The thing with missiles

[Syaoran]

Missiles keep coming up over and over. It's its own problem and should be treated as such, so let's make a topic for the missile discussion.

Personally though there is one thing I realized that hasn't been talked about and I think it's part of why we can't get a solution. Missiles are all being treated the same. It's being acted as if we have to create one set of rules that encompasses every type of missile all at once. However the way I see it there are three types of missiles/torpedoes/self propelled ordnance.

• Combat Missiles: These are what is most commonly seen on Power armors, these missiles usually come in launchers and a salvo of them can be fired at once, and in fact they're not really meant to be fired 1 at a time.
• 'Opportunity' Missiles: These missiles/torpedoes do not usually have their own launcher, and they are meant to do high damage and are generally 'large'. These are the missiles that are better used when you get an opening in the opposing defense, and tend to also be fired from a further distance.
  
• Strategic Weaponry: These are the really big ones fired from really far away. They do damage on a level that's not about anti ship, but anti structure, and they're generally poor at dealing with moving targets.

These aren't perfect classifications but maybe if we break missiles up into groups like that it might be easier to come up with rules for them, like the issue of how many missiles count for DR, we could have different rules for that for class, like Combat missiles it's per firing system, Opportunity missiles it's per 3 or five individual missiles(just a number off the top of my head) and Strategic is per single, or something or maybe not even in DR.

This is all just examples though.

 

[Fred]

As far as I'm concerned, there were two types of guided warheads that was actually relevant to my roleplaying.

- power armor mini-missiles (treated as the miniature swarm of mecha homing munitions tossed out in abundance, similar to Macross)
- torpedoes (to which my closest frame of reference are Star Trek torpedoes, meant for ship-to-ship combat, with distances that seemed to imply knifefights, but obviously not restricted to just that)

Arieg's expectations of missiles seemed to have them sit somewhere around Anti-mecha... which is admittedly a new category that few weapons fit in because it didn't exist until recently.

In the 101 thread, I was proposing this:

My feeling is that DRv3's notation regarding the weapons a ship can pack has fared relatively well with most weapon systems that are actually intended as single weapons meant for prolonged uses. Single-shot systems - from missiles hanging from the wings of a plane to multi-rack missile pods - seems to have been its most glaring weakness. Gun turrets have treated multiple barrels under rate-of-fire considerations... but the number of missiles that can be fired at one time has appeared to be perceived as abusive by comparison (despite submachines being able to fire 900 rounds a minute, but meh).

I'm wondering if I might implement something further, like an equal-tier weapon being worth 4 single-shot uses at that same tier. Not comparatively economical compared to single system rthat can be used more, but there'd be no limit on how much you can fire at any one time.

So, say I have a medium fighter. I could use half of its allowance to load it up with 12 medium-antimecha missiles. Visually, 4 groups of 3 missiles, 2 apiece hanging from each wing. That seems like a reasonable baseline (generous, even) based on the number of missiles our planes have today.
​

So, if I have a heavy starship (that's tier 12), I can use an 1/8 of my allotment to get:
4 heavy anti-starship missiles.
8 medium anti-starship missiles.
16 light anti-starship missiles.
32 heavy anti-mecha missiles
64 medium anti-mecha missiles
128 light anti-mecha missiles

which I feel is pretty fair

...and the rest doesn't really count on power armor; power armors do not use the 8-same-tier-weapons guideline.

 

[Arieg]

What if we made a separate allotment for expendable munitions? Especially considering the attrition rate they'll suffer.

 

[Fred]

Come again?

 

[Syaoran]

I think he means having a separate counter for capacity of missiles and missile like weapons.

 

[Arieg]

Additionally here is how I view the different types of missile systems, this is also the line of development I plan for both Zen Arm's line of systems and my factions.

• Mini-Missiles - Roughly the size of a C-cell battery with maybe a few extra inches in length, with SARP tech they'll probably back the equivalent power of a 40 mike mike up to an 81mm mortar shell. Primarily infantry, exo-suit, and power armor use. (25mm x 50mm (Or 100mm))
• Micro-Missiles - Soda can sized (or two soda can lengths for heavier variants) and the general purpose spam missile, primarily to deal with larger sized threats for the same group of platforms above but I can also see vehicles mounting it for general area defense and point defense against larger missile systems. (75mm x 122mm (or 240mm)
• MANPAV or Man-P0rtable Anti-Vehicle - I figure this group will cover from your 72/84mm AT-missiles (LAW rocket sized) up to your Javelins, TOWs, and SRAWs. Effectively lightweight man portable systems with the power to one shot kill your light to moderate PAs and cripple heavier ones. These would also be a threat to armored vehicles and aircraft within a certain range of performance. Of course these same platforms would mount them for short range offense/defense. (Between 650mm to 1.5m in length)
• MANPAD or Man-Portable Air Defense and General Purpose Missile Munitions - This would start with the base of something in size and role to the Stinger up to something akin to the Hellfire missile. These would be your first true anti-vehicle weapons and something that should be feared, due to the size range of them they'd primarily be surface to surface or air to surface systems with the exception of dedicated SAMs (though the warheads would be lightweight against fighters). (1.5 to 2 meters)
• LWAVM or Light Weight Anti-Vehicle Missile - These will be your sidewinder missiles up to something akin to the ASRAAM, at this size they'd probably have a warhead capable of one hit cripple and two hit kill on lighter fighters and a one hit damage, two hit cripple, and three hit kill on larger platforms. Due to their size and mass they would also have the potential of light anti-ship duty though they'd merely be damaging rather then dangerous. (I'd start these at three meters and cut them off at 4)

(More to come)

 

[Legix]

@Syaoran If so, that'd not alleviate the issue. It'd give bonuses to using missiles which isn't needed.

Missiles should have high attrition if they're being used against foes that see them coming. It's why torpedo runs and the like in six-do occurs when an enemy ship is crippled in defensive power.

Just flooding missiles just discourages using them intelligently and puts focus on them being statistical. It would remove some of their identity and make them like guns where they're used as the answer to everything, rather than focus on their sci-fi norm of being used against defenseless targets.

Just my thoughts on where missiles should be. Power armors using them often do so because they can make use of the rapid, closer ranges or strike unprepared targets. They don't rely on sheer amounts or shielded stats. They simply wait for opportune moments and fire that "high attrition" volley when the enemy would be stretched to respond.

They don't fire them from light seconds away. They don't try to "brute force" through point defense nets.

 

[Arieg]

@Syaoran If so, that'd not alleviate the issue. It'd give bonuses to using missiles which isn't needed.

Its not a bonus its a balancing option in order to get some kind of baseline for how the weapon systems which can only be expended once can be integrated into the DR system in a fair and balanced way.

Missiles should have high attrition if they're being used against foes that see them coming. It's why torpedo runs and the like in six-do occurs when an enemy ship is crippled in defensive power.

High attrition of guided munitions has been a thing in a modern warfare period since the advent of point defense and surface to air missiles, if you want a good example I suggest reading the parts in Red Storm Rising about the battle of the Atlantic with NATO navies squaring off against Backfire bombers and Soviet submarines. As far as when to use them thats combat tactics not a general rule, for instance the Russians invested heavily in the shoot and scoot volleying off their missiles and running away before the counter move could be made (and or the fleet is dealing with a swarm of anti-ship missiles).

Just flooding missiles just discourages using them intelligently and puts focus on them being statistical. It would remove some of their identity and make them like guns where they're used as the answer to everything, rather than focus on their sci-fi norm of being used against defenseless targets.

Statistics and numbers on performance are the basis to determine how they act and in what manner they'd best be expended. As far as identity missiles are a massive and varied family of systems, so theres no real one niche they fill. As far as the answer to everything well yea, if your in a combat situation they're another tool the box that can operate out beyond the 3 light second accuracy limit and allow you to force the enemy target to have to react to you rather then you having to react to them. As far as being used on defenseless targets...... yea not really sure what you mean't by that unless your talking about the final torpedo salvo into a crippled enemy which is one option but they're capable of so much more.

Just my thoughts on where missiles should be. Power armors using them often do so because they can make use of the rapid, closer ranges or strike unprepared targets. They don't rely on sheer amounts or shielded stats. They simply wait for opportune moments and fire that "high attrition" volley when the enemy would be stretched to respond.

Or they can use it as an alpha strike and an opening move, its combat tactics not a fixed rule set. You seem to have a very specific frame of mind as to where and when a missile system can and should be used, which may be accurate to some degree in some situations but overall is far to narrow a scope for what they can do.

They don't fire them from light seconds away. They don't try to "brute force" through point defense nets.

Brute forcing is a combat tactic quit trying to limit their capabilities based on what you think they should be.

 

[FrostJaeger]

What if we made a separate allotment for expendable munitions? Especially considering the attrition rate they'll suffer.

No, @Arieg. Weapons are weapons, regardless of whether or not they're guns or missiles - and technically, any weapon that uses non-replenishable ammunition is an "expendable munition." As I've stated before, in my opinion having a separate counter for missiles completely nullifies the purpose of the Damage Rating's weapon limitations and therefore should not be implemented.

As someone who has had a lot of experience with DRv3 , I fully support what @Fred is proposing - although I'd highly recommend creating guidelines based on offensive tier (and not the more complicated RL equivalents @Arieg is suggesting) for the following:

• Missile size (and therefore defensive tier, in order to prevent metagamers from creating high-defensive tier missiles that have a deliberately low offensive tier in order to bypass the weapon limitations (and vice-versa). Essentially, something that says "a missile with an offensive tier of X can have a minimum size of Y and a maximum size of Z."

• Missile explosive radius (or area of effect), in order to prevent metagamers from creating missiles with nonsensical explosive radii in order to bypass the weapon limitations. Essentially, something that says "a missile with an offensive tier of A can have at most a detonation radius of B."

 

[Legix]

Brute forcing is a combat tactic quit trying to limit their capabilities based on what you think they should be.

Then stop trying to force us to deal with you changing them. Why should we have to deal with a capability that no one used until you decided to try and push the subject?

I'm more of the mindset that we should keep them unique to their general roles, which has made missiles and similar weapons popular in sci-fi. I apologize for opposing you and you finding the norm to insult me as being narrowminded.

It's more that their usage, without being made into this spammy shit or hyper-tactical focused asset, is something that almost every sci-fi setting doesn't try to change. It's why in games and most settings you find that point-defense advances faster than the abilities for missiles to endure. Because missiles are, quite honestly, boring unless they score big, fiery kills. No one wants to sit across the system in a space battle with a faction that just runs and fires missiles. It's boring and isn't good. Honestly, it sounds more like something you should do in Open RP and keep out of the setting, as it caters to a small group.

I also find it silly to quote conventional warfare in the modern era for an age where an AI can operate every point defense system on the ship with more than enough efficiency to take out missiles fired at it. But, rather than acknowledge that, there's attempts to make missiles impossible to counter. In a sci-fi setting, missiles are phased out precisely because they can and end up being made obsolete to point defense whether they're shielded or not. Even in high amount. Stellaris is the most recent game that promotes the idea of fleet weapon composition, oft making few ships or even just fleets armed with minimal point defense able to dismiss all forms of missiles with ease. Unless, of course, the enemy closes the gap and fires to the point that the enemy can't respond.

In space, unless you're extremely ahead of a nation's technology, you tend to be seen coming from far away. It makes little to no sense for long-range missile boats to exist as anything but support for main battle units. They are situational.

Modern warfare, missiles are ahead of our defensive technologies on the majority. Hence their effectiveness. But when you can fire weapons that move faster than the common thrust-propelled missile, such as laser point defense or sublight kinetic volleys, you start to realize that missiles aren't a conventional option. Missile spam is what wins planetary wars. It doesn't win space wars.

 

[Syaoran]

Personally I think what Fred is posting should be a good starting point. It's simple, and it has the ability to be fleshed out without much hassle. So I would say work from there and move up. Treating missiles as if they're a different kind of weapon would then require treating melee as a different kind of weapon as well. And then something else will likely crop up and so on and so forth.

Also @Arieg just because something is a combat tactic does not immediately make it viable in all situations. Tactics are tactics because you have to think about when to use them and when not to. Having a hard counter to a tactic does not make it any less of a tactic. And with the tech our setting has, there are a lot of weaknesses for missiles, but that doesn't mean they should get special treatment for it, because then that immediately flips the scales.

 

[Arieg]

No, @Arieg. Weapons are weapons, regardless of whether or not they're guns or missiles - and technically, any weapon that uses non-replenishable ammunition is an "expendable munition." As I've stated before, in my opinion having a separate counter for missiles completely nullifies the purpose of the Damage Rating's weapon limitations and therefore should not be implemented.

Tbh the weapon limitation was built around gun systems with practically unlimited ammunition only really being moderated by the number on the ship and the rate of fire. Torpedoes where effectively just a bolt on without much thought simply because they where usually very high yield things, missiles on the other hand generally fall across the gun damage output but are only worth one shot and again are an intercept-able and single use munition. Now this wasn't an issue beforehand, the NTSE could be relayed upon to fairly determine the intent and capability of a missile equipped vessel. But now if you want hard numbers where going to do it a manner I find fitting and that wouldn't limit the system's capabilities in an unreasonable manner.

 

[Syaoran]

Tbh the weapon limitation was built around gun systems with practically unlimited ammunition only really being moderated by the number on the ship and the rate of fire. Torpedoes where effectively just a bolt on without much thought simply because they where usually very high yield things, missiles on the other hand generally fall across the gun damage output but are only worth one shot and again are an intercept-able and single use munition. Now this wasn't an issue beforehand, the NTSE could be relayed upon to fairly determine the intent and capability of a missile equipped vessel. But now if you want hard numbers where going to do it a manner I find fitting and that wouldn't limit the system's capabilities in an unreasonable manner.

I think you need to change your tone. You are merely one person in this entire setting. No one has to do things your way. And as we're not staff, the fact that we have a say in how the system works is a privileged, not a right. Get off your high horse.

 

[Arieg]

I think you need to change your tone. You are merely one person in this entire setting. No one has to do things your way. And as we're not staff, the fact that we have a say in how the system works is a privileged, not a right. Get off your high horse.

I'm the primary creator of missile systems above mini and micro type systems that aren't dedicated anti-ship torpedoes, anything on this line of discussion will effect me a whole lot more then it'll effect most of the site. Hence my concern of them remaining viable in a wider variety of applications.

 

[Fred]

Then stop trying to force us to deal with you changing them. Why should we have to deal with a capability that no one used until you decided to try and push the subject?

But now if you want hard numbers where going to do it a manner I find fitting and that wouldn't limit the system's capabilities in an unreasonable manner.

I was hoping to be done with the toxicity that was rife in the 101 thread. Considering that I started to try to review a solution and that Syaoran kindly accommodated with this thread, I'd like this to remain as positive and constructive as possible. I'm not interested in who is right, and no, I created the micro-missile.

so you're all going to take a chill pill and remain constructive. I'm not interested in the e-peen stroking or you proving yourselves in the right. also, don't parakeet me with "yeah, I agree with Fred, let's make this constructive" or try to somehow justify yourselves as being in the right just to passive-aggressively strike your egos. Not interested.

Be constructive and respectful or stay out.

 

[Arieg]

I was hoping to be done with the toxicity that was rife in the 101 thread. Considering that I started to try to review a solution and that Syaoran kindly accommodated with this thread, I'd like this to remain as positive and constructive as possible. I'm not interested in who is right, and no, I created the micro-missile.

so you're all going to take a chill pill and remain constructive. I'm not interested in the e-peen stroking or you proving yourselves in the right. also, don't parakeet me with "yeah, I agree with Fred, let's make this constructive" while trying to passive-aggressively remain in the right. Just provide constructive dialogue.

Oh nonono I wasn't claiming micros Fred lol I was saying I'm the primary creator of systems larger then them (your more conventional sized systems), anywho apologies for the outbursts and back on topic. What would you think of a separate point set for expendable munitions?

 

[Syaoran]

I'm the primary creator of missile systems above mini and micro type systems that aren't dedicated anti-ship torpedoes, anything on this line of discussion will effect me a whole lot more then it'll effect most of the site. Hence my concern of them remaining viable in a wider variety of applications.

None of that makes you more important that any one else. You could literally make all the missiles on the site, but you're incapable of keeping the narrative of the site alive on your own. You need to accept that and move on. If you want to be big man on campus, make your own site.

Now missiles, I think there is merit into breaking them up into different categories, but we need to minimize the categories so that what ever comes out of this isn't unmanageable. 2 or 3 is good, I think 5 is the max, and we should probably separate them by how they're intended to be used (not per say whether or not they're anti armor or anti ship)

 

[Zack]

I would be happy if we could settle missile speed since that is the big question hanging over the NTSE that is preventing missiles from being approved / used.

.40-.50 c seems decent, as it gives ships the option to run away and get a few more shots at the missile (2-3 rounds extra) or they can just plow into the missiles and take one round of shooting.

Anything faster and it maneuvering doesn't really matter since you're only going to get one shot.

 

[Arieg]

I would be happy if we could settle missile speed since that is the big question hanging over the NTSE that is preventing missiles from being approved / used.

.40-.50 c seems decent, as it gives ships the option to run away and get a few more shots at the missile (2-3 rounds extra) or they can just plow into the missiles and take one round of shooting.

Anything faster and it maneuvering doesn't really matter since you're only going to get one shot.

I'm thinking more like .60 as the top end for overtake speed less the enemy turn tail and your propellant runs out because you only have a small overtake speed.

 

[Legix]

I was hoping to be done with the toxicity that was rife in the 101 thread. Considering that I started to try to review a solution and that Syaoran kindly accommodated with this thread, I'd like this to remain as positive and constructive as possible. I'm not interested in who is right, and no, I created the micro-missile.

so you're all going to take a chill pill and remain constructive. I'm not interested in the e-peen stroking or you proving yourselves in the right. also, don't parakeet me with "yeah, I agree with Fred, let's make this constructive" while trying to passive-aggressively remain in the right. Just provide constructive dialogue.

Constructively: missiles are fine. It's only because we're trying to make them into these impossible-to-point-defense spam weapons, rather than the tactical option and the opportune resolution, that we're having issues recently. Frost highlighted it earlier that the main concern is this "brute force" missile mentality that would devalue other weapon systems such as kinetic and rapid-fire ones. Or, potentially worse, make it further stated that "firing fast = the only viable option" in the setting's rules.

If we need to define missiles, then I think keeping 2 or 3 is perfectly fine. The only difference, generally, between space torpedoes and missiles is payload size. Micro/mini-missiles will be a nice staple for PA and the Mecha scale, standard missiles as the across the board option, and then high-grade torpedoes available to mecha (mecha bazookas and bomber payloads) and starships. Three types of missile categories to ensure we don't have something stupid like a corvette that carries thousands of mini-missiles that have traditional, far ranges.

Speed, if we're talking about that now, seems honestly okay at .4-.5 for a big reason. Having some ships capable of turning and outrunning a missile is thematically cool and a nice encouragement for people to put less on craft that are intended to skirmish. Faster missiles just seems, again, to encourage the wrong line of thinking that we can just spam the shit out of an enemy and they move so fast that there's no counter. The other side of the reason would be that if we kept it to three, we could make it to where micro/mini-missiles move at .5 (since they're intended for close-range spray), standard at .45, and torpedoes at .4 as guidelines. We can blur the line a bit within freedom using this sort of method, so it could allow nations who have access to some technology bonuses to thrive.

A key example would be if Nepleslia and Yamatai both created micro-missiles. Yamatai could no doubt field .5 as their speed. Nepleslia, of course, could be a bit lower at something like .47... but it could reflect in an increased payload/tier higher placement.