The thing with missiles

[Zack]

@FrostJaeger

Yes you missed the point entirely.

The problem with missiles is that the VLC style launchers make the most sense to have if we are being realistic about things.

This is a problem because under DvR3 each missile launch tube should count as a separate weapon.

This is a problem because it means you use up all your weapon slots to just carry a few sets of missiles.

There is a secondary thematic problem of this making those silly arm style launchers a really valid choice.

The solution to the above problems is to treat all of your launchers as a single weapon system with a collective rate of fire. The specific numbers don't inadvertantly mess things up for you using this method.

 

[Fred]

It's Damage Rating version 3, Zack.

If you can type Mishhuvurthyar and Zesuaium right, you can probably spell the DRv3 acronym right too.

Unless you mean a movie title, like "Devil Roadster 3: the REVENGE"

Most of the spacy torpedo launchers the Star Army had, back when that stuff was being detailed (which for some reason stopped), had torpedo tubes able to fire once every 2 seconds with about 20 AS-7/40 AS-5 rounds of ammo in reserve (though ICly, the rate of fire often came across as once per 10 seconds because the torpedoes were supposed to be fairly dramatic in impact).

 

[Arieg]

Switched over to a common VLS system I've had around for awhile and altered the loading, https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:indigo_class_escort#launcher_systems

 

[Navian]

Given that we're not wargaming, I don't see why we need to know how many missiles a ship is launching except as a ratio of the total number of missiles it carries (so that we know when it runs out of ammunition.) What we really need to know is how many missiles reach their target. The equation 'how many of a ship's missiles reach their target?' depends on ECM, ECCM, maneauvering, point defense, and any other ability to deflect or escape from incoming attacks.

Point defense, for example, is capable of defeating anywhere from 0 to over 99% of incoming missiles depending on various factors. So, the number of missiles a ship fires is immaterial, unless the target has no defenses and circumstances for the attack are ideal, as when bombarding a defenseless planet. In that case, the damage caused, whether with missiles or with directed energy weapons, is best described as 'as much as the attacker wants'.

In any other case, a ship that launches hundreds of missiles should still be expected to land a reasonable number of hits to be practical for the RP, not dozens of times more than are needed to kill the target. The issues we're dealing with don't come up unless we're trying to decide, based on the design and description of the launcher, the missiles, and the targets, what the hit percentage will be, and not as GMs but as simulationists.

I don't think we should go down this road, it leads to a potential for ten thousand pages of arguments and all we'd get at the end would be a constantly evolving space missile combat simulation.

 

[Fred]

Okay, we're getting scattered. So, I'm going to ask something that was on my mind.

As I understand them, the VLS are independent singleshot launchers. Whereas the typical torpedo launcher system has a single tube and a loading system for internal ammo storage.

So, what are the inherent differences between a VLS with 20 missile-tubes, and a torpedo launcher that has 20 rounds ready to be loaded? What are the pros and the cons of each delivery method? Doesn't that make the VLS look overpowered by comparison? Shouldn't I just shut him down on that then?

My sense of something being overpowered doesn't dispel the fact that these weapons do exist in real life. I feel I have to broaden my horizons some here, as this also doesn't dispel how I've seen in media missile rack turrets here and there. One example coming to my mind is Star Citizen, where I know the missile rack of an humble Aurora can fit four small missiles standard, but the mount can be adapted for bigger (fewer) ordonance.

If that's the case, four one-shot missiles of an 1/8 of an allotment that I deviced earlier does sound fair to me, with more missiles being obtained as you reduce the yield of the missiles. I look at ships like the Midori, and yeah, that does sort of feel right. If that's the case, then I can come to a pronouncement where I can say "Arieg, your submission is packing too many missile - you probably need to reduce that to around 200." Then, although my decision does crimp the inherent potency he hoped his ship would have... it's just a corvette, he'll live. His delivery method is still supported and we can all move on. He's essentially trading rate of fire for the greater ammunition capacity torpedo launchers appear to have (which is, on roomy ships, then to average at 20 torpedoes per tube).

So, the VLS idea would have 1/5 of the ammunition capacity, but 4 times the base firing rate - though a fast reloading torpedo launcher could make up the difference in a prolonged fight. I'm growing more secure that this might be a good compromise.

 

[Navian]

Seriously--can someone explain to me why people people keep posting concerns about the numbers of missiles being fired? In anime, an attack from hundreds of missiles is often just as dangerous as an attack from one--the one will be harder to dodge, able to evade incoming fire, or simply more dangerous, while the hundreds will not only be easy to kill, but likely most of them will accidentally kill each other or have no chance of hitting in the first place. Just by using what we see in the genre we can resolve the issue already, without stressing out about how 'overpowered' a design is based on a bunch of numbers it has on the page.

 

[Syaoran]

Seriously--can someone explain to me why people people keep posting concerns about the numbers of missiles being fired? In anime, an attack from hundreds of missiles is often just as dangerous as an attack from one--the one will be harder to dodge, able to evade incoming fire, or simply more dangerous, while the hundreds will not only be easy to kill, but likely most of them will accidentally kill each other or have no chance of hitting in the first place. Just by using what we see in the genre we can resolve the issue already, without stressing out about how 'overpowered' a design is based on a bunch of numbers it has on the page.

The problem with multiple missile attacks is missiles unlike 'rockets'(at least what are usually called rockets) have a guidance system. That means you have as many independently moving and actively avoiding targets as simultaneously launched missiles. If you could launch a macross style salvo of like 30+ missiles at 'combat range' and the target only has say 10 point defense guns, chances are they'd be done, even if their shield is up, if the missile are withing like 1 tier of the target. Where as machine guns though they are rapid fire, they're in a straight line, and you wont see bullets dodge the things you put in the way to stop them.

Edit: Pretty much the animes get away with it because of for some reason a lot of missile either miss because rule of cool, or they're vastly under powered compared to their target, or they have a huge number of targets.

 

[Fred]

It's honestly mostly a ship-building thing.

 

[Navian]

It's a stretch of the imagination to envision missiles moving evasively to avoid point defense fire, in much the same vein as it is to imagine a humanoid who dodges bullets. A well-designed missile tries to hit its target as fast as possible, it doesn't try to avoid getting hit by lasers (except maybe by flying under the radar in the first place). In this setting good design is about what's cool, though, not what's most efficient or reasonable. Or at least it is for most factions, and we want those factions to stay competitive.

Point defense isn't the only factor, and point defense weapons don't necessarily negate incoming missiles on a one-to-one ratio (or at the same ratio versus all missiles). So, that scenario depends on a lot of assumptions, it wouldn't necessarily play out that way even in a very realistic simulation, and it definitely doesn't have to.

I'd suggest describing what a missile launching system is expected to do to its intended targets, and how it's meant to be used. If a system ends up being used in a way it's not intended to be, the GM can give a reward for creativity or a punishment for trying to game the system, it can be assumed that conventional use is most expected and what fits best with the DRv3 stats of the attacker and their target.

For example, pirates might have a system that's meant to overwhelm the point defenses of civilian vessels and inflict moderate damage, and to be easily scaled down, because they don't want to destroy their targets. A fleet defense missile cruiser might have lots of anti-missile missiles that are extremely effective at that role, but underwhelming when used to attack an enemy ship, even though the thousands of missiles make for an impressive light show. And a Q-ship might have a single hidden torpedo launcher that even capital vessels won't be able to stop in time to prevent heavy damage unless they know to expect it.

There's a lot of possibilities... maybe too many... but it doesn't have to be a numbers game, and I think that's too limiting for RP possibilities, aside from being frustrating to deal with in the review process.

 

[Arieg]

I don't care about the number I can fire, the rate at which I can fire them, or anything related, I just want to know if I can have a starship with that number of weapon systems onboard. Rate of fire, number in the air I'm perfectly flexible on I just want enough munitions on board for the long haul. The VLS system is just a maintenance choice along with the best way to currently operate missile systems since it only has two moving parts.