Realistic Weapons Upgrades

[Athos Fauge]

Ok, so my ever-so-slightly dodgy trader, Cuelos Fauge, has been thinking about upgrading his ship. He has a 200-ton streamlined stingray/safari ship thing that's well cool. He has two turrets. One mounts a double laser and the other mounts a triple missile launcher.

Cuelos would like to mount the missiles in recessed firing ports in the hull, freeing up the second turret for a point defence laser or a sand caster. These missile launchers would be one-shot jobs and could only be reloaded by going EVA or whilst in port/landed. Cuelos is thinking along the lines of something like torpedo tubes on modern submarines, so that he doesn't lose his streamlined shape.

However, the GM has ruled a no-no on Cuelos' plans, but Cuelos can't (or won't!) understand the GM's explanations.

Realistically speaking, this shouldn't be much of a problem, so why won't Traveller allow it? Please help Cuelos by giving reasons/explanations why not, or explanations why and how he can get his missile tubes.

Thank you.

 

[veltyen]

The simplist answer is that it isn't in the rules.

A full torpedo tube system would need to be designed into the ship at the start (effectively a 50dTon missile bay) and would still take up at least one hardpoint.

Personally IMTU it wouldn't be a problem. I would allow any hit of any size on the vessel to also count as a missile hit (in addition to the normal hit) as the concealed missiles cooked off. You would also need to align the ship on target before being able to fire them (forgoing agility for a turn, and giving a bonus to the other ship for return fire). But these things would need to be negotiated with your GM.

 

[veltyen]

The point I was trying to make:

In the traveller universe ships are not built this way. Therefore there needs to be a reason that they are not built this way.

I know it is surmissing cause from perceived effect.

 

[Tony Canopus]

Seems to me that would be expensive to do, with or without a tube launcher rig. Plus, how would you track a target and aim? Use Homing/Smart Bombs? Those are expensive, I hear.

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

By having the torpedo tube bay, you have severely reduced your chances of survival in a fight. If an enemy ship detects that you have a torpedo bay and one turret, all they have to do is disable the turret and avoid the firing arc of the torpedo bays. With that knowledge in hand, they know you are turning for a shot and will take the appropriate measures.

You are better off with the missile turret. But that is my opinion.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by veltyen:
But these things would need to be negotiated with your GM.

* cackles madly *

 

[lightsenshi]

Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
Greetings and salutations,

By having the torpedo tube bay, you have severely reduced your chances of survival in a fight. If an enemy ship detects that you have a torpedo bay and one turret, all they have to do is disable the turret and avoid the firing arc of the torpedo bays. With that knowledge in hand, they know you are turning for a shot and will take the appropriate measures.

You are better off with the missile turret. But that is my opinion.

Actually, I think that you're reading it wrong. If I understand correctly, he wants the torpedo tubes in addition to both turrets. Not something that can be done with canon traveller rules.

 

[jasper]

Instead of tubes how about mounting brackets. Of course after firing a torp the engineer is not going to be too happy about repainting over the scorch marks.

 

[Morte]

Well, I'll generally try to make the rules the servant of the game rather than the other way around.

So, since it's a safari ship with Completely-Pointless-When-You-Have-AG-But-Cool-Looking wings, maybe they could go on pylons under the wings. It would mean a reduction in airspeed, and cost a very hefty sum of money, and you'd waste a combat round turning the ship to fire or steering the missiles after launch, and getting somebody to fit it all might be an adventure in itself, and it would probably lay the ship up for weeks, and starports would see it as an opportunity to charge extra for secure parking or additional guards to stop terrorists nicking the missiles, and everyone will wonder why you've got 'em, and I will of course demand at least one arm plus the sacrifice of your firstborn. And a computer upgrade from Model 1 Bis to Model 2. But yeah, you could do that.

Oh yeah, and you have to persuade the ship's owners to drop a few million creds on upgrades rather than taking it out as profit.

Or you could think about the little hints I dropped at the last session, about better ways of doing this...

 

[TheBrain]

Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
"Greetings and salutations,

By having the torpedo tube bay, you have severely reduced your chances of survival in a fight. If an enemy ship detects that you have a torpedo bay and one turret, all they have to do is disable the turret and avoid the firing arc of the torpedo bays. With that knowledge in hand, they know you are turning for a shot and will take the appropriate measures."

Out of curiousty when did ship board missles in traveller become dumb as bottlerockets? Last time I checked all ship missles had some type of guidence and manuver drives that allowed it to turn, otherwise they would be pretty useless trying to hit something where the size of one hex is what 5000 km? All a target would need to do is alter speed of course by a fraction and a missle would miss everytime. So I see no reason a missle tube has to be alinged with a tatget a missle is launched and then can turn towards its target.


You are better off with the missile turret. But that is my opinion. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

Actually, I think that you're reading it wrong. If I understand correctly, he wants the torpedo tubes in addition to both turrets. Not something that can be done with canon traveller rules.

Lightsenshi, I reread the post and can see it from that angle. Still, he would have to turn the ship to fire the torpedoes. I can see them as a last ditch effort to save his ship, cargo, crew, passengers, and/or his own hide. Canon Traveller rules or not, would not the power drain from initiating the torpedoes cause something to fail. At the very least force him to power something down or off?

As for you TheBrain, I did not take into account that missile type weapons had some form of tracking in them. Why? I do not know the mechanics of HTU nor the world he would obtain the upgrade. Besides, the torps he was shown may not be the ones installed. But you did not hear that from me. Of course, not having the tracking equipment may make the torps harder to track so they can be avoided. But that is just my devilish mind working overtime.

 

[lightsenshi]

Oh, I absolutely agree that it's a last ditch weapon. It's also very much painting a giant bullseye on yourself and saying <b>Shoot Me</b>. And should be allowed as long as the firer is willing to take a penalty equal to the square root of the ship's agility +5.

 

[Spinward Scout]

I have done something similar to a ship I was designing. It was a Scout/Courier, and I had a probe launcher installed, then after that was done, I substituted the probes with probe-sized missiles. Voila! Instant missle launcher. It's that whole suspension of disbelief that the rules are real, that gets you in trouble every time. I don't know if a probe laucher is covered in High Guard or not.

Later,

Scout

 

[MR TEK]

I am afraid I have a very differnt take.

First the launch tubes would HAVE to be installed During construction. Otherwise ou would lose all of any compartment that they ran through.

Second, today, we have missile systems that the firing angle is irrelivant, because the fireing ship provides target tracking untill the missile is free enough to take over it's own guidance.

That leaves the issue of the hard point. That is non Cannon, and compleatly up to the GM.

One other possability that might NOT require a hardpoint. Everyone was talking about pointing the ship to aim the missiles. That would mean that the missiles would have not tracking capability at all. Technically that means that they would be luanched ballistically. (travle the cource they were lauched on with no in flight course corrections.) That means that they do not need to be powered at all.

Now, take a leap with me. Place the tubes somewhere, near the engine exhast ports, for example,where the explosion the fires the missile is swaped out by the exhast port heat. Or near the radiators if they are consintrated enough to give the same cover. Suddenly, you have a weapon that you can fire with out being detected, and something as small as a missle with no exhast plume is going to be a virtually impossable weapon to detect.

It would have limited uses, sure. You have to turn the ship to aim it, evasive manouivers, unless VERY simple and easy for your computer to project render the weopon usless, BUT...

Fired aft at a pursuer would be a VERY effective tactic. Mounted near the heat radiators, aimed along the axis that a ship attempting to dock would come in on, would give boarders a VERY nasty shock, and Scotty is not going to be to pissed about repaiting if the pirates are smeared all over your hull. They would still need to be built into the structur of the ship, especially becuase placement would be critical to disguise the explosion used to launch them, but a nasty shock if used well.

BTW no hard point, cause all you have to do is flip the switch that fires the explosive. no fire controlbeyond just making sur the ship is pointed the right way.

Thanks

Mr Tek.

 

[Athos Fauge]

Lots of replies - thanks guys!

Mr Tek has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm thinking about missiles, like the modern sparrow or sidewinder used today. These fly themselves to the target so it doesn't matter what angle the ship is facing.

I had thought of having the launchers built into the 'wings' of the hull (the ship being stingray-like in shape) and, therefore, taking up space otherwise used by fuel.

Mr Tek's idea of mounting a tube or two around/between the engine nacelles to hide the heat signature of the launching missile is a very good idea!

However, it is up to my GM (Morte), and I know that if I do wear him down to accepting this idea, it is going to cost a LOT of money and will probably involve a computer upgrade first...

 

[veltyen]

The problem I have with missiles that are completely self launched/guided/driven is fuel.

With the range that missiles have in traveller, I always assumed that they had a launcher, probably some kind of magnetic rail for example, to impel the missile with significant velocity from the get go. The fuel is for aiming and eventual contact.

Considering that missile weigh 50kg this makes them minute. Think more guided bullets then true missiles.

 

[marvo]

I think modern missiles use air pressure over the fins to steer. In space this would not work so radical changes in direction would use up a lot of fuel. As someone pointed out, traveller missiles are small and cannot carry much fuel. But that is in modern day terms. Traveller drives are much more efficient.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Traveller missiles are obviously a problem. 50 kg, yet can do 6g for several 20 minute turns (all CT/MayDay cannon). Thus they obviously use some form of "Maneuver drive" (gravitics, Woodward Mach's Principle, Spin-momentum conversion, or whatever it really is) but missiles are available at a lower TL.

The KE of a 50 Kg missile that has been accelerating at 6 g for just 20 minutes is about 1.3E11 joules, almost 30 tons of TNT. Even if90% of the mass is fuel that burned away thtat leaves 3 tos TNT in energy.

The arbitrary nature of the missile launcher rules is trivial. Live with it or write a lot of new rules.

 

[SlightlyLyons]

Well, all missles are are robot fighters that ram. Shouldn't be that hard to bild a realistic missile that way. Be a bit biger but...

 

[Straybow]

Traveller missiles are obviously a problem. 50 kg, yet can do 6g for several 20 minute turns (all CT/MayDay cannon).

We realized this way back in the '70s. Sandcasters, too, would not be able to cloud enough area to effect beam weapons unless both ships were immobile. IMTU there were neither missiles nor sandcasters.