Is spaceship armor useless?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Is is. This branch seems pretty long now . . . I'm already forgetting what it started with. Anyway, point defence gets more shots per shooter/turret due to VRFness, right?

More shots per weapon, and more per shooter assuming you aren't doing something you really shouldn't, yes. But what is the significance of this?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You're getting benefits of extra hits as compared to shooting them in one salvo:
Assuming that your skill after all modifiers except RoF is 10:
300 missiles in one salvo: chance of scoring at least one hit is 98%ish, and your average hit number is 9 missiles.
300 missiles in 300 salvoes: chance of scoring at least one hit is enormously close to 100%, and your average hit number is 150 missiles.

Either you need to change the way Rapid Fire works (I'm in favour of this for a hypothetical Alternate GURPS IV / GURPS 5e / G4e Revised), or you shouldn't let missile users benefit from gigantic bonuses at no drawback whatsoever.

I don't think GURPS 4e has any obligation to use RoF mechanics on every possible opportunity, no matter how inappropriate they are.

I agree that it's bad that there is this difference between one salvo and many salvos, but I don't see any reason to think the one salvo answer is even slightly sensible.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Again, one big shoal is either flying as a shoal (suffering from RoF issues), or it's controlled as 300 or whatever number of independent 'piloted' vehicles.

Independent salvos, as I've said at every opportunity. Heck, if you have one shooter per launcher, you literally don't have a choice about that. The definition of a salvo requires every missile to be its own.

Originally Posted by Mirtai

I was speaking about GURPS Spaceships... you know, the book?

Where they list the "range" of missiles pretty specifically, pretty close to where they list the range of all the other types of weapons listed.

Missiles can technically hit targets past their range, they just automatically miss if the target can manuver, since at that point the missile is out of fuel and can't maneuver.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "missiles don't have a range"

Just as an example, smaller missiles (I believe they were referring to missiles in the 20 to 28 cm range) are listed as being able to reach long range, and bigger ones X (or extreme) range.

There are beam weapons that can reach the same ranges, and do so instantly, instead of taking a couple hours of flight time, for the extreme examples.

At TL 10, a SM+8 ship can hold a spinal beam weapon capable of hitting you 50,000 miles away 1/3rd of a second after they deside to do so, while a volley of missiles accelerating up to 10 mps will take more than 5000 seconds (over an hour) to travel the same distance, and will be out of fuel upon arrival. I don't care how many missiles you carry. 5000 seconds is a LONG time. Your target has tons and tons of time to deal with your missiles after killing you, if you don't have some armor to take the beam weapon hits.

I'm really not sure where the "missiles don't have ranges" idea is from. A different book?

Spaceships 3, which is also the book where the idea that missiles take time to arrive comes from.

You can't have this both ways. If you're using the Spaceships basic system, missiles have actual range limitations, but they also hit the target instantly. Flight time is abstracted away, so your 'beams hit first' doesn't happen. It is quite true that if you're under the Spaceships 1 system in a regime where targets can actually maneuver (harder than it sounds, that means enough thrust to generate a non-zero acceleration bonus), small missiles have less range than large beams.

If you're using the Spaceships 3 tactical system, missiles (and gun shells potentially) do take time to reach their targets and in the launching ship can potentially be killed before they arrive. But in Spaceships 3, missiles are capable of smart maneuvering, like independent, agile ships. They can burn and drift and then burn again when they need to. So they can cover completely unlimited distances and still be fully able to maneuver at the other end, though given sufficient time a target that can accelerate and has more delta-V than the missile does can put on an evasive vector the missile can't match, and thus prevent it from getting to attack.

It sounds like you've been actually using a version of Spaceships basic combat, houseruled to nerf missiles... In the basic system as written, missiles actually aren't particularly bad at short range. They do hit for twice as much damage at longer range, but that (and the possibility of being outside the enemy's range to shoot back) is all, and their damage is high enough that that's usually not necessary.

Also, in the Basic system, point defense is only possible at the last moment, which results in frag missiles eating everybody's lunch in 20-second turns. (In more than 20-second turns, missiles are seriously nerfed because PD gets bonus RoF, and missiles don't want any bonus RoF.)

Originally Posted by Mirtai

We could create a whole new forum for "Are Railguns Useless" as well.

My opinion is that, like any weapon, they are quite useful in the right conditions. At TL 9, when they first become available, they seem quite good. (And in practice, in my playtests so far.)

And while it may be possible for some ships to always stay in deep space far beyond the range of such pedestrian weapons, I do wonder when such lone wolves ever manage to get fuel or resupply. Of if they live life in universes where no ship ever approaches 10,000 miles of another for fear of sudden death. Where the "hidden weapon" modification is never used to lull someone into close range. Where speed, armor, ECM, and point defence lasers on a bunch of small but deadly fighters never combined to be able to rush into range of these invunerable missile boats and blow them to pieces with their rapid fire Railguns at point blank range.

I do wonder about those things.

So, when should one ship approach 10,000 miles of another ship, exactly?

As your example notes, it's rather necessary for boarding. But that's a rather specialized role for which I've acknowledged the use of specialized craft. Though that isn't essential...you could use unspecialized craft together with the guarantee of annihilation from competent backup. (Also, railguns only go about 1 mps and have negligible maneuvering delta-V. They've got very, very serious problems with time of arrival, if we're using the tactical system.)

It's also necessary for docking, but you should never be docking with someone you don't trust, or in a place where anyone is even remotely likely to be shooting at you. If you do, your death is going to be because you did something that dumb, not because you didn't have armor and railguns. If the enemy is actually getting the drop on you, why would they leave you intact enough to shoot back once you know there's a fight on? This doesn't mean there can't be any two ships that don't trust each other in a spaceport, it just means they need to be trusting the port itself not to stab them and to guarantee that attempting an ambush in docking space is not going to end well.

Armor and ECM do almost nothing to protect against missiles, and a fast, armored, ECM-equipped ship can't carry enough point defense to counter a serious missile attack. It is possible, as I have noted, to close in considerably using speed (well, good acceleration and delta-V to burn) alone. However, with no in-flight delta-V, the effective range of the guns is pretty well limited to how long it takes the target to perform a one-hex per turn burn, which is probably not long In the Basic system they can get the (rather more generous) range S, but if the enemy has weapons to force the engagement to Distant scale it's fantastically hard piloting to actually get to range S.


EDIT: Also, at TL9, how are you building these fast fighters? The only things at that TL (even with superscience) that have serious thrust and any delta-V to speak of are Orion and NSW, and Orion only has 4 mps/tank, which is going to run out very fast dodging missiles.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

More shots per weapon, and more per shooter assuming you aren't doing something you really shouldn't, yes. But what is the significance of this?

That missiles don't necessarily overwhelm beams easily? Frankly, I've lost the branch, and it takes number-crunching to get conclusive on the issue of overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think GURPS 4e has any obligation to use RoF mechanics on every possible opportunity, no matter how inappropriate they are.

I agree that it's bad that there is this difference between one salvo and many salvos, but I don't see any reason to think the one salvo answer is even slightly sensible.

Either you accept multiple-projectile (i.e. RoF/RF) mechanics as sensible, or not. If you don't consider them sensible, then we can't compare 300 non-RoFed missiles against 300 RoFed recoilless beams or whatever, either. If you consider them sensible, let's deal with them as-is.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Independent salvos, as I've said at every opportunity. Heck, if you have one shooter per launcher, you literally don't have a choice about that. The definition of a salvo requires every missile to be its own.

Hmm. This comparison really seems to always degenerate into comparing rosters of gunners on batteries, since the choicelessness applies to beam gunners too.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That missiles don't necessarily overwhelm beams easily? Frankly, I've lost the branch, and it takes number-crunching to get conclusive on the issue of overwhelming.

Yes, the number crunching is the point. I've number-crunched before, for the Basic system. I still have not number-crunched yet for the Tactical system.

EDIT: I mean, it's true that if VRF weren't an option, missiles overwhelming PD would be almost trivial, but that's why I don't see the significance of pointing it out. Anyone thinking about the subject is aware of VRF beams.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Either you accept multiple-projectile (i.e. RoF/RF) mechanics as sensible, or not. If you don't consider them sensible, then we can't compare 300 non-RoFed missiles against 300 RoFed recoilless beams or whatever, either. If you consider them sensible, let's deal with them as-is.

I'm not sure the RoF mehanics are ever sensible, but I'm prepared to believe they're somewhat sensible (though, it is well-established, flawed) for a single automatic or shot-gun type weapon firing a single short burst. (Though attacking a salvo of missiles as one target and tagging a different missile with each hit doesn't actually fit that...but, I didn't come here to nerf beams.) For a battery of truly independent weapons, or an aggregation of bursts over time, they are obviously not.

But I am, nonetheless, dealing with them as-is. I say, use a gunner for every tube. I just note that I'm doing so under protest because I don't see any reason it should be necessary. (A gunner for every beam I'm more comfortable with, because they're all doing different things. Though the gunner being a dedicated NAI or sub-AI is reasonable.)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. This comparison really seems to always degenerate into comparing rosters of gunners on batteries, since the choicelessness applies to beam gunners too.

Er, beam gunners don't fire 'salvos' in this sense. And, unlike missile gunners, they do want to use RoF mechanics (though they may want to exploit them to the limits). Not sure where you're going with this?

Of course it comes down to rosters of preferably virtual gunners. The rules imperatives for that are fairly obvious and very well-trod.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

[ . . . ]
Of course it comes down to rosters of preferably virtual gunners. The rules imperatives for that are fairly obvious and very well-trod.

Much of this exchange boils down to this:
Rules imperatives are towards always focusing on the PD vs. Missiles rivalry. This is the true reason behind people being worried that armour is useless.

Side question:
Do you think an unofficial project aiming to either radically houserule G:SS, or make an SS-like system from scratch, that would be more general than the canonical G:SS, would be viable? At the very least, to make emulating different genres possible/easier?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Do you think an unofficial project aiming to either radically houserule G:SS, or make an SS-like system from scratch, that would be more general than the canonical G:SS, would be viable? At the very least, to make emulating different genres possible/easier?

I think better than and more general than G:SS RAW are both doable, though some of the problems it has are not trivial to fix.

However, I think for the genres you seem to be primarily thinking about emulating, you might be better off dropping most of Spaceships and just repurposing the design rules. Giving the slightest consideration to realistic space travel and combat is actively inimical to the 'wooshing dogfighters IN SPACE' genre.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think better than and more general than G:SS RAW are both doable, though some of the problems it has are not trivial to fix.

Such as, aside from the various multiple-projectiles issue group?

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

However, I think for the genres you seem to be primarily thinking about emulating, you might be better off dropping most of Spaceships and just repurposing the design rules. Giving the slightest consideration to realistic space travel and combat is actively inimical to the 'wooshing dogfighters IN SPACE' genre.

I'm quoting those that seem to strain G:SS' genericness the most. Also, surely the line can be quite blurry, with different genres in-between the space wooshes and the THSsy predetermined exchanges.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Much of this exchange boils down to this:
Rules imperatives are towards always focusing on the PD vs. Missiles rivalry. This is the true reason behind people being worried that armour is useless.

Not my experience. In pone of playtest battles for the tactical system the whole thing was settled by beams because all targets were destroyed before the missiles could get there.

That experience showed me that one layer of armor was inadequate for preventing major damage from a single hit from a secondary battery of the next SM down. UV lasers with a (2) divisor if anyone wonders. The particle beam major batteries on the larger ships appeared to be overkill for any tactical role. No one needed that much armor penetration.

So it's not just missiles. :)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Not my experience. In pone of playtest battles for the tactical system the whole thing was settled by beams because all targets were destroyed before the missiles could get there.

That experience showed me that one layer of armor was inadequate for preventing major damage from a single hit from a secondary battery of the next SM down. UV lasers with a (2) divisor if anyone wonders. The particle beam major batteries on the larger ships appeared to be overkill for any tactical role. No one needed that much armor penetration.

So it's not just missiles. :)

Hmm. It takes very roughly 3 layers of Hardened Nanocomposite to negate an average Major Battery UV LASER hit, assuming a streamlined craft; about two layers for non-streamlined. But this one hit deals 2/3 of the craft's HP at most SMs. Particle beams . . . well, Hardened Armour reduces their AD from (5) to (3), thus needing about six layers to defend against an average hit, but PBs are much shorter-ranged.

But you put Major Batteries with huge penetration in order to take down ships larger than yours, if you have to, right?

Anyway, the fact that armour layers and MB hits take up such a big chunk of HP is what also results in G:SS combats being somewhat like UT personal combat: either you're so armoured that you ignore the stuff thrown at you, or the stuff thrown at you is so scary that it can outright ignore whether you have zero, one, or three layers of armour.

Oh, and regarding missiles, another bit: just how scary or meh they are seems to depend significantly on the SM of combatants. At low SMs, they're overkill, and you hope to land just one (out of a swarm). At high SMs, they tend to be meh compared to beams. But the larger the SMs, the less likely they are to be encountered in-game.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Such as, aside from the various multiple-projectiles issue group?

The space and time scale thing, which partially leads to the multiple-projectile issues.

There are good reasons to want the scale to be slidable, but it's not obvious that there's a good way to do that.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm quoting those that seem to strain G:SS' genericness the most. Also, surely the line can be quite blurry, with different genres in-between the space wooshes and the THSsy predetermined exchanges.

I don't really think I see a continuum there.

GURPS Spaceships sits in a place where it acknowledges that space is big and space weapons have lots of range and all that.

All things wooshy, as far as I can see, start from either not realizing or willfully denying that scale.

You can probably do things without rejecting the scale to reduce the degree to which things are pre-determined.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The space and time scale thing, which partially leads to the multiple-projectile issues.

There are good reasons to want the scale to be slidable, but it's not obvious that there's a good way to do that.

Is there anything in particular that breaks down from sliding the scale other than multiple-projectile-handling-rules? Hexes become bigger, velocities and accelerations in hexes are adjusted, and everything else seems fine, as long as you use the right scale (e.g. do not use a 10,000-mile hex if your enemies need to shoot from 5 miles at you half the time). In-ship movement and repairs might be better handled slightly differently, but they don't look tragically broken compared to beams/missile/dodges.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't really think I see a continuum there.

GURPS Spaceships sits in a place where it acknowledges that space is big and space weapons have lots of range and all that.

All things wooshy, as far as I can see, start from either not realizing or willfully denying that scale.

You can probably do things without rejecting the scale to reduce the degree to which things are pre-determined.

Space is big, but something may force closer encounters - engine, weapon, or other similar parameters. Plus there's the offence/defence ratios, be they accuracy/dodge or damage/DR/HP, and they change many things.