Long Range Missiles, a question of scale?

[Pouncer]

I've been working on material for the space section of my group's upcoming rotation to Robotech and while working on the spacecraft I notice that there are two totally different scales of the long range missiles.

Now we know that the simplified aspects of Mini, SRM, MRM and LRM missiles are for the purpose of the RPG and since that makes it easier to work within the game it works well enough for me not to complain until we get to the spacecraft.

Taking a quick look through my RT disks and SC it's easily noticable that the missiles fired by the big ships are a Definitely a measure of scale larger than the "standard" LRMs used by the veritechs. The Icarus firing it's missiles in SC presents a really good example of this.

So, being me, I've been looking into ways to integrate bigger LRMs into my campaign without breaking the game.

I have a couple of ideas here, none of which are mutually exclusive. They could all be options for different fire missions.

1. Same face, longer legs. Has the same warhead and damage as the regular LRM but has double (or more) the base range of the standard. Definitely a long range space weapon.

2. Same legs, uglier face. Carries a bigger warhead doing twice the damage but the added mass means that even with the bigger body it only has same base range of the original LRM.

3. The ugly comprimise. Give it 50% better range and damage. Not too much thought here, just a comprimise and my least favorite idea.

4. The party package. A multi-warhead with more warheads, say around 12 or so. Since the Pal system doesn't really work as well with "sander" and "crit seeker" weapons these would be anti-fighter weapons for clearing mass formations firing with the missile scatter rules. Maybe extend range by 50%.

Your thoughts?

-POUNCER

[ShadowLogan]

By the Book these are just over-sized LRMs as far as capability goes (Range/Damage) going off the Tri-star/Arblast/ARMD. Though some of them should really fall in the Mega-Range Missile capacity (or LRM w/Mega warhead) that have greater range and stopping power.

Palladium just does not do scale very well in damage dealt/absorbed.

[Pouncer]

By the Book these are just over-sized LRMs as far as capability goes (Range/Damage) going off the Tri-star/Arblast/ARMD. Though some of them should really fall in the Mega-Range Missile capacity (or LRM w/Mega warhead) that have greater range and stopping power.

Palladium just does not do scale very well in damage dealt/absorbed.

Agreed. My preference at the moment would be the doubled range option, keeping things relatively simple.

-POUNCER

[Jefffar]

I dislike the categorization by range and warhead to be honest. They should do a sort by size and then have capabilities based on missile type.

For example, a light anti-aircraft missile would be longer ranged and faster flying than a light anti-tank missile, but the light anti-tank missile would hit far harder. A medium anti-aircraft missile would have a far longer range than a light anti-aircraft missile, but not hit that much harder than the light version. The medium anti-tank missile will pack a lot more warhead power than the light version of the missile, but still be very short ranged compared to even the light anti-aircraft missile. Seekers would be slightly different too, with the anti-aircraft missile being most accurate against flying targets and the anti-tank missile having problems with flying targets.

[Sgt Anjay]

So something like Air-to-Air (Light/Medium/Heavy), Surface-to-Air (Light/Medium/Heavy), Surface-to-Surface/Anti-Armor (Light/Medium/Heavy), and so forth?

Maybe have a Super-heavy qualification for exceptional warheads like nuclear, reflex, proton torpedo?

Possibly have an Anti-Ship category? Give it and Surface-to-Surface an extra qualification for the biggest missiles called Silo-Launched, so it would go Light/Medium/Heavy/Super-heavy/Silo-Launched, or make Silo-Launched a category of its own? Just spit-balling here.

[Seto Kaiba]

Now we know that the simplified aspects of Mini, SRM, MRM and LRM missiles are for the purpose of the RPG and since that makes it easier to work within the game it works well enough for me not to complain until we get to the spacecraft. [...]

My take, based on the animation and the OSM would be to divide the ship-based missiles into three broad categories:

• Air-to-Air Intercept... basically a fighter LRM with, possibly, slightly longer range. This is the VLS anti-fighter defensive missiles on the small ships like the Icarus and the post-retrofit Garfish-class.
• Light Anti-Ship... the small, (comparatively) low-yield warheads used by the smaller UEEF warships like the Garfish-class's forward facing launchers, probably 2-3x the range of regular LRMs with maybe 5x the damage of a fighter carried reflex LRM.
• Heavy Anti-Ship... those huge, ICBM-sized anti-warship missiles fired by the ARMDs and Oberth destroyers. Easily 5-20x the damage (variable) and 20x the range of a reflex LRM per RAW.

Then again, what the RPG considers a LRM really is a separate class of fighter-carried anti-ship missiles, while the regular LRMs on the VF-1 were literally a stretched version of the MRM with the same warhead but greater range.

[glitterboy2098]

I've been working on material for the space section of my group's upcoming rotation to Robotech and while working on the spacecraft I notice that there are two totally different scales of the long range missiles.
Now we know that the simplified aspects of Mini, SRM, MRM and LRM missiles are for the purpose of the RPG and since that makes it easier to work within the game it works well enough for me not to complain until we get to the spacecraft.
Taking a quick look through my RT disks and SC it's easily noticable that the missiles fired by the big ships are a Definitely a measure of scale larger than the "standard" LRMs used by the veritechs. The Icarus firing it's missiles in SC presents a really good example of this.
So, being me, I've been looking into ways to integrate bigger LRMs into my campaign without breaking the game.

my self i've generally taken the simplest option.. the stats are the same more or less, but the ship missiles tend to be bigger because they've been made with designs that are far more robust.. they require less maintenance and special storage, something you' want when you have a bunch of them sitting in racks in the magazines for long periods.. you can't really pull them for preventative maintenance and inspections as easily as you can fighter missiles sitting in a storage bay. fighter missiles tend to have the less bulky but less robust electronics, drives, and so on.. unless stored in a completely inert environment with all the really critical parts pulled, they need constant check ups and preventative maintenance to insure they'll work right.

[Pouncer]

My take, based on the animation and the OSM would be to divide the ship-based missiles into three broad categories:

• Air-to-Air Intercept... basically a fighter LRM with, possibly, slightly longer range. This is the VLS anti-fighter defensive missiles on the small ships like the Icarus and the post-retrofit Garfish-class.
• Light Anti-Ship... the small, (comparatively) low-yield warheads used by the smaller UEEF warships like the Garfish-class's forward facing launchers, probably 2-3x the range of regular LRMs with maybe 5x the damage of a fighter carried reflex LRM.
• Heavy Anti-Ship... those huge, ICBM-sized anti-warship missiles fired by the ARMDs and Oberth destroyers. Easily 5-20x the damage (variable) and 20x the range of a reflex LRM per RAW.

Then again, what the RPG considers a LRM really is a separate class of fighter-carried anti-ship missiles, while the regular LRMs on the VF-1 were literally a stretched version of the MRM with the same warhead but greater range.

Basically many of the considerations I'm talking about. One of the ideas I'd had was the block 2 Garfish's spinal launchers being used for anti-fighter missiles, most likly the multi-warhead missiles.

Your second 2 catagories are quite on, though I was thinking, to keep things relatively simple having only one new catagory of missiles. I'm actually trying to avoid my little "photon torpedoes on the SDF-3" incident from first editon. Here's a thought, the more advanced later generation missiles carried by the Garfish roughly match the performance of the giant missiles from the first generation ships.

-POUNCER

[Pouncer]

I dislike the categorization by range and warhead to be honest. They should do a sort by size and then have capabilities based on missile type.

For example, a light anti-aircraft missile would be longer ranged and faster flying than a light anti-tank missile, but the light anti-tank missile would hit far harder. A medium anti-aircraft missile would have a far longer range than a light anti-aircraft missile, but not hit that much harder than the light version. The medium anti-tank missile will pack a lot more warhead power than the light version of the missile, but still be very short ranged compared to even the light anti-aircraft missile. Seekers would be slightly different too, with the anti-aircraft missile being most accurate against flying targets and the anti-tank missile having problems with flying targets.

To some degree the RPG does this, but in a very suble way rather than what we have in the real world with our highly specialized missiles. I don't want to make things quite that complex, I'm still going with the idea that by the time of the REF they'd developed "hybrid" missiles to keep things easier to stock while in space.

-POUNCER

[Jefffar]

So something like Air-to-Air (Light/Medium/Heavy), Surface-to-Air (Light/Medium/Heavy), Surface-to-Surface/Anti-Armor (Light/Medium/Heavy), and so forth?

Maybe have a Super-heavy qualification for exceptional warheads like nuclear, reflex, proton torpedo?

Possibly have an Anti-Ship category? Give it and Surface-to-Surface an extra qualification for the biggest missiles called Silo-Launched, so it would go Light/Medium/Heavy/Super-heavy/Silo-Launched, or make Silo-Launched a category of its own? Just spit-balling here.

Pretty much the way I would expand it.

[Seto Kaiba]

One of the ideas I'd had was the block 2 Garfish's spinal launchers being used for anti-fighter missiles, most likly the multi-warhead missiles.

That'd be well-precedented... the one time we see a RTSC ship firing dorsal VLS missiles was in an anti-fighter capacity against a Haydonite fighter group. However, they seemed to be the regular single-warhead type.

Here's a thought, the more advanced later generation missiles carried by the Garfish roughly match the performance of the giant missiles from the first generation ships.

Eh... I wouldn't, but then I'm usually inclined to follow the OSM as closely as possible. The missiles on the Oberth-class and ARMDs are freaking colossal compared to the ones a Garfish-class ship fires. We're not talking 2 or 3x... we're talking a missile that's almost 1/4 the size of the Garfish itself... which, to put it in perspective, means about twice as large as a high-speed rail car... which is being compared to a missile roughly the size of two or three large garbage cans set end to end. I doubt they'd even be built for the same role... the UEEF seems to have given up on the long ranged warfare of earlier generations.

To some degree the RPG does this, but in a very suble way rather than what we have in the real world with our highly specialized missiles.

Thoroughly justified by the source material... wherein the line between various classes of conventional foe largely no longer apply, so one-missile-'splodes-all seems to have been the option of choice. From the Macross OSM, even the guidance systems are a hybrid of multiple technologies. It also simplifies the missile table a fair bit, since many times SRM, MRM, and/or LRM are the same warhead on different motors.

[sirkermittsg]

my self i've generally taken the simplest option.. the stats are the same more or less, but the ship missiles tend to be bigger because they've been made with designs that are far more robust.. they require less maintenance and special storage, something you' want when you have a bunch of them sitting in racks in the magazines for long periods.. you can't really pull them for preventative maintenance and inspections as easily as you can fighter missiles sitting in a storage bay. fighter missiles tend to have the less bulky but less robust electronics, drives, and so on.. unless stored in a completely inert environment with all the really critical parts pulled, they need constant check ups and preventative maintenance to insure they'll work right.

this makes total sense. though I would still think longer ranges are possible. remember that in space you fire an engine and you keep traveling in that direction until you fire the engine in the opposite direction.

this does open up a can of worms in that we must regularly check our munitions. thanks for giving our characters extra work to earn exp with.

[Pouncer]

Here's a thought, the more advanced later generation missiles carried by the Garfish roughly match the performance of the giant missiles from the first generation ships.

Eh... I wouldn't, but then I'm usually inclined to follow the OSM as closely as possible. The missiles on the Oberth-class and ARMDs are freaking colossal compared to the ones a Garfish-class ship fires. We're not talking 2 or 3x... we're talking a missile that's almost 1/4 the size of the Garfish itself... which, to put it in perspective, means about twice as large as a high-speed rail car... which is being compared to a missile roughly the size of two or three large garbage cans set end to end. I doubt they'd even be built for the same role... the UEEF seems to have given up on the long ranged warfare of earlier generations.

Here's a thought, perhaps the size of the missiles was their own worst enemy durring the first war. Since many of those missiles were roughly the size of shuttles they would have been easy targets for anti-fighter defenses and intercepting mecha. This may have caused such missiles to fall into disuse in the later generations as smaller, though still bigger than LRM, missiles were harder to hit.

To some degree the RPG does this, but in a very suble way rather than what we have in the real world with our highly specialized missiles.

Thoroughly justified by the source material... wherein the line between various classes of conventional foe largely no longer apply, so one-missile-'splodes-all seems to have been the option of choice. From the Macross OSM, even the guidance systems are a hybrid of multiple technologies. It also simplifies the missile table a fair bit, since many times SRM, MRM, and/or LRM are the same warhead on different motors.

That's gotta be a necessity for weapons used by the REF, specialization would take up too much cargo capacity. In our world we're already looking at concept systems that would match the targetting abillities of RT's missiles. Still a ways to go though.

I did like the abillity of the Shadow Alpha's, and their missiles, to switch to optical targetting in Chronicles, it would make sense when so many space phenomena might interfere with EM targetting.

-POUNCER

[Seto Kaiba]

Here's a thought, perhaps the size of the missiles was their own worst enemy durring the first war. [...]

The size of the missiles doesn't seem to have ever been an issue in the show... or in any of Macross's sequels. Robotech goes even bigger with the Neutron S missiles... for ships, it appears that they largely just went in for a near-pure beam approach. Only the tiny ships seem to have missile launchers at all... like the Shimakaze or Garfish, and those never get used.

That's gotta be a necessity for weapons used by the REF, specialization would take up too much cargo capacity. [...]

Probably also the reason they're not using the building-sized anti-ship missiles anymore.

I did like the abillity of the Shadow Alpha's, and their missiles, to switch to optical targetting in Chronicles, [...]

That seemed to require either specialized new missiles or some hardware that was only found on the Super SF, since they never switch to a different targeting style on the fly in RTSC.

[Jefffar]

There are existing missiles with Multi-mode seekers. Nothing indicates the UEEF doesn't use these.

[glitterboy2098]

There are existing missiles with Multi-mode seekers. Nothing indicates the UEEF doesn't use these.

well, real world ones tend to be variations on a theme, but efforts in that area are ongoing.
the AMRAAM and it's descendants and imitators for example have a passive Antiradiation homing mode letting it home in on its target's radar and radio signals. it even switches to this mode if it loses its own internal radar lock.
most missiles today also have a wireless datalink ability, letting the firing unit feed targeting corrections to the missile after firing, including ones drawn from alternate sensor types on the fighter. (for example, it is not uncommon now to use a IRIS thermal targeting camera system to target radar guided medium and long range missiles so that the missiles radar and the fighter radar is unneeded. doctrine wise this is on the rise due to the advent of stealth aircraft)

personally i suspect that the "optical targeting" used by the Super Shadow Fighters in RTtSC is some variation this kind of inflight commande guidance.. letting the optical sensors of the fighter direct missiles that otherwise would be unable to detect targets.


there is also the T3 "Triple Target Terminator" project, which is an effort being funded by DARPA to develop a single missile capable of being a Long Range air to air missile, air to ground missile, and point defense missile. personally i suspect that if it works out, we'd see the same principle applied to Medium and Short range missiles today.

[Seto Kaiba]

There are existing missiles with Multi-mode seekers. Nothing indicates the UEEF doesn't use these.

Those still tend to be pretty specialized... and the UEEF seems to come up dry for alternate guidance when their radar-guidance was a no go against the Haydonites...

[jaymz]

I completely recategorized the Missile table.

Air to Air (or Space to Space as the case may be)
Air to Surface
Surface to Surface
Surface to Air
Micro (for robotech/macross use)
Mini
Bombs
Torpedoes
Warheads (special purpose IE cruise missiles, ICBMs etc)

[ArmySGT.]

I completely recategorized the Missile table.

Air to Air (or Space to Space as the case may be)
Air to Surface
Surface to Surface
Surface to Air
Micro (for robotech/macross use)
Mini
Bombs
Torpedoes
Warheads (special purpose IE cruise missiles, ICBMs etc)

Anti Armor (HEAT works differently than HEP or HESH)

Anti capital ship (Harpoon, Silkworm)
Strategic (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile)
Surface to Space (Counter Orbital Assault)
Anti-missile systems (Rolling Airframe Missile)

[jaymz]

I meant as in replacing the categories short medium long range and mini.

My list above has different warheads in each as well

Anti armour would essentially be surface to surface types

Anti missile could be a surface to air type

The others you list would fall under my warhead catch all

[ArmySGT.]

I meant as in replacing the categories short medium long range and mini.

My list above has different warheads in each as well

Anti armour would essentially be surface to surface types

Anti missile could be a surface to air type

The others you list would fall under my warhead catch all

This doesn't equate into short, medium, long range, and mini. A TOW II and a Hellfire have equivalent warheads, but a Hellfire has much greater range. A Katyusha is a surface to surface rocket with a range of 20 -30+ kilometer that relies on blast and fragments. If one hit a tank, the modern tank would survive.

For a list to be appropriate it needs to break down by the designed intent of the warhead and then the comparative range.

[ArmySGT.]

This doesn't factor in that modern artillery systems can fire their own salvos with the rounds from one howitzer regardless of it is two, four, or six; all landing simultaneously. This is accomplished by the M109A6 Paladin, Czech DANA, PanzerHaubitze 2000. A feature I would expect the Monster II to do as well.

One cannon or howitzer is firing missions that once a battery of 4-6 guns was needed for. Now a battery is firing multiple fire missions with the Fire Direction Center giving different gun laying instructions to each gun.

[glitterboy2098]

time on target barrages. been in use since 1942.

[ArmySGT.]

time on target barrages. been in use since 1942.

Time on Target is not the same as simultaneous impact.

Time on Target specifies a specific time the impacts from a barrage begins.

If a unit on the attack is counting on a barrage to suppress the enemy at the start of the attack then the first impacts of the barrage and the attacking units crossing the first phase line is simultaneous. 0600 1300 1900 2330. Etc.

Simultaneous impacts is one tube changing elevation of the guns so all the rounds are in the air on different trajectories and arrive on target simultaneously.

[glitterboy2098]

A technique called Time on Target was developed by the U.S. Army during World War II. This technique uses a precise determination of the time of flight from each firing battery to the target area. When a Time on Target (TOT) is designated each battery that will join in firing on that target subtracts the time of flight from the TOT to determine the time to fire. Individual firing batteries train to fire their rounds as close to simultaneously as possible. When each firing battery fires their rounds at their individual time to fire every round will reach the target area nearly simultaneously. This is especially effective when combined with techniques that allow fires for effect to be made without preliminary adjusting fires.

A similar effect may be obtained by a single battery firing sequential rounds with different trajectories, with all rounds timed to arrive simultaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Time_on_Target

time on target lets you fire several rounds in succession, with all of them arriving at the target at the same time, by varying the trajectory. thus you can have a one time barrage that is denser than your number of tubes would normally allow.. although you sacrifice endurance to do so, since you can't keep up a steady bombardment (which is "fire for effect".. every tube fires as fast as they can load until a preplanned number of shot is reached or the fire director calls stop.)

[jaymz]

I meant as in replacing the categories short medium long range and mini.

My list above has different warheads in each as well

Anti armour would essentially be surface to surface types

Anti missile could be a surface to air type

The others you list would fall under my warhead catch all

This doesn't equate into short, medium, long range, and mini. A TOW II and a Hellfire have equivalent warheads, but a Hellfire has much greater range. A Katyusha is a surface to surface rocket with a range of 20 -30+ kilometer that relies on blast and fragments. If one hit a tank, the modern tank would survive.

For a list to be appropriate it needs to break down by the designed intent of the warhead and then the comparative range.

But for generic purposes of gaming it doesn't. You want it that detailed to the point of specific missiles etc then you would have a missile table pages long.

My point is I do NOT use range as a basis I have a category (ie air to air) and then there are different warheads/ranges within that category. It works for simple purposes. I AM working on a real world missile table but as I said before, at the moment but as I said it is pages long not just a simple table.

[jaymz]

A technique called Time on Target was developed by the U.S. Army during World War II. This technique uses a precise determination of the time of flight from each firing battery to the target area. When a Time on Target (TOT) is designated each battery that will join in firing on that target subtracts the time of flight from the TOT to determine the time to fire. Individual firing batteries train to fire their rounds as close to simultaneously as possible. When each firing battery fires their rounds at their individual time to fire every round will reach the target area nearly simultaneously. This is especially effective when combined with techniques that allow fires for effect to be made without preliminary adjusting fires.

A similar effect may be obtained by a single battery firing sequential rounds with different trajectories, with all rounds timed to arrive simultaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Time_on_Target

time on target lets you fire several rounds in succession, with all of them arriving at the target at the same time, by varying the trajectory. thus you can have a one time barrage that is denser than your number of tubes would normally allow.. although you sacrifice endurance to do so, since you can't keep up a steady bombardment (which is "fire for effect".. every tube fires as fast as they can load until a preplanned number of shot is reached or the fire director calls stop.)

Deadboy applied this is his article about he CS and artillery in the Rifter.

[Seto Kaiba]

I completely recategorized the Missile table.

For my own games, I also reworked the table... but I went with a range-based breakdown and adjusted the distances according to the OSM. My breakdown was:

• Heavy Long-Range Missiles
  Your anti-warship reaction missiles...
• Long-Range Missiles
  Usually the same warhead as a MRM, but with more reach.
• Medium-Range Missiles
• Micro-Missiles
• High-Maneuver Missiles
• Unconventional Payloads
  LPPs and scatterpods
• Bombs
• Starship Ordinance

There's not really a strict delineation of role in the info we have... so the real-world categorization doesn't quite fit, IMO.

[jaymz]

There's not really a strict delineation of role in the info we have... so the real-world categorization doesn't quite fit, IMO.

Precisely

[Jefffar]

Which means the RPG has room to expand the continuity. It's unfortunate the opportunity wasn't taken to do so.

[jaymz]

Which means the RPG has room to expand the continuity. It's unfortunate the opportunity wasn't taken to do so.

I'm not sure I follow Jefffar, how so and why not?

[Jefffar]

The RPG had the opportunity to define the missiles we see in the series (and supplemental ones we don't that would make sense to exist) in a specific, detailed example. Instead we got the Rifts missile chat (which to be fair was at one time the Robotech missile chart) with its generic missiles and a few corner case modifiers for special missiles. While this does make for simpler playing, statting out the missiles specifically would have increased the immersion in the universe.

[jaymz]

The RPG had the opportunity to define the missiles we see in the series (and supplemental ones we don't that would make sense to exist) in a specific, detailed example. Instead we got the Rifts missile chat (which to be fair was at one time the Robotech missile chart) with its generic missiles and a few corner case modifiers for special missiles. While this does make for simpler playing, statting out the missiles specifically would have increased the immersion in the universe.

Gotcha and I fully agree. That's sort of what i was hoping to achieve with my missile table to some degree while keeping some of the generic feel as well

[ArmySGT.]

The RPG had the opportunity to define the missiles we see in the series (and supplemental ones we don't that would make sense to exist) in a specific, detailed example. Instead we got the Rifts missile chat (which to be fair was at one time the Robotech missile chart) with its generic missiles and a few corner case modifiers for special missiles. While this does make for simpler playing, statting out the missiles specifically would have increased the immersion in the universe.

Gotcha and I fully agree. That's sort of what i was hoping to achieve with my missile table to some degree while keeping some of the generic feel as well

It is the generic feel that steals some of the unique aspects of the game. This detracts from the mecha or other vehicles as well, not all missile launchers are the same though comparable in size. The missile types available should be part of why a player prefers one mecha for another or that a certain mecha is better suited for a mission. Not all fighter aircraft can use all classes of missiles and you may find you can't use a missile because the manufacturer isn't an ally.

EBSIS missiles should not be compatible with RDF for example.

[jaymz]

So what you are saying is you'd rather have images of missiles than simplify it for the vast majority if people likely don't care that a uedf short range high explosive air to air missile is not the same as a anti un one.

You do realize that most people really don't care about that level of detail in regards to things like the missiles carried on mecha right?

You don't need two separate missiles to show what you said. Basic performance is the sand for the missile. All you need is a blanket state of uedf units cannot use the equivalent anti un missiles

[Jefffar]

Well I'd say the alien missiles should be pretty distinct from the human ones, in stats as well as compatibility.

[ArmySGT.]

So what you are saying is you'd rather have images of missiles than simplify it for the vast majority if people likely don't care that a uedf short range high explosive air to air missile is not the same as a anti un one.

Could you rephrase this? I don't know what you meant.

You do realize that most people really don't care about that level of detail in regards to things like the missiles carried on mecha right?

It won't keep me up at night. However, what was the point in rewriting the missile tables in the first place?

It does to some, otherwise why name what weapon systems are on the mecha at all? You have particle beam weapons on your Excalibur, or you have PBC-11's. It's part of what makes them interesting and fun to play.

You don't need two separate missiles to show what you said. Basic performance is the sand for the missile. All you need is a blanket state of uedf units cannot use the equivalent anti un missiles

If I understand this......... Why do stats for Soviet, NATO, UEDF, and Anti-Unification missiles? Umm, because if it is 1st RW maybe your crew is in south america or africa. In Invid Invasion even more so.. What you have available affects play of the game. Always nice when the effective range of your system is greater than the other guys. Its a bad day to be engaged by Zent MRMs and have to close 10 more miles to engage them with your UEDF MRMs.

So stats do matter, however it is a game preference choice, either you want rules light for fast play or crunch for realism. Robotech or Battletech.

[Alrik Vas]

Stats matter, absolutely. I think a little bit of variation on missiles would be nice. Though I think GM's can easily handle that for themselves.

[Seto Kaiba]

It is the generic feel that steals some of the unique aspects of the game.

I agree... to a certain extent. However, in the writer's defense they had to stick to a K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) methodology for the majority of players who won't especially want to juggle a veritable separate missile book to play the game, and preserve compatability to other Megaversal games. If the RT game was fully standalone, it would probably have been more containable.

This detracts from the mecha or other vehicles as well, not all missile launchers are the same though comparable in size.

True enough... but this works in RT's favor, as it renders the Alpha's armament much less of a joke than it would be if accurate, individual missile stats were used.

Not all fighter aircraft can use all classes of missiles and you may find you can't use a missile because the manufacturer isn't an ally.

This is true in the real world, obviously, but in Robotech and the original three shows, it doesn't necessarily hold true. In canon RT, no actual rival powers exist on Earth after 1999's events. The "Anti-Unification League" uses an old, pre-99 fighter, but appears to be merely a nuisance used as a boogeyman by the UEG to keep the defense budget up (in the From the Stars comic). There is no EBSIS, no post-1st war rival powers, nothing. It's a non-issue for the UEG, and the game rules do reflect that a fighter may not be able to take all missiles in service.

EBSIS missiles should not be compatible with RDF for example.

EBSIS and the other anti-UEG factions do not exist in RT proper, but even in Macross's universe(s) the ordinance and equipment the various anti-government factions produce IS compatible with UN Forces hardware, due to the fact that it's all based on the UN Forces' overtechnology anyway... which was bought on the black market or stolen. (e.g. the Feios Valkyrie, Variable Glaug, Queadluun-Alma, or Gjagravan Va mobile weapon, MiM-31, etc.).

Could you rephrase this? I don't know what you meant.

He's asking if you'd rather have a complex set of individual missile stats at the expense of an accessible central, simple missile table for the majority who don't really care about the fiddly details.

However, what was the point in rewriting the missile tables in the first place?

For our own games, either because we feel it better fits the show or because we don't like the one-size-fits-all approach.

If I understand this......... Why do stats for Soviet, NATO, UEDF, and Anti-Unification missiles? Umm, because if it is 1st RW maybe your crew is in south america or africa.

But the only military on Earth is the UEG's in the years following 1999... so the ordinance used by those various powers was likely just scrapped and replaced by UEDF ordinance.

If we were talking a Macross game, per official setting, then you'd have a reason to worry about including that sort of thing. The VF-1's OSM spec does indicate that it can (and did) use some NATO ordinance.

[ArmySGT.]

Really, I think it was a missed opportunity for the RDF sourcebook to make a complex and more setting accurate missile table. GMs could use it or continue with the simple table from the original book.

Light or heavy is a personal rules preference. I like the equipment information to be detailed myself. The what an item can and cannot do is explicit and not implied.

[Seto Kaiba]

Really, I think it was a missed opportunity for the RDF sourcebook to make a complex and more setting accurate missile table.

Oh, I agree... but I understand why they did what they did. 's why I went and rewrote the missile table a bit for my own use.

I like the equipment information to be detailed myself. The what an item can and cannot do is explicit and not implied.

Again, I agree... this is exactly the reason I'm so fond of using the OSM to clarify the RPG's contents and the official RT spec. Instead of missing info, guesswork, and generalizations, you often end up with an excess of detail you can easily apply to the game.

[Seto Kaiba]

On a side note, as far as variances between missiles mounted on different platforms like the Tomahawk vs. the VF-1 and so on... there does exist at least some evidence to support the way Palladium opted to do things. Most of the ordinance in the original Macross series is made by the same handful of companies, and to roughly the same scale when it comes to the smaller "short range' ordinance options. Many of the medium to long range ordinance options for fighters of that period are variations on the same platform (the very large AMM-1 Arrow family) with a host of different guidance and motor options.

(The VF-1 is described as compatible with numerous NATO ordinance options, though. The partial list includes the AIM-9M, AIM-9X, AIM-120D, AAM-3, ASM-1 and -2, the Mk.82 bomb, GBU-10C, and GBU-27 and 28.)

[Pouncer]

Well after alot reading through all the wonderful replies and thinking things through, I've decided that for my game I'm gonna go with this.

For larger spacecraft I'm gonna go with the EHLRM - the Extended Heavy Long Range Missile.
Damage x2 over the base LRM.
Range x3 over the base LRM.

The Missiles on the ARMD platforms are SHLRM - Super Heavy Long Range Missile.
Damage x4 over the base LRM.
Range x5 over the base LRM.

-POUNCER

[jaymz]

Interesting concept

[Pouncer]

If you actually run a space battle with these figures, let us know what you thin of the results chief, most of is would be glad for the feedback on their feedback...erm, or sumpthin I guess...

I will, hopefully my group will rotate to RT soon. It'll be a workout between the new missiles and the pount defense systems.

-POUNCER

[obsessed]

This doesn't factor in that modern artillery systems can fire their own salvos with the rounds from one howitzer regardless of it is two, four, or six; all landing simultaneously. This is accomplished by the M109A6 Paladin, Czech DANA, PanzerHaubitze 2000. A feature I would expect the Monster II to do as well.

One cannon or howitzer is firing missions that once a battery of 4-6 guns was needed for. Now a battery is firing multiple fire missions with the Fire Direction Center giving different gun laying instructions to each gun.

Agreed.
Heavy artillery and tanks are not counted as individual units within groups. Tanks have always been platoons of 3 or more based on number of men AND firepower.

The mac II 4 x 16" guns would be comparable (except for reloads). So in my opinion the Mac II should field a 3 mecha per battalion (each mecha is a full battery).

[obsessed]

Really, I think it was a missed opportunity for the RDF sourcebook to make a complex and more setting accurate missile table.

Oh, I agree... but I understand why they did what they did. 's why I went and rewrote the missile table a bit for my own use.

I like the equipment information to be detailed myself. The what an item can and cannot do is explicit and not implied.

Again, I agree... this is exactly the reason I'm so fond of using the OSM to clarify the RPG's contents and the official RT spec. Instead of missing info, guesswork, and generalizations, you often end up with an excess of detail you can easily apply to the game.

Yes, keep it simple...stupid

Anti air = he frag and faster speeds. Longer range than anti ground. Altitude and not just range needs to be considerred but without adding complication.

Ground to ground: A) HEAT for anti mech
B) HE frag for lighter armor and anything else

Space Anti ship = he frag or nuke. In theory, space missiles and their blast frags would keep moving until something stopped them (they hit a target of fell into an atmosphere). Otherwise flew off into space for eternity.

In my opinion, Armor Piercing should do MORE damage to a smaller area. But would still inflict a low frag radius. (Hellfires heat kills people within a 5 meter radius, and not just the frag sleeve version).

HE FRAG moderate damage to a given radius. In reality there is a concussion overpressure that would do lesser damage as radius increases, and a given frag penetration damage lessening with range. S.D.C. targets taking damage at extreme ranges.

[Seto Kaiba]

Yes, keep it simple...stupid

's why I don't even bother with 90% of the warhead classifications in the missile table in my own games... some of it's there to justify throwaway lines in the Robotech adaptation, and a lot of it is just kind of pointless. Of course, I also axed the entire mini-missiles category as redundant too.*

Anti air = he frag and faster speeds. Longer range than anti ground. Altitude and not just range needs to be considerred but without adding complication.

Ground to ground: A) HEAT for anti mech
B) HE frag for lighter armor and anything else

Space Anti ship = he frag or nuke. In theory, space missiles and their blast frags would keep moving until something stopped them (they hit a target of fell into an atmosphere). Otherwise flew off into space for eternity.

In my opinion, Armor Piercing should do MORE damage to a smaller area. But would still inflict a low frag radius. (Hellfires heat kills people within a 5 meter radius, and not just the frag sleeve version).

HE FRAG moderate damage to a given radius. In reality there is a concussion overpressure that would do lesser damage as radius increases, and a given frag penetration damage lessening with range. S.D.C. targets taking damage at extreme ranges.

When it comes to missile types, I basically boiled it down to just the three basic classifications from the OSM:

• "Conventional" High-Explosive munitions
  Basically your pre-first space war NATO and Warsaw Pact munitions that're mentioned in various sources as compatible with Generation 0 and 1... very weak, by the setting's standards, and I don't bother to give any real differentiation in warhead types for simplicity's sake, and roll with the "everything inside of the radius is 'hit'" thing.
  
• Anti-ECA High-Explosive munitions
  The stuff you see in the show... makes the conventional HE stuff look like a box of party snaps. Comes in three basic flavors, regular, high-speed armor-piercing, and MDE. The same basic hit profile for all three, but the latter two tie into the armor mechanic I have going.
  
• Thermonuclear Reaction munitions
  Ersatz-nukes, with blast radius effects calculated using real nuclear predictive models relative to the blast yield. Hit by this directly? You're very dead. Only bother computing damage for folks on the periphery of the blast.

Bullets are a bit more complicated, just because there are more types out there in the OSM spec... though that only really affects one or two units.



* Because I run my games in the original Japanese Macross universe(s), "mini-missile" is redundant... the micro-missiles ARE the short-ranged missiles, and there's nothing smaller except a man-portable rocket or rocket-propelled grenade.

[obsessed]

...

Bullets are a bit more complicated, just because there are more types out there in the OSM spec... though that only really affects one or two units.

...

I know this isn"t the post for bullets.

No mecha should field anything less than 30mm cannon. Cannon ammo can be simplified as mix. Heavy mg and auto-cannon wil mix HE, AP-I, and SAP-HE (HE-MP). Maybe a HE and APDS mix.

50 cal MGs should be relegated to policing and civic duties... and those pesky squirrels.

[Seto Kaiba]

I know this isn"t the post for bullets.

Indeed... and therefore I'll reply via PM to that instead.

To sum it up neatly and briefly, my OSM-derived approach to bullets is pretty much the same as missiles... very few different types, but a very broad scale of potency.