[SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

It's a topic that's been discussed many times over: "Missiles do to much damage!", "Eggshells armed with hammers!", etc. The problem boils down to the different scaling of projectiles versus beams in Spaceships. Beam damage doubles for every x10 increase in output, and output roughly triples per SM, so beam damage scales at the same rate as ship HP (ie, x1.5 per +1 SM). Projectile damage is proportional to width of the rounds, which is generally consistent with the stats given in HT and UT. However, calibre doubles every +4 SM, meaning damage increases at a rate of about x1.2 per SM. Large guns and missiles (SM +11 and up) seem mostly balanced, but as you go down the scale solid projectiles become far more favorable. At SM +5, a Missile hit inflicts 7.5 times the damage of a typical beam weapon, over 5 times the HP of a same-sized ship - and that's without factoring in velocity that could easily be above 1 mps. Also, because ships can carry large numbers of smaller-sized weapons, there's great incentive to load up on massive banks of the smallest available missiles, because their damage-per-mass is so great.

Granted, this may be realistic. However, for most Space Opera settings it's very inappropriate, leading to battles that feel very out-of-genre. So my proposal is to come up with an alternate progression for projectile damage, more in line with beam damage. In my opinion, there's a "sweet spot" where beams, guns and missiles inflict damage relative to each other that feels "right" - at SM +9, Beams inflict 20d, Guns 30d and Missiles 60d. It's easy to see how this ratio could be maintained for other weapon sizes, by ignoring the weapon calibres and simply giving Guns x1.5 and Missiles x3 damage relative to Beams.

Guns have the disadvantage of being inaccurate compared to Beams, while Missiles have very limited ammunition and are vulnerable to Point Defense. However, both projectile types can use Proximity Detonation for a huge increase in potential hits. The only downside there is dropping the (modest) armor divisor. I think to better represent the hail of small fragments produced it may be appropriate to give Proximity attacks an armor multiplier of (0.2) or so.

Any thoughts on these options? Keep in mind, my intent is mostly to heighten the importance of beam weapons in Space Opera settings. While realism is generally important, machine guns and missile swarms are generally not in-genre - and when they are, they don't carry the phenomenal stopping power of GURPS SS projectiles.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Have you considered that beam weapons cannot really be defended against except by messing with the targeting system in some way, and slugs / missiles can be deflected / dodged / etc in addition? Thus missiles / slugs will hit less often and do less damage per shot than beam weapons.
Unless you have FTL sensors the first notice that you are being shot at by a beam is when it hits. With a missile or other projectile you will have time (depending upon speed and distance) to observe the shot and react to it.
The increased damage of the projectile would seem to be a compensation for this.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

That's why my proposal includes higher damage for projectiles than beams, in addition to what can be gained by high relative velocity. My issue with the RAW damage is that you frequently can't fail to kill something in a single shot. For example, a single 16cm missile traveling at 2 mps (standard velocity for TL9+ missiles) would inflict 6d*8(2), averaging 168 damage, enough to instantly cripple a ship 100 times the size of the firing craft. My model would give that missile a base of 6d damage, thus inflicting 6d*2 (avg 42) with velocity taken into account. It's still significant damage (which I think is appropriate for a weapon that, as you point out, is easier to defend against than a beam) but not quite so unbalanced.

Also note that at higher SM, the RAW actually gives projectiles disproportionately less damage, because of the different scaling. Under my houserule large-sized guns and missiles would still be competitive with beams for massive ships. Plus, there would be more reason for large ships to get Major Battery guns and missiles, since the scaling wouldn't be so skewed in favor of smaller projectiles.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Well, if you want to do a Space Opera game, and make beams more uber than projectiles, just have your space drive generate a super-powerful force field that pretty much stops projectiles in their tracks, regardless of relative velocity.

Or something like that, anyway.

Another thing to note is that the farther away you are, the easier it is to dodge/shoot down incoming projectiles (even if they're guided).

If you are trying to keep it 'realistic', just say everybody has Uber Point Defense Laser Batteries and call it a day.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Along these same lines, I've toyed with the idea of just saying "missiles and guns were left behind a long time ago. They never proved to be that useful in space, so beam weapons were all anyone focused on. So, would you prefer plasma, laser or particle beams on your ship?"

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Space Opera frequently still uses missiles and bombs, but they don't dominant the battlespace like the ones in GURPS have a tendency to do. I'm just trying to find a way to include projectile weapons in their niche, without overpowering beams or producing too-lethal battles.

So, is the consensus that fiddling with the damage tables is a Bad Idea? And if so, why?

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Well, if you don't mind blatantly flouting physics, I'd think it would be okay. The thing is that KK weapons really are that powerful so if you're paying lip service to reality you need a reason for people using your vastly-inferior substitute instead.

You might want to adjust the ammunition prices if you do throw physics out, as a million $ per ton of missile is probably a bit much to pay for munitions that just don't do the same job.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

I'll object to the consensus. I think fiddling with the damage tables is definitely okay for a Space Operah.

What I find difficult is creating a situation similar to Élite, Star Wars and the like, where there's blasters that have the tactical niche of WWI/WWII wing-mounted machine guns, and missiles, whose launch (which normally happens several, maybe a dozen at most) times per flight, and results in a major OH S*** moment for the target.
Or Master of Orion, where a single bomber makes maybe 4 attacks runs, hitting with one bomb on each run, before returning to the hangar.
Or Homeworld, where bomber runs are similarly paced, and typically take a wing of bombers to take out a single system of the enemy capital ship.

Default GURPS missile combat is basically this:

• Get a bomber or heavy fighter (i.e. one armed primarily with lots and lots of missiles), or several.
• Go on an intercept course with the target.
• Launch no less than a dozen projectiles at the target.
• Lose the attack craft to point defence fire.
• Hopefully eject in time and watch as the target ship (might as well be a Death Star) is obliterated by the handful out of the hundred or so warheads out of those dozen missiles.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

While it's true that GURPS has a pretty good definition of the damage dealt by X calibre projectile, the SS rules have their own scaling progression for what size of gun is available to what ship. Notably, large ships seem to have disproportionately small projectiles (as discussed in a recent thread about missile battery capacity). Another way to achieve what I'm going for is to speed up the progression of calibre increases, and boost the damage of beam weapons (and starship DR/HP) to match. Yes, to make Space Opera battles work you typically need to make weapons unrealistically weak, or ships unrealistically strong; that seems to be a time-honored genre convention.

True, I'll need to reexamine the pricing too.

Re: [SS] Reigning in Projectile Damage
 

Beam weapons probably shouldn't scale up in energy faster than 1:1 with mass, which is what they already do. One of the pyramid articles looked at changing the relation between energy and damage, though, didn't it?