Missile Ideas

[Aramanthus]

I'm sure that built within each of the craft from the major powers of Phase world have to have some sort of acceration compensator. It makes sense to believe that this is there in place.

[Jefffar]

Well seeing as CG drives by their nature manipulate gravity of propulsion, I'm pretty sure that it isn't much of a step for the technology to control the affects of acceleration on the crew.

[Esckey]

Assuming a mini-missile is the size of a pop can you can fit 156 mini-missiles into a 8foot by 20 inch tube and thats after having 1/2inch of freeroom around every missile and leaving a 3 inch tube down the middile.

[KLM]

...another "swarm/MIRV missile" idea, that

-a cruise missile as a multi-warhead contains 4 LRMs
- each LRM contains 4 MRMs
- each MRM contains 4 SRMs,
- each SRM contain 4 mini-missiles...

So a "cluster" cruise missile can blossom into 256 or so mini-missiles, without much tinkering and without
even mentioning "bombs" which take half of the space needed for their "normal range" equivalents, having
much shorter range but the same payload...

Adios
KLM

[Metathiax]

...another "swarm/MIRV missile" idea, that

-a cruise missile as a multi-warhead contains 4 LRMs
- each LRM contains 4 MRMs
- each MRM contains 4 SRMs,
- each SRM contain 4 mini-missiles...

So a "cluster" cruise missile can blossom into 256 or so mini-missiles, without much tinkering and without
even mentioning "bombs" which take half of the space needed for their "normal range" equivalents, having
much shorter range but the same payload...

Adios
KLM

...and each mini-missile contains 4 micro missiles?

[glitterboy2098]

...another "swarm/MIRV missile" idea, that
-a cruise missile as a multi-warhead contains 4 LRMs
- each LRM contains 4 MRMs
- each MRM contains 4 SRMs,
- each SRM contain 4 mini-missiles...
So a "cluster" cruise missile can blossom into 256 or so mini-missiles, without much tinkering and without
even mentioning "bombs" which take half of the space needed for their "normal range" equivalents, having
much shorter range but the same payload...

...and each mini-missile contains 4 micro missiles?

i actually thought of that bck when i obtained macross 2, that whole scatter mini-missile thing. well, minus the cruise missile.
with cruise missiles you can reach...1024 micro-warheads... ouch.

[Esckey]

Those cost a bundle. 1 cruise missle, 4 large,16 medium,64short, 256mini. Assuming your going for damage(all mini missiles are plasma) and that all the carrier missiles are 1/4 the price(its just a shell with an engine and guidance) Its 614,400 for the mini-missiles and another 67,000 for the carrier missiles(minus the cruise missile cause I can't find the price for those) And if you tack in the micros its 1,638,400 just for the 1024 micro missiles and 143,800 for the carriers. You had better hope no one shoots down the cruise missile.

[KLM]

Hi there!

The "256 minimissile in a cruise missile" idea was originally mentioned as an "anti-missile swarm"
ammunition.

Therefore there are reasons because of I discard the idea of using micro-missiles, namely
I inteded to use fragmentation warheads, creating a blanket of shrapnel in the path of
incoming missiles.

Micro missiles do not have fragmentation variant, and smart warheads have the possibbility to
"gang" on a few incoming "vampires" (=ie. missiles) and others might slip throught.
The cost is also prohibitely high.

However the above "shrapnel-cloud" can cover the whole ship it is intended to protect,
kind of a mix of point defense and chaff.

-----------------------------------------

That said, cluster cruise missiles packed with smart micro-missiles, loitering above the
battlefield, launching several submunitions against tragets detected...
Well, this has potential.

-----------------------------------------

Another issue is the exact number of submunition mini-missiles - actually, a cruise missile
can contain 8 "bomb" LMRs, each 8 MRM bombs, those each 8 SRM bombs... I think using
"bomb" minis would be counterproductive. This still gives us 2048 mini-missiles.
Calculate the size of the shrapnel blanket.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

The only downside I see is that each carrier missile is going to take up space with propellant, guidance system, sensor, missile skin and the actual carrier system.

I doubt you'd get even 50% of the missile volume to carry sub missiles.

I think in the end a cruise missile might be able to contain 35-50 minimissiles. Otherwise it is litterally just going to be an empty shell with no guidance and no propulsion.
-Matt

[KLM]

The only downside I see is that each carrier missile is going to take up space with propellant, guidance system, sensor, missile skin and the actual carrier system.

And this was taken into account when using the "multi-multi-multi-multi warhead" matrjoska missile design, resulting
in a 256 submunitions scene. Mind you, in this case, each mini-missile could travel several dozen kilometeres from
the "blossoming point" of the main missile - which is not required in a hard kill countermeasure device (=more mini-missiles
to be crammed into the case).

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Looked up some real world numbers, most cruise missiles utilize something like 2/3rds of their mass/volume for propulsion, skin and sensors leaving 1/3rd for payload. Even if the submunitions were much lighter on propulsion (IE less fuel) I think you'd be looking at around 1/4 of the cruise missile for submunitions (taking in to account the carrier/dispensor taking up additional room) and no more then 1/2 of each submunition being able to be used for further submunitions with greatly reduced ranges for each (say 1/4 normal range).

256 still sounds awfully high to me. If it was just 256 minimissiles crammed in to a cruise missile that sounds about right, but once you have submunitions within submunitions within submunitions I don't think your looking at a realistic payload scenario.
-Matt

[KLM]

Looked up some real world numbers, most cruise missiles utilize something like 2/3rds of their mass/volume for propulsion, skin and sensors leaving 1/3rd for payload.

Mind your, IRL cruise missiles do not have CG propulsion, do not have E-clip technology for batteries,
do not utilise MDC material for skin...

But let's see what those 256 mM-s mean in practice:

A Warshield class cruiser is about to be hit by a salvo from a Berserker. She fire her cruise missile launchers,
which have - luckily - cluster ammo loaded.
A single missile programmed to detonate in the path of the incoming swarm causes a square flak-blanket,
16 explosions per side ie. 192 meter by 192 meter (and about 12 meters in thickness).

This covers the whole cruise from one angle, yet the damage done by the cloud is about 5d6 MD...
(5d6 per single frag mM, halved because it is not a direct hit, doubled because of "neighboring" explosions'
shrapnel).

Most cruise missiles will survive this, so the Warshield better launch a salvo of those cluster-missiles.

Also, for "covering" a Protector battleship, one would have to fire about 20 missiles - to achive "single"
(=5d6 MD damage) cover, from one angle.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Of course modern cruise missiles also don't travel at nearly the same kind of speeds, have nearly the kind of range or some of the other demands of a cruise missile. I'll grant you, for a short range defensive missile you probably could cram that many minimissiles in, but you'd also probably not need multiple subcarries, just a cruise missile with racking for all those minimissiles inside.

To my mind a better approach would be more minimissile launchers on the ship. I mentioned earlier that I think the rules need changing for missile volleys both offensively and defensively. It would be impossible for a modern day ship to track thousands of targets, but if we assume comensurate advancement in technology a 3g ship could probably easily track thousands of targets. So that being said it doesn't seem out of the realm of possible to me for something like a warshield (using your example) to mount 20-30 minimissile launchers, consider their relative small size in comparison to the overall cruiser and be able to target say 5 missiles with each launcher ripple firing 4-5 minimissiles at each one (20-25 minimissile 'at a time' or in this case probably within about 2-3 seconds for the total 'volley') as the cruise missile passes in to engagement range. If even just 10 launchers could bear on any given arc you'd have the ability to target and engage up to 50 missiles at a time.

With your flak method it would be, in principal, not too difficult to stager an incoming cruise missile volley over the course of 5-6 seconds. At the speeds they travel that submunition flak cloud would likely only be able to 'engage' 1 or 2 missiles at a time and require 3 or 4 to give a high probability of killing any given cruise missile.

Again, just using more realistic scenarios and my revised rules I think your best bet would be using short range or medium range carrier missiles with say 4 minimissiles per short range missile (plasma or AP) or maybe 12 per medium range missile and have each short range missile engage one incoming cruise missile and each medium range missile engage 2-3 income cruise missiles with their submunitions. The medium range carrier missiles could engage at ranges of say 20-30 miles out for an outer defensive envelope, then short range missiles at around 5 miles, then short range energy/projectile armaments followed by minimissiles and PD guns in the inner most defensive envelope.

I'll certainly grant you, using the current rules your cruise missile 'flak' carrier is certainly the best idea.
-Matt

[Malakai]

I'd actually like to see more use of Kinetic-Kill Missiles. The reason being that they would reasonably be far less vulnerable to counter-missile systems - it's an inert mass that relies on pure speed to do damage. I can easily see the damage needed to "destroy" one being 2x to 5x greater (since you need to effectively vaporize it instead of just rendering it inert), and knocking out one would have little effect on the volley as a whole. Also, possible shield-penetration should also be considered, since stopping the missile will take MUCH more energy than stopping the much smaller rounds fired from GR and Rail guns.

[KLM]

Hi there!

I'd actually like to see more use of Kinetic-Kill Missiles. The reason being that they would reasonably be far less vulnerable to counter-missile systems - it's an inert mass that relies on pure speed to do damage. I can easily see the damage needed to "destroy" one being 2x to 5x greater (since you need to effectively vaporize it instead of just rendering it inert),

I disagree. Knocking out its sensors/propulsion is enough - and those aren't less vulnerable.

and knocking out one would have little effect on the volley as a whole.

That is true.

Also, possible shield-penetration should also be considered, since stopping the missile will take MUCH more energy than stopping the much smaller rounds fired from GR and Rail guns.

Individually yes. Stopping (or deflecting) one such missile vs. stopping a railgun salvo... Not clearly
a harder task.

Adios
KLM

[KLM]

Of course modern cruise missiles also don't travel at nearly the same kind of speeds, have nearly the kind of range or some of the other demands of a cruise missile. I'll grant you, for a short range defensive missile you probably could cram that many minimissiles in, but you'd also probably not need multiple subcarries, just a cruise missile with racking for all those minimissiles inside.

Which would result in a larger payload than 256 minis .

To my mind a better approach would be more minimissile launchers on the ship.

Not neccessarily.
-Such a "cluster cruise" missile can protect OTHER ships in the fleet. 'nuff said.

-A few cruise missile launchers can be better armored than a bunch of mM launchers - especially in the
case of reloadable launchers with the equivalent of a "gun well".

-Versatility. A mMR launcher is rather "challenged" in long range bombardment.

That said, one need not to remove the mMRs from a Berserker after supplying them with
those missiles.

With your flak method it would be, in principal, not too difficult to stager an incoming cruise missile volley over the course of 5-6 seconds. At the speeds they travel that submunition flak cloud would likely only be able to 'engage' 1 or 2 missiles at a time and require 3 or 4 to give a high probability of killing any given cruise missile.

Which is reflected in the damage. Add then the "chaff" effect. Also, such a "flak cloud" can hope to
kill "stealth" missiles hiding in the swarm.

Again, just using more realistic scenarios and my revised rules (...)

I'll certainly grant you, using the current rules your cruise missile 'flak' carrier is certainly the best idea.
-Matt

Ados
KLM

[Malakai]

Hi there!

I'd actually like to see more use of Kinetic-Kill Missiles. The reason being that they would reasonably be far less vulnerable to counter-missile systems - it's an inert mass that relies on pure speed to do damage. I can easily see the damage needed to "destroy" one being 2x to 5x greater (since you need to effectively vaporize it instead of just rendering it inert),

I disagree. Knocking out its sensors/propulsion is enough - and those aren't less vulnerable.

Not necessarily - angle of attack for the defend pretty much relegates all attacks on the missile to, at best, the front half of the missile - which in this case is nothing but a solid mass of metal, much thicker than any normal missile. Propulsion system can be CG, and thus built into the core of the missile, giving it more effective "armor" as well. The only other point is sensors, which while still an opportunity for failure - as a whole, it has far less so than normal missiles, making it more likely to survive

Also, possible shield-penetration should also be considered, since stopping the missile will take MUCH more energy than stopping the much smaller rounds fired from GR and Rail guns.

Individually yes. Stopping (or deflecting) one such missile vs. stopping a railgun salvo... Not clearly
a harder task.

Adios
KLM

Ahhh - here we have momentum vs inertia. The greater mass - the KK missile - likely has significantly more inertia than the rail gun rounds (even taken as a whole), and has the additional trait of being self-propelled. The Problem is we have little to no information on how environmental and semi-environmental effects are handled by the FF - Does a falling person take damage?How are collisions between two bodies of significant mass handled?

Based off of what we do know, I would say that normally - with respect to railgun rounds - the FF acts as a form of energy Whipple Shield, placing an energy barrier just above the actual ship that causes the round to vaporize upon hitting it and, because of the stand-off distance (even if it's only a couple of feet) countering all of the damage. This fits a solid barrier, as implied by the Silverhawk Shield Disruptor. Now, what happens when, instead of small pellets, you have a massive torpedo, which not only is able to absorb the heat caused by the impact, but also to continue to "push" through - a very different scenario.

[azazel1024]

Possibly, but since a shield is able to absorb a missile strike (detonatting the missile), that means it is able to not only stop a much larger projectile moving at high speeds, but also then stop the fragments and splinters from the exploding projectile after it has struck the shield.

As for effectiveness a KE missile would likely need to burn most of its fuel on launch, at least if it is going to achieve a good velocity for close in KE kills. This is going to leave little maneuver capability.

Even something moving at say 10km/sec is going to have a pretty small engagement cone at say 1,000km with the kind of fuel that would likely be left for maneuvering. That's going to give a pretty big bonus to dodge for a ship unless it is hugely massive and accelerates very, very slowly. Effective ranges would need to be pretty low, probably no more then maybe 5-15sec flight time, beyond that would allow a ship to much time to be able to dodge a kinetic energy weapon.

To me this is a reason why I feel that rail gun ranges are unrealistic in 3g. Even if you use the lower end of the rule of thumb that gives you 5sec of flight time on a rail gun burst, unless those are huge rounds I'd suspect velocities are probably on the order of 3-6km/sec on a light ship mounted rail gun. That gives a range of around 15-30km, about 3 times what is listed in the books. For a heavy rail gun I'd see it firing individual rounds or maybe just a handful in a 'burst), but at much higher velocities and probably larger masses (say 200-500g projectiles). Those rounds might be traveling at maybe 15-20km/sec seeing a range on the low end of about 75-100km.
-Matt

[Esckey]

I was thinking of using the cluster cruise missile not as a defensive weapon but offensivly. Something to overwhelm the point defense systems of a ship.

[azazel1024]

It would probably work at closer ranges, but to cram a lot of missiles in the cluster missile is going to need a shorter then normal range most likely. also its submunitions are also going to likely need to be packing shorter ranges. This means that the defending ship can kill the cluster missile and its submunitions at shorter ranges then each stage is likely to be able to acheive.

If one survived to close range then, well 256 minimissiles coming in are going to be difficult to shoot down.
-Matt

[Malakai]

Possibly, but since a shield is able to absorb a missile strike (detonatting the missile), that means it is able to not only stop a much larger projectile moving at high speeds, but also then stop the fragments and splinters from the exploding projectile after it has struck the shield.

As for effectiveness a KE missile would likely need to burn most of its fuel on launch, at least if it is going to achieve a good velocity for close in KE kills. This is going to leave little maneuver capability.

Even something moving at say 10km/sec is going to have a pretty small engagement cone at say 1,000km with the kind of fuel that would likely be left for maneuvering. That's going to give a pretty big bonus to dodge for a ship unless it is hugely massive and accelerates very, very slowly. Effective ranges would need to be pretty low, probably no more then maybe 5-15sec flight time, beyond that would allow a ship to much time to be able to dodge a kinetic energy weapon.

CG-Engines = no reaction mass, and excellent maneuverability. They are already used in the given KE Missiles in Cannon. I'm just saying scaling up the damage for larger missiles - having a solid-mass Cruise Missile slamming into you at high speed should definitely hurt.

To me this is a reason why I feel that rail gun ranges are unrealistic in 3g. Even if you use the lower end of the rule of thumb that gives you 5sec of flight time on a rail gun burst, unless those are huge rounds I'd suspect velocities are probably on the order of 3-6km/sec on a light ship mounted rail gun. That gives a range of around 15-30km, about 3 times what is listed in the books. For a heavy rail gun I'd see it firing individual rounds or maybe just a handful in a 'burst), but at much higher velocities and probably larger masses (say 200-500g projectiles). Those rounds might be traveling at maybe 15-20km/sec seeing a range on the low end of about 75-100km.
-Matt

I agree - larger, single projectiles make more sense to me, as they would have better penetrating power. The only reason I can see for more numerous, smaller projectiles is that the coil gun itself uses some sort of alternating cyclic charge, so instead of waiting for capacitors to charge, it works something like a pendulum, with each pass launching another round, slowly draining from the total energy in the current.

[KLM]

Hi there!

If one survived to close range then, well 256 minimissiles coming in are going to be difficult to shoot down.
-Matt

There is one issue - namely 256 mMs do like 256*5d6 MD, which is 1280*d6 - a tad more than the dreaded
and heavily guarded singularity CRM (in DMB6, p130.).

Of course, that problem is frequently encountered in RIFTS - for example, the gun of the Silverhawk
packs a bigger punch, much lighter and the entire PA costs less than a "light laser canon" which is
tipically the heaviest weapon on a civilian ship.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Mmm, very true. I think once you start getting in to stacking damage, you have to take a more realistic view of things. Unless those 256 minimissiles are really peppering a huge area then they aren't going to do their full damage. If all 256 went off in a small area their overall damage would stack, some, but it isn't going to really be 256 times the damage of a single one (probably more like 30-50x the damage of a single missile with 4-8x the blast radius).

Though, in a truely realistic scenario hard objects wouldn't have much in the way of HP/MDC and everything would have an AR (afterall, a giant battle ship likely would shrug of any number of minimissiles without much more then scratching the paint).
-Matt

[Malakai]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that for every doubling of the explosive, you can increase the damage and the radius by a factor of one . . . . trying to remember where - at work right now, so I can't check my books - but that would then put it at 5D6x9 with either a 180 ft radius (for Fragmentation) - definitely effective for an area denial / anti-missile flak, but not necessarily going to provide complete coverage of a whole ship.


Though this does bring into possibility something else - "air-bursting"

Suppose we use such a method and send out s group of cruise missiles into a group of fighters - 16 Cruise Missiles quadruples both the area of effect and the damage - Given a radius of nearly half a mile, and a splash-damage that will fry almost assure a kill on any fighter that happens to be in the area, would this (admittedly expensive; 9.28 million, to take out possibly a whole squadron of 20+ million credit fighters) tactic ever get used?

What about single cruise missiles used to take out missile volleys - they have the damage and blast radius to assure complete kills - would you sac 2.3 million in 4 High-Yield AM cruise missiles to destroy prevent possibly 44,800 MD (average for a 32-CRM Volley of AM missiles) done to your ship? I mean, you trading each 52 credits per each MD you're countering - a more-than-fair trade. And that's using the most expensive missiles the CAF have*

Also, is a blast radius ever given for the standard cruise missiles?



*I am positing, as a given, that there is no more than 2,000 ft between the first and last missiles in the volley, since, even end on end, this leaves more than 60 ft per missile, and cruise missiles have been shown to be easily smaller than 30 ft [see Scorpion and Dragon Fang descriptions]

[Esckey]

It would probably work at closer ranges, but to cram a lot of missiles in the cluster missile is going to need a shorter then normal range most likely. also its submunitions are also going to likely need to be packing shorter ranges. This means that the defending ship can kill the cluster missile and its submunitions at shorter ranges then each stage is likely to be able to acheive.

If one survived to close range then, well 256 minimissiles coming in are going to be difficult to shoot down.
-Matt

You would only need to shorten the range of the carrier missiles and not the ordnance. The cruise missile could have a range of only 5 miles in space no big deal it is used for point defence and the only good offensive way to use them is in ambushs where you want to be close so they don't have time to react to a missil that just covered 1 mile in 1/5 of a second

[KLM]

Hi there!

Mmm, very true. I think once you start getting in to stacking damage, you have to take a more realistic view of things. Unless those 256 minimissiles are really peppering a huge area then they aren't going to do their full damage.

Actually this kind of cluster warhead would "envelope" the target, according to some of the better Robotech
scenes... So unless one expends a cruise missile on targets smaller than a frigate, the cluster warhead would
do full damage.

Though, in a truely realistic scenario hard objects wouldn't have much in the way of HP/MDC and everything would have an AR (afterall, a giant battle ship likely would shrug of any number of minimissiles without much more then scratching the paint).
-Matt

We (with a few pals) were working on a damage/vehicle design system for Rifts, in a nutshell:

A given vehicle has several hit locations, each has armor and structure MDC. Armor (might have AR) has two
data about its MDC: "total" - which could be in the billions for a Protector battleship f.ex. and "protection"
value, which represents the damage needed to bypass armor - which would be around a few thousands.

Lets say that the Protectors main laser battery has
Armor: 1 million / 5000 MDC
Structure: 5678 MDC

It suffers a hit from a Smasher cruiser - 4000 MD - which is noted against the one million
(most of the cases it will not be needed except for repair purposes) but does not exceeds
the armor's "protecton" value of 5000 MDC. A nasty scorch mark on the turret.

Later, a Flying Fang bomber spots the scorched area and launches (with a few penalties)
two cruise missiles. It hits, and causes like 1400 MDC - which is now added to the previous
4000, for a total of 5400 -> 400 MDC passed through the armor, which probably kills a few
gunners on the Protector, but unless they having an extremely bad day, the laser batter will
be on-line and firing on the next melee.

Later again, a Doombringer hits this poor laser battery again. The Doombringers' gunnery officers
are tasked hard enough (penalties, called shot) to hit the turret, so they do not bother with
aiming on the small hole. Scoring a damage of 11.000 MD form a Horn cannon shows
that they do not need it too... It passes through the 5000 MDC protection value (noted), doing
6000 MD to the "structure" (which is now 5678-400 =5278) - gutting the battery. Some lucky
gunnery crew might survive the blast, just to experience decompression.

----
Now going after this hopefully realistic (and in its current form a bit too slow) method, a cluster
warhead would do tremendous damage to the targets main armor "total" value, but only can hope to
damage the lightest point defense turrets and sensor.
An anti-ship warhead however is supposed to have a good chance to punch through armor "protection"
wherever it hits a ship and do some damage in the internals - hopefully knocking out something.

---------------

Having that said, in the current Rifts game engine, the cluster warhead does more MD than a
single big one... Which it shouldn't.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Makes some sense. As for the cluster missile doing more damage, sort of. That is my point, it shouldn't and in real life, when you are talking armor 1,000 1lb sub-munitions from a cluster bomb, even if they all blanket a tank, aren't going to penetrate the armor where as a 1,000lb bomb is going to leave little pieces scattered over several acres.

Of course this is an RPG setting, so we need to simplify it a little. Personally I'd go with something similar to what Malakai said. My idea makes it a bit more complex, but I'd do the square root of the cube of the incease. So with 256 minimissiles you'd have 8 doublings. (sqrt(8^3)) Now the cube of 8 is 512, the square root of that is 22.6. Frankly instead of rolling all that many dice, I'd just multiply, so you have 5d6x23 (round to the nearest whole multiple). The blast radius would be a simply square root of the number of missiles, so you'd do that damage to 320ft.

I'd apply this to any missile volley, mine, etc. So if your character builds a satchel charge with 16lbs of MD C4 in it I'd take the regular C4 damage for 1lb and multiply it by my forumla (which is 8 by the way). I forget the damage, but lets say it was 1d4x10 to a 10ft radius, you now have 1d4x80 to a 40ft radius for the 16lb satchel charge.

Cruise missile volleys, same thing. A volley of 80 missiles is about 6 1/2 doublings giving you 16 times the damage (rounding up) to 6 times the blast radius (its a bit less then 6.5, so round down). So 4d6x1,600 to a bit blast radius (are cruise missile blast radii listed anywhere??).

To me it makes it a bit more roleplayee instead of simply wiping a ship, character, whatever off the face of the planet with a large missile volley. A little more realistic as well.
-Matt

[KLM]

Hi there!

Makes some sense. As for the cluster missile doing more damage, sort of. That is my point, it shouldn't and in real life, when you are talking armor 1,000 1lb sub-munitions from a cluster bomb, even if they all blanket a tank, aren't going to penetrate the armor where as a 1,000lb bomb is going to leave little pieces scattered over several acres.

On the other hand, if one has to decide between a cluster bomb or a similar sized "normal" bomb hitting his
battleship...

The normal bomb probably penetrates deck armor, but odds are, that the most damage it does is
knocking out a turret or cause a fire/flooding. Not something to please Scotty, but in the 85% of the
cases the ship survives battle-ready.

A cluster bomb however will kill most flak stations, radar, radio equipment, scrap lifeboats, and maybe
even succeeds to kill some bridge crew - but has almost no chance to sink the ship.

Which one would you choose to suffer?

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

I'd hit it with a few cluster munitions to help blind/reduce defensive fire and then I'd hit it with the hard hitters.

Course that is why if you wanted a realistic system you'd need to come up with some kind of armor ratings and PV values. Probably with ARs over 20. That battleship might have an AR of 24, but the cluster munition has a PV of 2 (in this case lets say the PV is a bonus to penetrate armor). However, the 40mm flak guns, radar and radio masts, etc only have an AR of 14, that cluster munition with its '200ft' blast radius is going to sweep a large part of the ship clean other then armored things. Now that 1,000lb laser guided bomb has a PV of 10, but only a little 50ft blast radius, meaning your likely to destroy one of the gun turrets, or maybe with a lucky hit an engine or something else.

Anyway, the rules could get darned complex. Heck I think ships (in this case in a 3g sense) should have random hit tables for hits that penetrate and/or do more damage then a localized hull section has. Like say 01-85% only does hull damage and/or kills crew, but 86-90% hits a turret instead of the main hull, 91-95% hits an engine instead, etc. Also maybe if a hit does enough damage to penetrate a hull section a small chance of doing some kind of catastrophic damage, like say 01-05% something bad happens. Maybe a weapon control run is damaged sending that weapon in to local control, maybe by a freak accident the primary and secondary engine control runs are destroyed requiring a repair to get the engines working again, maybe a cruise missile magazine is hit...I hope you didn't have antimatter cruise missiles in there or else BLEWIE!
-Matt

[Aramanthus]

I really like the idea of submunitions in the larger missile. I had some ideas on a similiar line awhile back. But I never really did much with it. I might get back to it with some of the ideas presented here.

[Metathiax]

I like the sub munitions as well although maybe just cramming a cruse missile with micro missiles would be as effective.

New(er) idea

TW missiles enchanted with the Invisibility to sensors spell from Merc adventures. By my estimation it would make them almost untarget able except by fighter pilots and living gunners that were using optical sights to target incoming missiles,(no radar, or gravity wave sensors) and in the 3 galaxies that seems rare.

[KLM]

I like the sub munitions as well although maybe just cramming a cruse missile with micro missiles would be as effective.

Maybe. But micro missiles do not have blast radius - ie. they are not suitable for the "hard kill chaff/flare" role.

However, if one can individually lock an incoming missile-salvo and distribute the micro-missiles among the
targets... ("random missile assault" in DMB3, pg 107 does something like that, however it is not useable for
micros)

New(er) idea

TW missiles enchanted with the Invisibility to sensors spell from Merc adventures. By my estimation it would make them almost untarget able except by fighter pilots and living gunners that were using optical sights to target incoming missiles,(no radar, or gravity wave sensors) and in the 3 galaxies that seems rare.

Invisibility superior does just like that and it makes the subject invisible to the good old MkI Eyeball too. But it would work.

However, as soon as it becomes a widespread problem, major fleets will install magical or psionic
"detect invisibility" sensors. Or something based on Phase technology.

------------------
IMO such "action-reaction" sequences in space warfare, especially in magical/psionic warfare took place
a rather long time ago in the 3Galaxies. Frankly, I do not have "Fleets", so I cannot check if something along
these lines are in it. Or aren't.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Okay, my memory is probably going, but I thought invisibility superior ended the instant you took a hostile action against someone? IE your are invisibile, raise your gun to shoot someone and poof your visible again.

If so, then the invisibilty superior should drop the instant the missile is launched at a target. Invisibility simple isn't effective against much other then the MkI eyeball.
-Matt

[Esckey]

If you launch it in the general direction of the target it should remain invisible. Until it opens the doors and fires off the rest of the missiles(if its the carrier version) or until it gets close enough that the missile posses a threat to the target(How far away that is depends on the GM).



I figure with Invisiblity Superior on you could just punch the air and it wouldn't cancel it, till you actually become a threat to someone

[KLM]

If so, then the invisibilty superior should drop the instant the missile is launched at a target. (...)
-Matt

Disagree - more like when terminal guidance kicks in. And that is "point blank range".

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Terminal guidance is a lot further out then you'd think. Even if that would be the case and I can see the argument for that, then the missile would still become visible several miles out. Short reaction time, but not insurmountable for a good close in defense weapon.

Here's my thing, invisibility superior would deffinitely drop on say a ship the instant it fired on another ship (beam or missile weapon). Heck you could argue activating targetting systems would do this as well. Why not with a missile as soon as it arms its warhead??? Its a threat at that point to someone. Maybe a stray space gull flies in to the path, it was a threat to the space gull. Generally the warhead arms a short distance from the launching ship (in the case of missile, bombs and torpedoes in real life).

I know an example given with invisibilty superior is aiming a weapon at another person (such as aiming a gun) that the person would become visible. To me 'aiming' your weapons (IE turning on the targetting systems) on your ship would make the ship visible. That to me corresponds with a missile with the warhead arming or any kind of built in sensors locking on.
-Matt

[KLM]

Terminal guidance is a lot further out then you'd think. Even if that would be the case and I can see the argument for that, then the missile would still become visible several miles out. Short reaction time, but not insurmountable for a good close in defense weapon.

Yepp, but when calculating penalties keep in mind, that point defense usually has time to calculate a firing solution
way before the incoming missile enters its effective range.
Even when spaceships lumber to a few miles of point blank ranges, as the 3G books suggest, PD turrets are aimed
on their missile bays - not in the case of an invisible missile. Still, worth a try, of course.

(As a side note, most warships, over a given size, IMO have onboard psykers, maybe the psilite-based sensor
mimicking 6th sense - every action has a reaction, and this arms race has a longer history in the 3Galaxies than
any on our beloved mudball.)

Here's my thing, invisibility superior would deffinitely drop on say a ship the instant it fired on another ship (beam or missile weapon). Heck you could argue activating targetting systems would do this as well. Why not with a missile as soon as it arms its warhead??? Its a threat at that point to someone.

Like pulling out a sword or loading/switching off the safety of a firearm would cancel I:S for an infantryman?
Not likely IMO

Maybe a stray space gull flies in to the path, it was a threat to the space gull. Generally the warhead arms a short distance from the launching ship (in the case of missile, bombs and torpedoes in real life).

Generally, but not always. Nukes arm themselves near the target only. Also, it can be programmed.

Not to mention, that certain warheads do not need arming - they can only be set off by the trigger.
Same for "kinetic kill" missiles.

I know an example given with invisibilty superior is aiming a weapon at another person (such as aiming a gun) that the person would become visible.

Huhh? Where? Also, it would cancel most of the effectiveness of the spell. Also, it could be argued that
"I only use the gun scope to have a better look on the... err... guy, and the laser targeting for guessing
its distance. I even keep my finger away from the trigger."

To me 'aiming' your weapons (IE turning on the targetting systems) on your ship would make the ship visible. That to me corresponds with a missile with the warhead arming or any kind of built in sensors locking on.
-Matt

Arming of the warhead is equal of pulling a sword - IMO does not cancel I:S.
Locking on happens only in the terminal guidance phase - covered above.
-------------------------------------------------

As a reminder: we hopefully do this exchange of views so that some GM can compared the arguments
and decide, whatever he wants in his campaign.

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

Oh certainly, up to the GM what counts. I'll have to find the reference, but I think it was in the original Rifts main book on the description of invisibilty superior when discussing that IS drops the moment a hostile action is commenced/intended.

I can see it not dropping if targetting systems are activated, maybe, but its different taking the safety off your rifle then it is aiming and preparing to shoot someone. Targetting systems activated is the equivelent of aiming your gun at someone.

As for using your scope to look at people, its the intent that counts, not what you are actually doing. If your using the targetting sensors to get a better scan on something I don't see that causing IS to drop, but if you are activating them because you are trying to get a missile solution, then it would cause IS to drop.

At least in my games. Magic isn't as straight forward as physics. There is some magical god out there peering over your shoulder figuring out exactly what it is your trying to do and pulling the magical invisibilty rug out from under you the moment it knows you really intend something harmful to happen.
-Matt

[Jefffar]

There are invisible weapons in the books - and they can be seen by those with see the invisible. By the book rules See Invisible can't penetrate Invisibility Superior. If magic weapons could be made that see the invisible didn't work on (ie invisibility superior) they probably would have. So I'd say you can't put Invisibility Superior on a weapon.

[KLM]

Oh certainly, up to the GM what counts. I'll have to find the reference, but I think it was in the original Rifts main book on the description of invisibilty superior when discussing that IS drops the moment a hostile action is commenced/intended.

That is right. However aiming, drawing/loading a weapon is not mentioned.

As a reminder, the above mentioned space gull falls under the category of "accidentally bumping someone", which
mentioned as NOT dropping I:S.

I can see it not dropping if targetting systems are activated, maybe, but its different taking the safety off your rifle then it is aiming and preparing to shoot someone. Targetting systems activated is the equivelent of aiming your gun at someone.

As for using your scope to look at people, its the intent that counts, not what you are actually doing. If your using the targetting sensors to get a better scan on something I don't see that causing IS to drop, but if you are activating them because you are trying to get a missile solution, then it would cause IS to drop.

Mind you: it was not the launching vessel, which was invisible. It was the missile, travelling on its inertial guidance,
towards a point in space, without activating its sensors.

At least in my games. Magic isn't as straight forward as physics. There is some magical god out there peering over your shoulder figuring out exactly what it is your trying to do and pulling the magical invisibilty rug out from under you the moment it knows you really intend something harmful to happen.
-Matt

Well, actually it is the intent of the wizard, that counts. And there are reasons that for the techno-wizard, who
enchanted the missile, only the terminal guidance stage counts as "hostile action". A bit like pulling a sword,
sneak up on someone, even raising the sword does not cancel I:S. Bringing it down is the moment of truth.

Technically the moment you roll to hit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the book rules See Invisible can't penetrate Invisibility Superior.

Not in my RMB, nor in my RUE. Not even in the Book of Magic. So, what book?

Adios
KLM

[Jefffar]

RUE Page 213

"A powerful incantation that makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection."

Key word is all. It doesn't say all except See the Invisible.

[KLM]

RUE Page 213

"A powerful incantation that makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection."

Key word is all. It doesn't say all except See the Invisible.

And then the "See the invisible" sees all invisible things, and I:S is not mentioned.

So, it is the "all piercing sword vs. unpenetratable shield"?

Adios
KLM

[azazel1024]

My money is on the impenetrable pun.

I am on see invisible working right through I:S
-Matt

[KLM]

Hi there!

I am on see invisible working right through I:S
-Matt

In this case I agree. It is "just" a seventh level spell - it would be just too powerfull.

Back to missiles:
I:S, Time Slip, Teleport:Lesser are good means to get a salvo of missiles into point blank range, thus
greatly enhancing the chance of a hit.

Adios
KLM

[Jefffar]

Hi there!

I am on see invisible working right through I:S
-Matt

In this case I agree. It is "just" a seventh level spell - it would be just too powerfull.

Yes, however See the Invisible is only a 1st level spell - which of the two should be more powerful?

Not agreeing - but this was the argument we had in my group.

and Invisibility Superior now trumps See the Invisible.

[Qev]

I was just thinking, for point-defense/interceptor missiles, instead of cluster munitions and suchlike, why not replace the warhead with an overdriven forcefield generator? The interceptor missile gets fired at an incoming missile, and when it gets close it fires off the forcefield generator at enormous power. This almost immediately burns out the generator, but in the fraction of a second it survives, it generates a large radius forcefield disk with which the hostile munitions collide and are destroyed. You'd probably get one serious bonus to hit with something like that.

[KLM]

I was just thinking, for point-defense/interceptor missiles, instead of cluster munitions and suchlike, why not replace the warhead with an overdriven forcefield generator? The interceptor missile gets fired at an incoming missile, and when it gets close it fires off the forcefield generator at enormous power. This almost immediately burns out the generator, but in the fraction of a second it survives, it generates a large radius forcefield disk with which the hostile munitions collide and are destroyed. You'd probably get one serious bonus to hit with something like that.

A cluster warhead is way easier technologically, plus can be used offensively...

But otherwise, the idea looks like something workable. Maybe a bit of tinkering with damage and the area of effect is needed.

Adios
KLM

[Metathiax]

Ok back to the Inviable missiles the reason I used Invisible to sensors rather the inviability superior is

A. thinks in space move to quick and you need sensors to see though them.
B. the missile would be invisible to sensors until it hit as that spell has no reference to it dropping when you attack.
C. Lower Level spell cheaper to enchant.

That being said, Invisibility Superior should be detectable by see the inviable as should be Invisibility to sensors but unless the sensors are enchanted with the spell it won't help the ship against the missiles as in space without sensors your blind.