Missile Ranges in the shows

[slade the sniper]

Is there any better ranges in other material for missile weapons (and really any weapon ranges, but missiles specifically) than those in the game? The missile ranges seem rather short for space combat...

Thanks in advance.

-STS

[Tiree]

The ranges do double or is it triple in space.

[tobefrnk]

The ranges do double or is it triple in space.

Doubled is implied through a number of sources. Although triple cold easily be integrated too if the GM desires.

[ShadowLogan]

Is there any better ranges in other material for missile weapons (and really any weapon ranges, but missiles specifically) than those in the game? The missile ranges seem rather short for space combat...

Thanks in advance.

-STS

Well Real World missiles (or equivalent systems for projectile weapons) would be one approach to reclassifying the range, find out what real world considers "short", "long", "medium" for fighters and such and just plug those values in as replacements.

Several things to keep in mind though:
-in reality the missile's propulsion system isn't going to get some range boost from being fired in space, the missiles velocity won't change much (contrary to what Palladium states). The missile could burn-and-coast to increase physical distance travelled though (throttle on-off for a pure solid fuel propulsion isn't possible, and that is likely what missiles are using)
-in actual practice you could increase the distance travelled of the missile IF you factor in the launch platforms speed and recalculate the distance travelled since multi-stage rockets work because when they separate from the prior stage they get to keep (most of) the speed they gained. The same basically applies here. However that can get bog things down, so you might want to just make a table/graph with the PB missiles to show the range change as their launch platform's speed increases
-range for palladium weapons is more about the effective targeting range than how far the attack will actually reach (at least for non-missiles), so for non-missiles you could treat them as range increments (with each increment reducing accuracy and damage)

[drewkitty ~..~]

In the AU:GG text concerning about missile ranges there is a note that the atmo range is half that of those in space.
Yes, they mean to cut the stated range in half in atmo rather then double them for space, cause it looks like they were intending to be talking about missiles built to be used in space.(The context of the text is of ship to ship weapons.)

However, looking at things in RW perspective, missiles built for use in atmo can not maneuver in space because their controlling fins have no air to push against to change course. As such they end up being point and shoot rockets rather then missiles.
And Missiles built for space will not have any wing surfaces to be able to maintain course and altitude. So the cut in ranges look to be on par for what the text was intending to mean.

[glitterboy2098]

Several things to keep in mind though:
-in reality the missile's propulsion system isn't going to get some range boost from being fired in space, the missiles velocity won't change much (contrary to what Palladium states). The missile could burn-and-coast to increase physical distance travelled though (throttle on-off for a pure solid fuel propulsion isn't possible, and that is likely what missiles are using)

more or less true.. the same rockets fired in vacuum ought to impart a bit better velocity because of the lack of friction from air, but i'm not sure by how much.

and there is a solid fuel rocket type that could do throttle and on/off.. Hybrid rockets where the fuel is solid but there is a liquid or gas oxidizer. (like nitrous oxide). i doubt they'd be common though.

i would say however the really big missiles, like the anti-ship torpedoes, probably use small simplified versions of the plasma or fusion drive systems aboard space fighters and starships.

-in actual practice you could increase the distance travelled of the missile IF you factor in the launch platforms speed and recalculate the distance travelled since multi-stage rockets work because when they separate from the prior stage they get to keep (most of) the speed they gained. The same basically applies here. However that can get bog things down, so you might want to just make a table/graph with the PB missiles to show the range change as their launch platform's speed increases

adjusting range this way is incredibly annoying though, due to all the math. if someone wants to crunch the numbers to create a "rule of thumb" guide it would help.
my own tendency is just to add the missile's speed to the firing vehicle's speed (if it is more than mach 1), but only for figuring out how fast it covers the distance.. i don;t touch the range. it is easier to figure out how much ground a given speed can cross in a 15 second period, than it is to decide how long the weapons can stay active and calculate a new range each time you fire.

-range for palladium weapons is more about the effective targeting range than how far the attack will actually reach (at least for non-missiles), so for non-missiles you could treat them as range increments (with each increment reducing accuracy and damage)

this is my suggestion as well. though i'd only reduce accuracy.. the ranges PB uses generally aren't big enough to effect damage any, but longer ranges would mean more complex calculations for leading the target and such, as well as more time for the target's own actions to effect things, so reduced accuracy makes sense.

if you don't want to deal with calculating the penalties based on range brackets, you could also just have a "bombardment mode" or something with a fixed range for different broad classes of weapons and a stiff but flat penalty for when firing those weapons beyond their listed ranges.

In the AU:GG text concerning about missile ranges there is a note that the atmo range is half that of those in space.
Yes, they mean to cut the stated range in half in atmo rather then double them for space, cause it looks like they were intending to be talking about missiles built to be used in space.(The context of the text is of ship to ship weapons.)

However, looking at things in RW perspective, missiles built for use in atmo can not maneuver in space because their controlling fins have no air to push against to change course. As such they end up being point and shoot rockets rather then missiles.
And Missiles built for space will not have any wing surfaces to be able to maintain course and altitude. So the cut in ranges look to be on par for what the text was intending to mean.

well, the visuals in robotech almost always show missiles without fins, even on the ground units and atmospheric aircraft, so odds are the standard missiles in robotech are space missiles using thrusters. thrusters will still work in atmosphere (several groups IRL are trying to develop thruster steered missiles for fighter use, because they can be more agile than the fin steered types.. useful when combined with the off-axis targeting helmet sights and such of many advanced fighters today, as well as countering the high agility of many more modern light fighters.

in robotech they seem to be optimized for space use (makes sense, given the setting) so them working better in space makes some sense.

[ShadowLogan]

However, looking at things in RW perspective, missiles built for use in atmo can not maneuver in space because their controlling fins have no air to push against to change course. As such they end up being point and shoot rockets rather then missiles.
And Missiles built for space will not have any wing surfaces to be able to maintain course and altitude. So the cut in ranges look to be on par for what the text was intending to mean.

Which is basically a moot point for RT since we know missiles in RT operate in both space and atmosphere w/o any known issues. So these are multi-environment missiles. In all likely hood the missiles would use thrust vectoring or some other steering mechanism.

more or less true.. the same rockets fired in vacuum ought to impart a bit better velocity because of the lack of friction from air, but i'm not sure by how much.

True, but practically for solid fuel systems (and near term chemical systems) aren't going to yield a major change in velocity like that from operating between vacuum and sea level air pressure. The SSME's (liquid fuel) get about 23% better delta-v (and Isp) at vacuum than sea level (assuming identical generic Pre- and Post- mass), so if you know the difference in Isp between vac and sea level is (all other things being equal in the math) what it works out to in terms of delta-V. That value though can change from engine to engine (and engine type) give the J-2 (Saturn V) has a vac to SL ratio of ~2.1:1sec (~110% better) but the F-1 (Saturn V) has a ratio of ~1.15:1 (~15% better) as an example. So there is no "easy" fix.

Vac/SL Isp stats for the Shuttle's SRB and the Delta II solid strap-ons. Their Vac/SL Isp ratio both is approx. 1.1:1 or about 10% better, which given these are solid systems are likely more applicable than the liquids above.

Edit: found the Solids data and added it, and adjusted the ratio statements for formatting (and clarity)

and there is a solid fuel rocket type that could do throttle and on/off.. Hybrid rockets where the fuel is solid but there is a liquid or gas oxidizer. (like nitrous oxide). i doubt they'd be common though.

True there are hybrid rockets, but that is not exactly a "pure solid fuel propulsion" system either. Given the complexities of the hybrid rocket, I would think that the military would stick to solids due to a host of factors.

if someone wants to crunch the numbers to create a "rule of thumb" guide it would help.

I have crunched the numbers a while ago in a spreadsheet. It really wouldn't be that hard to setup, one would just have to decide on what they want as speed increments because I don't recall being able to put it into a rule of thumb since each missile range/warhead type yields a different value though each increment on the missiles looks (at a glance) to be fairly uniform in how much it increases over the value from the previous increment (treating the book listed value as zero speed).

[slade the sniper]

Because I lost (somehow...) Robotech Art 1, 2 & 3...was any of this sort of info (weapon ranges) available in those books?

-STS

[drewkitty ~..~]

Because I lost (somehow...) Robotech Art 1, 2 & 3...was any of this sort of info (weapon ranges) available in those books?

-STS

The only RT artbook that has any stats in it is the Shadow Chronicles artbook. And those were not game stats.

[Jefffar]

In the show we don't see a lot of BVR missile shots, though this is mostly for dramatic purposes. We don't see a lot of long range shots with autocannon either.

[jaymz]

Slade - I PM'd you.

[Duster]

In my games I handle the velocity of missiles fired in space in one of two ways, and the range of said missile as a single constant.

Maximum Range is a predetermined value set at the factory (the listed book stat) to allow for the firing platform's fire-control system to provide a firing solution. These missiles have a self-destruct system built into them to limit the incidence of running into a "burned-out" weapon in space, and minimize the occurance of collateral damage from missiles "falling from the sky" after missing their target. I do allow Ordinance Techs (and characters with the appropriate skills) to disable this system as needed.

As for velocity, I use two simple systems:

Stationary firing platforms (satellites, stations, etc.) use the listed "Space" stats (usually x2 the listed atmospheric velocity) to allow for any increase from the frictionless environment (and to avoid the "but the book says" arguments).

Mobile firing platforms (fighters, ships, small craft, etc.) simply add the firing platform's relative velocity to the missile's listed atmospheric velocity.

Other weapons used in space:

Projectile weapons do not lose any appreciable velocity in space, so their actual range is effectively without limit (ignoring eventual interactions with gravity wells) and therefor will hit just as hard at "point-blank" as they will at a few thousand kilometers. However, the EFFECTIVE range is still restricted by the fire control system's ability to provide a "ballistic" firing solution, hence the listed range stats are used for the shot.

Energy weapons are more difficult. Smarter folks than I am can discuss all the science and math, but I simply use the listed "space" range for the weapon (again, as a limitation of the fire control system). Outside this range the weapon will still do damage, but it is reduced due to attenuation of the beam/pulse. For simplicity, I just half the damage for each "range bracket". The "range brackets" are determined by the weapon's listed range and are constant until the beam/pulse reaches zero damage due to this attenuation. Example: A weapon causes 100 MD with a range of 4000ft. The range brackets are each 4000ft. From 4001' to 8000', the damage is 50. From 8001' to 12000', the damage is 25, and so on until the beam/pulse has attenuated to nothing more damaging than a bright flashlight (if the beam/pulse is visible at all - at topic for another discussion).

Some of you can brutalize my figuring and lack of scientific method all you want (my specialty is optics and fire control systems), but this is how I have been handling weapons fire inn space for decades and it has done me good (it's even got a couple of my own pilots shot up in games past).

[ShadowLogan]

These missiles have a self-destruct system built into them to limit the incidence of running into a "burned-out" weapon in space, and minimize the occurance of collateral damage from missiles "falling from the sky" after missing their target.

Not a good idea actually. If the missile self destructs you've essentially created a hazard of debris someone is going to have to fly through eventually (some orbits will be low enough that atmospheric friction will "cleanup" the mess in time).

A few years back (2007) there was some fallout on China for testing an Anti-Satellite Weapon in orbit because of the hazardous space junk it created. The China and US one are Kinetic Kill Missiles, but there was concern over the resulting debris generated by the target satellite (so an exploding missile will likely also generate some concern, especially if you are deploying so many in any given engagement zone).