Is spaceship armor useless?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by SCAR

I think you're underestimating Beam PD vs. even Prox. Det. missile attacks.
1 missile, Prox. Det., can score 10 'hits'.
PD with a VRF, Imp Laser get x200 RoF (for +8) with even a low AI Skill of 12 and an average roll of 10, that's 10 hits, which kills all of the missile fragments.

Beams are always outnumbered by missile tubes because they require power. In addition to not being able to afford to fail even once, you can't afford to dedicate an entire weapon to stopping each missile.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's not answering the question in the slightest, unless you're saying that it's a one shot to one shot exchange rate, which is obviously not right.

The ratio is not 1:1, but firepower dominance is still the overwhelming factor in deciding the outcome of space battles in G:SS. You just can't compensate for insufficient PD by filling those 'missing' weapon battery slots with more armour (to make missiles less deadly; armour tends to be not very relevant against KK missiles) or more engines (to get a significant boost in Dodge; no, you get maybe +1 MR, meh), and even adding ECM stations is kinda meh (-6 to be hit, +3 to Dodge for the maximum of three slots; this essentially reduces number of hits per salvo by 9, which, as you corrected me downpost, doesn't help much against prox-det KK salvoes). More Dakka seems like the way to go.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Because, of course, conventional explosives make no sense.

Lots of things make no sense in our setting, but they do in other settings. FTL and Reactionless drives are perhaps the first two that come to mind.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But they're referred to in multiple other tables in Spaceships, and used on designs in Spaceships 3 and 4.

Yeah, but at the moment I looked into that one. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

-4 for multitasking how? Launching one missile per turn is simply normal. And I don't see anything saying that resolving a ballistic attack counts as a task. (And I wasn't suggesting stacking up your salvos to hit with them all at the same time, though you obviously could and probably should.)

Anyway, multitasking multiple gunnery tasks is explicitly forbidden in Spaceships 1, so there's no way that penalty could apply.

Ah, so it is. So it's Spreading, not Multitasking, and it's -2 for beams/guns, and -1 for missiles. A single salvo of multiple missiles counts as no spreading fire, but you're offering multiple salvoes, and in that missiles indeed seem to have an advantage (though they also have less RoF to provide to-hit bonuses).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You need huge MoSes to dodge, since single frag missiles have 10 potential hits at de facto rcl 1, and pretty heavy bonuses.

Okay, guess you're right.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Lots of things make no sense in our setting, but they do in other settings. FTL and Reactionless drives are perhaps the first two that come to mind.

At spaceship velocities, conventional explosives don't make sense because the speed and mass of the projectile alone packs more energy than any detonation. An object traveling at 3 kps relative to it's target delivers equivalent kinetic energy to it's mass in TNT.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

At spaceship velocities, conventional explosives don't make sense because the speed and mass of the projectile alone packs more energy than any detonation. An object traveling at 3 kps relative to it's target delivers equivalent kinetic energy to it's mass in TNT.

Unless it uses one of them pseudovelocity drives, or non-FTL speeds are actually subsonic (as seems to be the case in Star Wars and Babylon 5).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The ratio is not 1:1, but firepower dominance is still the overwhelming factor in deciding the outcome of space battles in G:SS. You just can't compensate for insufficient PD by filling those 'missing' weapon battery slots with more armour (to make missiles less deadly; armour tends to be not very relevant against KK missiles) or more engines (to get a significant boost in Dodge; no, you get maybe +1 MR, meh), and even adding ECM stations is kinda meh (-6 to be hit, +3 to Dodge for the maximum of three slots; this essentially reduces number of hits per salvo by 9, which, as you corrected me downpost, doesn't help much against prox-det KK salvoes). More Dakka seems like the way to go.

I...guess I consider this trivial? I figured the interesting question was what the balance between PD and missiles was, not whether you could opt out of that matchup.

In the Basic system, large ships can carry enough armor to withstand small missiles, which does get them into a different regime. (They aren't armored enough to withstand their own tertiary missiles, probably, but those missiles would be big enough to be stopped by small escorts with minimum-size VRF beams.) Missiles in the Tactical system may be likely to hit harder, though, so I'm not sure whether that remains doable. If you're not carrying enough armor to stop the missiles entirely, it's not much use against them.

(Side note: the Scale Factor table on SS3:32 is still wrong, isn't it.)

In the Tactical system it is possible, in principle at least, to use thrust and delta-V to outfly missiles, forcing them to attack at lower speeds (with more PD opportunities on the way) or even to miss their attack. However, it's probably not achievable for realistic spaceships.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Ah, so it is. So it's Spreading, not Multitasking, and it's -2 for beams/guns, and -1 for missiles. A single salvo of multiple missiles counts as no spreading fire, but you're offering multiple salvoes, and in that missiles indeed seem to have an advantage (though they also have less RoF to provide to-hit bonuses).

But you wouldn't do any spreading fire, because you would have one gunner per weapon.

Aside, I think it's very unclear when, if ever, Spreading Fire modifiers apply to ballistic weapons under the tactical rules.

Even if you did accrue Spreading Fire penalties for a gunner who is controlling more than one Ballistic Attack in a turn (which I don't see any indication that the rules direct, it's just the only way I can see to involve that penalty at all), that would a) as you note, not be too much of a problem and b) only apply once the missiles are actually attacking, so after any 'shoot down the missile bus' point defense efforts.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I...guess I consider this trivial? I figured the interesting question was what the balance between PD and missiles was, not whether you could opt out of that matchup.

Ah. Well, for me it was: not all settings have missile combat decided by more dakka; some focus on needing to switch to evasive manoeuvring or something.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

In the Tactical system it is possible, in principle at least, to use thrust and delta-V to outfly missiles, forcing them to attack at lower speeds (with more PD opportunities on the way) or even to miss their attack. However, it's probably not achievable for realistic spaceships.

Speaking of Tactical, it produces one funny advantage for missiles: it essentially grants them a +2 sAcc by allowing even Rear Fixed Mounts to be used in attacks against front-arc enemies.
That being said, much of the dV dancing and kiting depends on what engines are available for ships and what engines are for missiles (upscaling/downscaling isn't always trivial).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But you wouldn't do any spreading fire, because you would have one gunner per weapon.

Aside, I think it's very unclear when, if ever, Spreading Fire modifiers apply to ballistic weapons under the tactical rules.

Even if you did accrue Spreading Fire penalties for a gunner who is controlling more than one Ballistic Attack in a turn (which I don't see any indication that the rules direct, it's just the only way I can see to involve that penalty at all), that would a) as you note, not be too much of a problem and b) only apply once the missiles are actually attacking, so after any 'shoot down the missile bus' point defense efforts.

Either you're performing multiple Attacks, or not. Letting a person do 300 Attacks in a turn at full skill is kinda cheating, neh?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Ah. Well, for me it was: not all settings have missile combat decided by more dakka; some focus on needing to switch to evasive manoeuvring or something.

Those settings, insofar as they have technical assumptions at all, have technical assumptions so far from the ones underlying Spaceships that tremendous changes to a bunch of fundamentals are clearly needed to represent them.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Speaking of Tactical, it produces one funny advantage for missiles: it essentially grants them a +2 sAcc by allowing even Rear Fixed Mounts to be used in attacks against front-arc enemies.

Fixed mounts provide no benefit for ballistic weapons. That +2 is only for beams. (Unless you count being allowed to use the whole battery as a single high-RoF weapon as a bonus, which I don't.)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That being said, much of the dV dancing and kiting depends on what engines are available for ships and what engines are for missiles (upscaling/downscaling isn't always trivial).

Of course it does.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Either you're performing multiple Attacks, or not. Letting a person do 300 Attacks in a turn at full skill is kinda cheating, neh?

I don't particularly see that it is, no. Although that may be influenced by the fact that I can't imagine how the actual ballistic attack could involve much realtime participation from the missileteer. (Well, it could with outright remote-piloted missiles, but then it would be impossible to control more than one at a time regardless of whether they were in the same salvo.)

(You capitalized Attacks, but I don't think there's really an applicable word-of-art here. If there is, can you point it out?)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Those settings, insofar as they have technical assumptions at all, have technical assumptions so far from the ones underlying Spaceships that tremendous changes to a bunch of fundamentals are clearly needed to represent them.

Between GURPS and SS being non-setting specific, and the sorts of other stuff that G:SS has as options (up to and including hyperdynamic cosmos), that doesn't seem like something unusual to expect.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't particularly see that it is, no. Although that may be influenced by the fact that I can't imagine how the actual ballistic attack could involve much realtime participation from the missileteer. (Well, it could with outright remote-piloted missiles, but then it would be impossible to control more than one at a time regardless of whether they were in the same salvo.)

(You capitalized Attacks, but I don't think there's really an applicable word-of-art here. If there is, can you point it out?)

I'm capitalising them to distinguish between making one Attack Roll at +x RoF bonus, and doing two at +(x-1) RoF bonus + whatever penalties apply. Examples for non-SS situations distinguishing between one or multiple Attacks / Attack Rolls include: Spraying Fire (the penalty is increased Rcl), Ranged Rapid Strike / Quick-Shooting (RS penalty), DWA (-4/-8), the use of Extra Attacks with Multistrike with one weapon or without firing two weapons (the 'penalty' is the need to fork over [25*x]) etc.
You're rolling your missile skill, so you're not just sitting there while things work without your input.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Between GURPS and SS being non-setting specific, and the sorts of other stuff that G:SS has as options (up to and including hyperdynamic cosmos), that doesn't seem like something unusual to expect.

I think your expectations of Spaceships are a lot higher than mine are after having fiddled with it for some time...

It seems like you'd start in the right direction with pseudoatmospheric space rules, optionally plus Boost Drives. There are still some unfortunate limitations, but I think they're down to the fact that GURPS tactical combat vehicle and general high-speed movement rules are kind of ugly. And, unfortunately, you kind of have to make up how those apply to the missiles and what missiles with non-kinetic warheads do. And as setting choices, you have to disallow AI-controlled point defense guns on small ships and preferably make sure every battle occurs in a ridiculously cluttered environment so that you have props for your evasive flying.

I'd note that the 'evasive action' thing almost always applies to fighters, not large ships. Star Destroyers don't dodge missiles or torpedoes. (They also don't shoot them down, generally. Which actually makes sense if you consider that Star Wars weapons are almost never VRF and are not lasers...try making a PD loadout with only RF plasma beams and you'll give up pretty quick.) Although real, seagoing ships did try to dodge torpedoes, when the torpedoes were not effectively guided.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm capitalising them to distinguish between making one Attack Roll at +x RoF bonus, and doing two at +(x-1) RoF bonus + whatever penalties apply. Examples for non-SS situations distinguishing between one or multiple Attacks / Attack Rolls include: Spraying Fire (the penalty is increased Rcl), Ranged Rapid Strike / Quick-Shooting (RS penalty), DWA (-4/-8), the use of Extra Attacks with Multistrike with one weapon or without firing two weapons (the 'penalty' is the need to fork over [25*x]) etc.

All of which correspond somewhat to Splitting Fire, in the sense of actually splitting your fire, but not much to multiple missiles arriving on target simultaneously.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You're rolling your missile skill, so you're not just sitting there while things work without your input.

You could be rolling your skill to represent things that you had done in advance rather than things done during the actual attack.

Looking at the Spaceships 3 weapon fire sequence, the Aim and Attack 'maneuver' is used to fire beams or launch ballistic weapons. The weapons arriving is clearly not a maneuver, since the rules recommend arranging to have gun shells arrive the same turn they're fired.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think your expectations of Spaceships are a lot higher than mine are after having fiddled with it for some time...

So far, nothing seems to be better.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It seems like you'd start in the right direction with pseudoatmospheric space rules, optionally plus Boost Drives. There are still some unfortunate limitations, but I think they're down to the fact that GURPS tactical combat vehicle and general high-speed movement rules are kind of ugly. And, unfortunately, you kind of have to make up how those apply to the missiles and what missiles with non-kinetic warheads do. And as setting choices, you have to disallow AI-controlled point defense guns on small ships and preferably make sure every battle occurs in a ridiculously cluttered environment so that you have props for your evasive flying.

What about those generic rules, specifically?
As for cluttered environment, I'm not sure that's necessary. Sure, asteroid thickets are a thing in some settings (SW), but not others (BSG).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd note that the 'evasive action' thing almost always applies to fighters, not large ships. Star Destroyers don't dodge missiles or torpedoes. (They also don't shoot them down, generally. Which actually makes sense if you consider that Star Wars weapons are almost never VRF and are not lasers...try making a PD loadout with only RF plasma beams and you'll give up pretty quick.) Although real, seagoing ships did try to dodge torpedoes, when the torpedoes were not effectively guided.

Star Destroyers and the like generally have enough DR from shields and armour that their lack of Dodging and poor PD are not a tragedy. That's actually one of the issues of 'armour is useless': armour tends to either make a ship invulnerable to a given class of attack, or has such a small effect that the lifespan of the ship on the battlefield changes very little.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

All of which correspond somewhat to Splitting Fire, in the sense of actually splitting your fire, but not much to multiple missiles arriving on target simultaneously.

You could be rolling your skill to represent things that you had done in advance rather than things done during the actual attack.

Looking at the Spaceships 3 weapon fire sequence, the Aim and Attack 'maneuver' is used to fire beams or launch ballistic weapons. The weapons arriving is clearly not a maneuver, since the rules recommend arranging to have gun shells arrive the same turn they're fired.

Yeah, it can represent doing things in advance. It still takes twice the concentration to do two things* in advance on turn 1, even though the final effect of those things is resolved on turn 2.

Of course, none of it matters if you have as many operators as missiles launched.

* == Calculating and assigning suitable approach vectors or whatever.