Our gaming group has played a few games of BR now, We've had some fun, but have also found that nuke-det missiles are the main ship killers in the game and that battles are dominated by cruisers (and bigger ships) launching great flocks of missiles that eviscerate everyone.
Just spotting the missiles while in flight is hard. In BR target size is a universal modifier that applies to detection and shooting tasks. And regardless of the size of the swarm of missiles coming at you, you still roll to spot as if it was only one missile incoming (if you do manage to spot it, of course, you are assumed to spot all the incoming missiles so there is that). Because missiles get a +2 size Diff Mod then the base chance to spot them (even at shortest range) is 3 (i.e. a normal quality crew has a 60% chance of not detecting them).
Even worse, once you've detected a target missile swarm, in BR you then have to successfully detect it again (at one better difficulty level) in order to "lock on" and be able to engage with defensive lasers. There is the special final defensive fire rule on page 13 allowing unspotted missiles to be locked onto by the target ship as they come in, but without the bonus Diff Mod for having already detected them so the ship only has a 40% chance to lockon. And if you fail that, the whole missile swarm sails in and wreaks havoc unmolested.
It is unclear to me whether a vessels' fire control system allows it to obviate the difficulty-increasing size modifier to hit a missile target that has been detected and locked on. The rules on page 10 say that "...when calculating increased difficulty levels due to absolute target range and evasion, the fire director allows the gunner to ignore a certain number of + Diff Mods." Yet to me it would make sense that better fire control would allow you to hit smaller targets better as well.
Then we come to the problem that in TNE it seems that nuke dampers no longer have an area effect. Or at least in the published TNE space combat games they do not. Nuke dampers are just a point defence weapon against individual incoming missiles in BR/BL.
Missiles in BR do 1-6 crits. That is each missile. A swarm of 20 are sure to eviscerate a cruiser that doesn't spot them, even with the ship's Size+Armour meaning you remove hits of 1-4.
Interesting problems... we have to remember that BR, Traveller itself was
coming out when most computers were mainframes and they took up whole
rooms, large rooms in buildings. That is part of the problem, the idea of
CIWS is now on radar guided rotary barreled cannons in the 20mm-35mm
range. However laser weapons are on the near horizon ... more on all that
in my next post ... RL calls and I must answer.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Our gaming group has played a few games of BR now, We've had some fun,
> but have also found that nuke-det missiles are the main ship killers in the
> game and that battles are dominated by cruisers (and bigger ships)
> launching great flocks of missiles that eviscerate everyone.
>
>
> Just spotting the missiles while in flight is hard. In BR target size is
> a universal modifier that applies to detection and shooting tasks. And
> regardless of the size of the swarm of missiles coming at you, you still
> roll to spot as if it was only one missile incoming (if you do manage to
> spot it, of course, you are assumed to spot all the incoming missiles so
> there is that). Because missiles get a +2 size Diff Mod then the base
> chance to spot them (even at shortest range) is 3 (i.e. a normal quality
> crew has a 60% chance of not detecting them).
>
>
> Even worse, once you've detected a target missile swarm, in BR you then
> have to successfully detect it again (at one better difficulty level) in
> order to "lock on" and be able to engage with defensive lasers. There is
> the special final defensive fire rule on page 13 allowing unspotted
> missiles to be locked onto by the target ship as they come in, but without
> the bonus Diff Mod for having already detected them so the ship only has a
> 40% chance to lockon. And if you fail that, the whole missile swarm sails
> in and wreaks havoc unmolested.
>
>
> It is unclear to me whether a vessels' fire control system allows it to
> obviate the difficulty-increasing size modifier to hit a missile target
> that has been detected and locked on. The rules on page 10 say that
> "...when calculating increased difficulty levels due to absolute target
> range and evasion, the fire director allows the gunner to ignore a certain
> number of + Diff Mods." Yet to me it would make sense that better fire
> control would allow you to hit smaller targets better as well.
>
>
> Then we come to the problem that in TNE it seems that nuke dampers no
> longer have an area effect. Or at least in the published TNE space combat
> games they do not. Nuke dampers are just a point defence weapon against
> individual incoming missiles in BR/BL.
>
>
> Missiles in BR do 1-6 crits. That is each missile. A swarm of 20 are
> sure to eviscerate a cruiser that doesn't spot them, even with the ship's
> Size+Armour meaning you remove hits of 1-4.
>
>
>
On 29Dec2017 0732, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> Our gaming group has played a few games of BR now, We've had some fun,
> but have also found that nuke-det missiles are the main ship killers in
> the game and that battles are dominated by cruisers (and bigger ships)
> launching great flocks of missiles that eviscerate everyone.
>
>
> Just spotting the missiles while in flight is hard. In BR target size
> is a universal modifier that applies to detection and shooting tasks.
> And regardless of the size of the swarm of missiles coming at you, you
> still roll to spot as if it was only one missile incoming (if you do
> manage to spot it, of course, you are assumed to spot all the incoming
> missiles so there is that). Because missiles get a +2 size Diff Mod
> then the base chance to spot them (even at shortest range) is 3 (i.e. a
> normal quality crew has a 60% chance of not detecting them).
>
>
> Even worse, once you've detected a target missile swarm, in BR you then
> have to successfully detect it again (at one better difficulty level) in
> order to "lock on" and be able to engage with defensive lasers. There
> is the special final defensive fire rule on page 13 allowing unspotted
> missiles to be locked onto by the target ship as they come in, but
> without the bonus Diff Mod for having already detected them so the ship
> only has a 40% chance to lockon. And if you fail that, the whole missile
> swarm sails in and wreaks havoc unmolested.
>
>
> It is unclear to me whether a vessels' fire control system allows it to
> obviate the difficulty-increasing size modifier to hit a missile target
> that has been detected and locked on. The rules on page 10 say that
> "...when calculating increased difficulty levels due to absolute target
> range and evasion, the fire director allows the gunner to ignore a
> certain number of + Diff Mods." Yet to me it would make sense that
> better fire control would allow you to hit smaller targets better as well.
>
>
> Then we come to the problem that in TNE it seems that nuke dampers no
> longer have an area effect. Or at least in the published TNE space
> combat games they do not. Nuke dampers are just a point defence weapon
> against individual incoming missiles in BR/BL.
>
>
> Missiles in BR do 1-6 crits. That is each missile. A swarm of 20 are
> sure to eviscerate a cruiser that doesn't spot them, even with the
> ship's Size+Armour meaning you remove hits of 1-4.
My recollection is that anything launched from a detected ship was also
detected, though I may be wrong (and BR is in a box somewhere right now).
Also, check that the difficulty of sensor and fire tasks matches that in
the main TNE rules and in Brilliant Lances, because the base difficulty
of some tasks is off. One Merrick Burkhardt collected a bunch of errata
and house rules back in the day for BL and BR that someone may still
have a copy of somewhere.
Also, do the missile's 'to hit' tasks suffer for range? If they're fired
from any sort of distance the hit rate should be really low.
If all else fails, I suggest either removing the 'hand-off' sensor task
if the ship firing point defence has already detected the missiles,
and/or making the missiles do the damage they would if converted
directly from BL/FF&S, which is something like 1d6 hits of strength 2,
rather than one hit of strength 1d6. They'll still gut small ships then
(because as lasers armour means very little to them), but big ships will
just take a bunch of system resets, making them handy for knocking down
a target's defences and making them unable to fight effectively, but
requiring big directed energy guns to actually finish a large ship.
--
Rupert Boleyn <>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
One has to remember that the central concept of BR is that Frank built the game around only crits. The other minor hits from BL are stripped out. So missiles only doing 1d6 hits of strength 2 damage would be useless against all but the smallest vessels. Hence Frank went with 1-6 strength damage per missile in order to have missiles doing damage against all vessels (but as I say, when combined with the significant difficulty in spotting and hitting missiles, this can be a gamebreaker).
There is no sign of the rule about auto-spotting missiles launched from a previously locked-up adversary. But I like this tweak. However, in BR you are free to launch missiles long before you are locked-up and have them coast ahead of you in space, so a canny ship captain would do this so that he could claim that his missiles were already away before he was locked-up.
I have Merrick's suggested errata. Unfortunately, his observation about the difference if Diff Lvls between BL and BR works in the opposite direction! He argues that the Diff Lvls in BR should be shifted one level *more* difficult to match those in BL. This would make spotting and hitting missiles EVEN MORE problematic.
actually it was guns ala WWII, then missiles til CWIS and still missiles
... if there's an improvement in the missiles, however, I'd not be
surprised, but the new dog on the block is laser.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Evyn MacDude
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, 'ret7army .'
> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That is part of the problem, the idea of CIWS is now on radar guided
>> rotary barreled cannons in the 20mm-35mm range.
>>
>
> Hum, at little behind there CIWS are replacing the guns with missiles now.
>
>
> --
> Evyn
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_2161124148950490082_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
>
There's always a problem of detection of missiles ... consider though that
there are multiple ways of locating them.
First search radar/other advanced sensor.
Second: Once the ship or ships suspect they're targeted they bring their
main radar (sensor) array around and go to full power on it (a peacetime
no-no). This is far more powerful and can detect what the search systems
might miss, it is however very directional.
Note: Something like the Aegis is a step up from what I'm talking about.
Third: How are the missiles powered? Chemical rockets are spotted via
passive IR that looks for their peculiar signature ... in Iraq/Afghanistan
these have admittedly produced a number of false launches and had their
helos pumping out flares unnecessarily, but there are a number of cases
where they worked as designed. Other drive systems would similarly be
identifiable once the missiles get moving, especially as they close on
their target under power. Turning the missile drives off, and then on
again after they're closer would be much more problematic for the
defender. On the other hand if you turn the drives off, and the defender
adjusts course then they'll likely miss unless turned on again. A
preprogrammed maneuver would be defeated, and require comms to be
established with the missile to alter it, assuming that's allowable and, of
course, said communication along with the start up of the drives would be
identifiable.
Fourth: Multivessel data link. Something common with navies, and even air
forces. This would allow ships to defend not only themselves but each
other providing they're close enough to each other.
Antimissile missiles, anti torpedo torpedos yeah all that and more.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:56 PM, ret7army . <> wrote:
> actually it was guns ala WWII, then missiles til CWIS and still missiles
> ... if there's an improvement in the missiles, however, I'd not be
> surprised, but the new dog on the block is laser.
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Evyn MacDude
> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, 'ret7army .'
>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is part of the problem, the idea of CIWS is now on radar guided
>>> rotary barreled cannons in the 20mm-35mm range.
>>>
>>
>> Hum, at little behind there CIWS are replacing the guns with missiles
>> now.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Evyn
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>> <#m_-17916217480812790_m_2161124148950490082_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Missiles in TNE BL/BR have a limited number of G-turns of thrust (so they're not thrusting all the time). Part of the skill of using missiles in BR is being able to fly them correctly so as to intercept your chosen target before running out of reaction mass.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:22 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Rupert and others. Some interesting ideas.
>
> One has to remember that the central concept of BR is that Frank built the
> game around only crits. The other minor hits from BL are stripped out. So
> missiles only doing 1d6 hits of strength 2 damage would be useless against
> all but the smallest vessels.
>
Check out the RIM-116 missile system, essentially CIWS with mini-missiles instead of bullets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
For laser, the nice part is that you only need one fuel supply (the ship's fuel), so the quartermaster has less to keep track of vs counting out how many missiles are in storage for reloading. After that, it is a trade-off of which has more issues with weight above the waterline (laser vs missile platform), and how efficient the laser in shots per kilo of fuel, vs mass of missiles.
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12/29/17, 'ret7army .' [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Missiles in Battle Rider - gamebreaker?
To:
Date: Friday, December 29, 2017, 7:56 PM
actually it was guns ala WWII, then missiles til CWIS and still missiles ... if there's an
improvement in the missiles, however, I'd not be surprised, but the new dog on the block is laser.
[/QUOTE]
One idea for missile guidance would be using a tracking radar directly on the target, so missiles can detect which way they should be heading and turn in that direction. Based on distance and direction of the pulse (plus any computer data in the pulse) the missile knows which way the target is moving relative to itself, and can recalculate if it is going to hit (i.e. the player choosing to reactivate the missile). They could also use a modification of the Patriot missile guidance when active. IIRC the Patriot system sends a radar pulse from the launcher station to the target, that the missile receives. The missile then sends a radar pulse, that reflects off the target, and the ground station receives. This allows the missile to be more accurate the closer it is to the target, instead of ground-guided missiles getting less accurate due to longer steering signal times from the launcher to the missile. (Old version is radar pulse from ground launcher to target and missile, then back to launcher. Steering signal is then sent to the missile for course corrections.)
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12/29/17, 'ret7army .' [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Missiles in Battle Rider - gamebreaker?
To:
Date: Friday, December 29, 2017, 8:13 PM
Third:
How are the missiles powered? Chemical rockets are spotted via passive IR that looks for their peculiar signature ... in
Iraq/Afghanistan these have admittedly produced a number of false launches and had their helos pumping out flares
unnecessarily, but there are a number of cases where they worked as designed. Other drive systems would similarly be
identifiable once the missiles get moving, especially as they close on their target under power. Turning the
missile drives off, and then on again after they're closer would be much more problematic for the defender. On
the other hand if you turn the drives off, and the defender adjusts course then they'll likely miss unless turned on
again. A preprogrammed maneuver would be defeated, and require comms to be established with the missile to alter
it, assuming that's allowable and, of course, said communication along with the start up of the drives would be
identifiable.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting Todd, thanks
Missile guidance ... sounds like the Nike series for the earlier guidance
or the HAWK (Homing All the Way Killer) which with its large warhead made
up for any lack of accuracy with a large kill zone of about 400m IIRC.
RE: lasers ... for Traveller you have to mind the fuel I think, RL for the
Boeing Airborne Laser (now defunct) but smaller systems I think get away
with whatever the vehicle/vessel is using.
Tim
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Todd Kes
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> (Note: My replies are before the quoted messages)
>
> Check out the RIM-116 missile system, essentially CIWS with mini-missiles
> instead of bullets.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
>
> For laser, the nice part is that you only need one fuel supply (the ship's
> fuel), so the quartermaster has less to keep track of vs counting out how
> many missiles are in storage for reloading. After that, it is a trade-off
> of which has more issues with weight above the waterline (laser vs missile
> platform), and how efficient the laser in shots per kilo of fuel, vs mass
> of missiles.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 12/29/17, 'ret7army .' [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Missiles in Battle Rider - gamebreaker?
> To:
> Date: Friday, December 29, 2017, 7:56 PM
>
> actually it was guns ala WWII, then missiles til CWIS and still missiles
> ... if there's an
> improvement in the missiles, however, I'd not be surprised, but the new
> dog on the block is laser.
> [/QUOTE]
>
> One idea for missile guidance would be using a tracking radar directly on
> the target, so missiles can detect which way they should be heading and
> turn in that direction. Based on distance and direction of the pulse (plus
> any computer data in the pulse) the missile knows which way the target is
> moving relative to itself, and can recalculate if it is going to hit (i.e.
> the player choosing to reactivate the missile). They could also use a
> modification of the Patriot missile guidance when active. IIRC the Patriot
> system sends a radar pulse from the launcher station to the target, that
> the missile receives. The missile then sends a radar pulse, that reflects
> off the target, and the ground station receives. This allows the missile to
> be more accurate the closer it is to the target, instead of ground-guided
> missiles getting less accurate due to longer steering signal times from the
> launcher to the missile. (Old version is radar pulse from ground launcher
> to target and missile, then back to launcher. Steering signal is then sent
> to the missile for course corrections.)
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 12/29/17, 'ret7army .' [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Missiles in Battle Rider - gamebreaker?
> To:
> Date: Friday, December 29, 2017, 8:13 PM
>
> Third:
> How are the missiles powered? Chemical rockets are spotted via passive IR
> that looks for their peculiar signature ... in
> Iraq/Afghanistan these have admittedly produced a number of false launches
> and had their helos pumping out flares
> unnecessarily, but there are a number of cases where they worked as
> designed. Other drive systems would similarly be
> identifiable once the missiles get moving, especially as they close on
> their target under power. Turning the
> missile drives off, and then on again after they're closer would be much
> more problematic for the defender. On
> the other hand if you turn the drives off, and the defender adjusts course
> then they'll likely miss unless turned on
> again. A preprogrammed maneuver would be defeated, and require comms to be
> established with the missile to alter
> it, assuming that's allowable and, of course, said communication along
> with the start up of the drives would be
> identifiable.
> [/QUOTE]
>
> Todd Kes
>
>