs using non-grav focused X-Ray lasers...

Currrently the only way to "focus" an X-Ray laser is a graphite rod on a nuke: the "focusing" mechanism tends to suffer destructive effects on use if it's a "physical" material.

There is also an error in the starship "critical" damage tables: it tells you to calculate criticals based on the remaining penetration not remaining damage value if you use this as-is, then the lasers on a gazelle will inflict auto-crits on monster battleships with several meters of BSD belt armour.

I'm currently looking at refactoring TNE type space combat, since the ranges are rather ludicrous, and missiles are a short range weapon only, and rather ineffective even there due to the awesome appetites of point defence lasers to eat them.

Scott Martin

 

[Zparkz]

Design missiles with HePlar drives and they will outoperform any starship. Drop the Nuclear Pumped Laser and insert a regular lance and you have a gun drone that is cheaper and has the potential to do much more damage. And it is re-usable unless it is destroyed in combat.

 

[Scott Martin]

You may have noticed This Thread on HEPLAR missiles already. the "lance armed" drone is a lot more expensive than a bomb-pumped laser missile due to controller requirements (noted below) and you are now limited to one missile per missile MFD instead of (diff mods) missiles per MFD.

They are also hamstrung by the controller requirements: if you want a remote missile with a laser (like in 2300 AD) the TNE rules require you to have a dedicated MFD (or two) in both the missile and the controlling ship, and a gunner and possibly a pilot as well (in the controlling ship) since this is now a "remote vehicle"

I just don't see a "missile" with its own computer (required for the MFD) its own MFD(s) a laser and a dedicated sensor array being "expendible". Even with the (obscene) cost of warheads in TNE, it's still cheaper to fire a salvo of "standard" missiles instead of this type of drone. That also doesn't address the fact that a "standard" missile is ~1/2 dT while this drone is ~2 dT, so your ordinance "payload" is also severely reduced and your launcher can no longer fire "standard' missiles.

The controller and computer issues noted above are some of my main reasons for advocating changes to the design sequences for starships, since the same computer that can run a 50 kdT system defence boat is "required" for a recon drone, which just strikes me as silly. IMTU I require a flight computer for the type of drone that you discuss, and no MFD on the drone which gets it back down into the "sane" size range, although you will still be hard pressed to fit it into a "standard" missile with any maneuver reserve below TL 15.

Small (1/2 dT or less) HEPLAR missiles are not possible until TL 13 due to minimum power plant size, which means that the platforms that I proposed in the other thread are not practical for Reformation Coalition use until fairly late.

The underlying issue (whether with "standard" missiles or this type of drone) is that because lasers (and PAW's) in TNE are so effective, missiles become a relatively ineffective point blank weapon: long duration HEPLAR missiles are just targets for longer periods of time when a Gazelle class can start killing them with relative ease at more than 1.5 light seconds.

My personal preference for "cheap" missiles is HEPLAR missiles with submunitions for use as kinetic kill weapons. A 20g ball bearing at 10 hexes/turn will put a large (critical hit inducing) hole in a capital ship, which is something another laser barbette can't do...

The real question is "why would I carry missiles of any type instead of an additional laser barbette?" which gets back to one of the topics of this thread "Holy C*** lasers seem to be too effective in TNE"

Just my $0.25
(can't afford CrImp's at the moment)
and the reason that I no longer run TNE combat "out of the box".


Scott Martin

 

[Badbru]

I think you have the controller issues wrong though Scott.

Pg 47 FF&S merely requires that the controlling vessell/station/what have you, has as many workstations as the RCV in question would require were it a manned vessell.

Since a pilot can fire fixed Lance weapons on a star/spaceship, then surely the RCV opperator can fire the missiles' lance. You may "choose" to have an MFD to offset range beyond one lightsecond penalties but there is no "requirement" for them other than mission parameter based requirements.

Similarly they don't need a computer of their own as the controlling ship/station has computers. These even offset the sensor longer than 30km rule as computers are available to process the information, they're just not on the RCV, they're on the controllers position. If I'm wrong then every published sensor drone and SIM missile is broken for not have it's own computer, so I don't think I'm wrong. Happy for you to prove otherwise.

Similarly if you keep to the standard half displacement tonne, and why wouldn't you, you're not going to get much of a lance in a drone/missile that size, so it's only going to have a one hex, or even, same hex range anyway. If it has onboard sensors, and again, why wouldn't you, you fire based on range from the RCV to target not range from the controlling workstation to target, just like SIM's. This is why, unless you want to opperate beyond ten hexes, and you may very well want to, you just don't need an MFD and you certainly don't need one on each end of the commo line. So an MFD is merely a mission parameter choice, no "requirement" there that I can see other than personal prefference for range capabilities.YMMV.

 

[mike wightman]

How about sticking a robot brain in the missile...

 

[Scott Martin]

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to troll, I've just found that the missile balance (and drone design sequences) in TNE/ BL / FF&S have some fairly major issues, ones that I've been trying to reconcile for quite a while. My personal opinion is that these problems are a result of arbitrarily choosing 30 minute combat turns (and the corresponding direct fire range scales needed)
___________________

The rules in FF&S (and BL) require a computer to use space-based sensors. The fact that none of the SIM missiles or drones published have a computer strongly suggests that this is not true for drones / missiles, but the rules as written do not have this exception. (Have I missed some published errata?)

If the "laser drone" were a manned starship, it would require a pilot / gunner as a minimum, and probably an electronics operator as well: IIRC the RCV rules require that a workstation and an MFD be installed at both ends for each "crewstation". this may be to offset the range penalties, but having a missile that can only be effectively operated deep inside the energy weapons envelope of its target strikes me as... foolhardy.

There are two problems here:
1) Drone rules in TNE were not well thought out and / or documented
2) in TNE laser weapons are considerably more effective than missile weapons

Changing the former with "home brew" rules (even if you can point out by reverse engineering that this is what *had* to have been done for the example platforms in TNE) still doesn't change the fact that given a choice of missile armament or laser armamant you'd have to be an idiot to mount missiles in TNE.

Take the Valour class missile corvette. Remove the missile barbettes and missile storage, replace these with TL-14 laser barbettes (as mounted by the Gazelle class, or even better, as mounted by the Kininur class) and replace the missile storage with additional power plant volume. run a battle between a pair of "old" Valour class corvettes (and stock missiles) against one of the "new" valour class starting at a range of say 30 hexes. The only valid tactic that I can see is the missile boats closing as rapidly as possible with the laser armed corvette and hoping that they can get within "knife range" (3-6 hexes) to launch since the "laser" valour can dodge missiles quite effectively if they are launched at any range past that, without even needing to shoot them down.

Tactics of the laser armed corvette would be to keep at ~20 hex range and hammer away at the missile boats until they fall apart: 2-8 hits from those big guns will probably render them combat ineffective.

I would conclude from this experiment that either Lasers in TNE are too powerful, or missiles are anemic. Using SIM or FIM HEPLAR missiles will slightly change this outcome, but the missile armed vessel will still know that it has been in a fight.

This also runs counter to what I would expect: missile platforms should be trying to keep the range open, and beam armed combatants should be trying to get close.

Even with the "laser drones" suggested above, if you are trying to fit them in a 1/2 dT package they will have minimal maneuver reserves (at TL-15 perhaps 20 G-Turns) and an anemic laser weapon, so the laser armed valour probably gets 2-3 turns of fire before the "mites" even get a shot in, and it is probably still better off shooting the "mother ship" since losing an MFD on the main ship will "mission kill" 5 of these.

I'll run the numbers and post a 1/2 dT "laser drone" SIM at TL-15 (in a new thread) but I'm betting that the Valour's armour will shrug off pretty much anything that they can dish up, and remember that on a turn that they fire, they probably aren't maneuvering...

YMMV

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

Originally posted by Badbru:
I think you have the controller issues wrong though Scott.

Pg 47 FF&S merely requires that the controlling vessell/station/what have you, has as many workstations as the RCV in question would require were it a manned vessell.

With this, you are efectively reducing the number of missiles you can control with a MFD: A valour class can control 5 missiles per MFD, or 1 drone per MFD. I can chew up 4 missiles a lot more easily than 20.

Sigg: A "Robot brain" would make it a FIM (Fully Independent Missile) and while BL promised that there would be rules for FIM construction in FF&S, there (sadly) were not. IMTU I use a seeker guidance package and assign an attack "attribute" equal to the TL of the installed guidance package, which gives an asset value of 9-15 (coincidentally the range of "green" to "elite" crews...)

But this topic is for Lasers in TNE, not missiles: perhaps we should fork this discussion?

Scott Martin

 

[Badbru]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to troll,

I'm not trying to troll either. I just thought you were way off in your assumptions, or conclusions about what missiles and RCV drones require. If you weren't then I wanted to know about it because that'd mean I was way off.

___________________

The rules in FF&S (and BL) require a computer to use space-based sensors. The fact that none of the SIM missiles or drones published have a computer strongly suggests that this is not true for drones / missiles, but the rules as written do not have this exception. (Have I missed some published errata?)

The thing is missiles and drones do have computers if the controlling vessell or base etc has them. You are correct re sensors, any spaceship or starship with sensors with a short range greater than 30kms requires opperational computers to process the data of these sophisticated sensors. But how is Sensor A connected to Computer B? = By the ships wiring, either wire cables or fiber optic cables. Either way it is a communication link between sensor mounted externally on the hull and internal computers. Missiles and drones merely extend this communication link. Since the ranges are so great you can't trail wires or fiber optic cables they use speed of light Laser communicators. (or sometimes maser) Within 300,000kms the principal is exactly the same. Any sensor mounted on the nose of your drone or missile is no different from one mounted on the nose of your ship in that they are both conected to your computers by a commication link. Your sensor footprint now however can start ten hexes ahead of where your ship is. Ten hexes is the crucial point though, as beyond that you get time relay effects, the time information travels from your drone mounted sensor to your computers becomes noticibly longer than the time information from your hull mounted sensor travels to your computers. This is the +1 diff mod. If you choose, you can use an MFD on your ship (or controlling platform)to offset these and other + diff mods.

If the "laser drone" were a manned starship, it would require a pilot / gunner as a minimum, and probably an electronics operator as well: IIRC the RCV rules require that a workstation and an MFD be installed at both ends for each "crewstation".

With a mounted sensor you may very well need an electronics officer in addition to the RCV opperator. That would depend on Tech Level I think. The rules only require a workstation at the controlling end and the RCV itself to be fitted with RCV controlls. Only if you wanted the RCV to have the option of also being manned would it need its own workstation. Neither actually need an MFD at all though should you wish to opperated the missile/drone/whatever, beyond 10 hexes, then in order to offset the time effects + Diff Mod you'll need an MFD.

this may be to offset the range penalties, but having a missile that can only be effectively operated deep inside the energy weapons envelope of its target strikes me as... foolhardy.

Its' Target? huh, all missiles opperate deep within their targets weapon envelope. Surely you mean it's controllers' envelope, assuming its' controller has laser, meson, or particle weapons.

There are two problems here:
1) Drone rules in TNE were not well thought out and / or documented
2) in TNE laser weapons are considerably more effective than missile weapons

I tend to aggree with both of these points.

Changing the former with "home brew" rules (even if you can point out by reverse engineering that this is what *had* to have been done for the example platforms in TNE) still doesn't change the fact that given a choice of missile armament or laser armamant you'd have to be an idiot to mount missiles in TNE.

That depends on alot of things. Tech level, size of ships, type of ships, and how you use missiles would, I suspect, be the most prominant.
snip to all the tactics

Even with the "laser drones" suggested above, if you are trying to fit them in a 1/2 dT package they will have minimal maneuver reserves (at TL-15 perhaps 20 G-Turns) and an anemic laser weapon, so the laser armed valour probably gets 2-3 turns of fire before the "mites" even get a shot in, and it is probably still better off shooting the "mother ship" since losing an MFD on the main ship will "mission kill" 5 of these.

I never claimed to be a fan off this approach, rather that you were for the most part dismissing it based on predominantly false assumptions. (see above)Do not however forget that before either side can fire at anything they need a target lock. Getting a Target lock on a half displacement ton object, possible running EM Masking also, is going to be harder than getting a lock on a starship.

I'll run the numbers and post a 1/2 dT "laser drone" SIM at TL-15 (in a new thread) but I'm betting that the Valour's armour will shrug off pretty much anything that they can dish up, and remember that on a turn that they fire, they probably aren't maneuvering...

YMMV

Scott Martin

Sorry to the original poster for hijacking his thread but I think his original question was answered, and I hope he's finding this discussion equally usefull.

 

[Libris]

Yeeeessss.......

Well....

Too complicated. Back t' the shelf with ye.

Now where did I put those aspirin?

 

[Scott Martin]

Hardcore gearheads only I'm afraid.

Pretty damning if the design sequence makes GURPS look simple by comparison.

I'm forking the thread on laser armed drones, and I hope that we haven't scared off Libris permanently

Scott Martin

 

[Libris]

It's not really too gearheady. I just find it too inconsistant. Sure, you can design Traveller stuff with it but you can also design stuff that completely screws up the OTU.

I actually find that as far as Traveller goes the best design system for the genre is probably T20 (apart from Batteries; but's that's another story). The other design systems out there extrapolate from real world tech which rapidly shows up some of the flaws in the OTU thinking. What none of them do is put blocks or technical explanations in which stop or limit certain progressions.

GURPS Vehicles is more complex but doesn't try and fit it's design system into a particular background - it's more a, "Here's the toolkit - design what you want for your universe".