Use for cruise missiles?

[Stormfury]

They're also marked as N/A for WarShips, JumpShips, and Space Stations.

But we were talking surface to surface.  If you *really* want to spend the BPs BVs on an unmoving dropship rather than escalating to TacOps, fine.

If the rules for buildings with (sub-) capital weapons are in the same book as Cruise Missiles, where's the issue?

The only thing in StratOps for (sub-) capital missiles are for Bearings-Only launches.

[NightmareSteel]

OTOH, Capital Missiles are Tech Manual (tournament-level) equipment and can already be found on a number of existing DropShips. Vehicles can't carry them at all, but.

Not an issue for Cruise Missiles.

In this quote, you seem to be favoring Capital weapons.  But in TechManual/tournament level play, you'd have to field a dropship, rather than a building or similar.

If using TacOps, Cruise missile silos/scud launchers are going to be cheaper BV-wise than Cap-launchers.  Therefore, for wall/bunker cracking purposes, much better.  Especially if you compare the Cruise 120 to the Cap missiles.  SubCaps might be more efficient, but still won't have the raw damage.

[Stormfury]

In this quote, you seem to be favoring Capital weapons.  But in TechManual/tournament level play, you'd have to field a dropship, rather than a building or similar.

And they are still available at that level. Cruise Missiles are only available in Advanced/Experimental games.

Especially if you compare the Cruise 120 to the Cap missiles.

Kraken-T is almost as light and deals almost as much damage.

Capital Missiles have flexibility, range, and accuracy on their side. The Cruise Missiles are a little bit out in front for mass and damage.

[NightmareSteel]

Cruise missiles are also cheaper.  Buildings are *much* cheaper than dropships.

This is the basis for my statement about paying through the nose in BVs rather than escalating rules.

If you *are* using a dropship in tournament-level play *just* as a way to provide fire support, I think you're wasting bv.  Certainly wasting C-Bills.

Yes, all your points are true.  But I have one central point, and it is that which I have just said.

Since the thread is "Cruise Missiles," I think we can safely assume that TacOps is a go.  Even if this was just a compare/contrast thread, my point stands.  Yes, the CapMis weapons system is more flexible, and legal (in theory) in a total warfare game.

A TacOps platform is so much *ludicrously* cheaper that I don't give an explicative.

*that's* the point I was making in response to  your "but DropShips have them in TW" post at 190655.

Then *you* obviated the rules difference and the DropShip idea next, by saying "well, you can do CapMis Buildings too!" And you brought up StratOps in a *completely unrelated* point.  015342.

Then I tried to point out that your argument was kinda self-defeating, at least from my perspective.  And made the (thus-far uncountered) BV point again.

Then you said "But you can still do it! And with a DropShip," and we went *backwards.*  And I'm not certain that your point about accuracy stands, but I don't actually care enough to quibble.

Then I explained all this to you.  Please backread and tell me if I am parsing incorrectly.  If so, then please counter-parse.  Also, please bear in mind that this is the Reader's Digest condensed version. but still covers every post I think is relavent.

If you still favor the range difference, fine.  I prefer higher damage, lower weight, lower BV. Even if it is less accurate.

[Stormfury]

Actually, Arkansas Warrior pointed out that Cruise Missiles can be carried on DropShips.

I simply noted that while they could do that, Cruise Missiles are a higher rules level and cannot be fired while in the air, unlike Capital Missiles or Arrow IV.

If you have a look at p. 383 of TacOps, and then at p. 318 of Tech Manual, you will discover that Cruise Missiles are significantly more expensive for both the launcher and per shot. The cheapest Cruise Missile costs more than a White Shark, and the CM-120 almost as much as the Kraken-T.

The Cruise Missiles can also only be fired indirectly, whilst Capital Missiles can be delivered with a spotter or fired straight at the target.

To sum up, (sub) Capital Missiles give you greater range, greater flexibility, greater accuracy, the option of hitting targets either side of the atmosphere, and do it all cheaper and at a lower rules level.

If you really want a Cruise Missile, go for it. They certainly have their place. But if you have the ability to use a (sub) Capital Missile launcher instead, better to do that. Only the largest of vehicles and mobile structures can do that, though, so on the lighter stuff the Cruise Missile is definitely better off.

[NightmareSteel]

Cruise 50 does more damage than, and is fewer BV (601/75) than, the Killer Whale (769/96).  The CM-120?  Yes, it is ******-expensive, but the Kraken-T is even more BVs.  CM-120 still does more damage, less space, etc. etc.

Cruises are more C-Bills.  This is true, no argument.

I never said you said you could put Cruise in DropShip.  I *did* say you said you could put CapMis on buildings, which you did.  I also questioned whether you could cruise from air, when Lore brought it up.  You agreed later, but the post immediately after Arkansas read

Yeah, but DropShips can also carry Arrows and the (sub) capital missiles. If you really need that level of devastation, easier to load nukes.

And while DropShips can carry them, they still have to land in order to fire them... unlike Arrows or (sub) capital missiles.

I guess the advantage there is not being able to employ AMS against the Cruise Missiles, but even so I'd prefer other options.

Where you (or maybe another Stormfury?) agree with him saying that you can put Cruises on DSes (go ahead and go back and look).  So I actually pointed it out first, then you agreed.  Which makes this whole bit something of a red herring, and rather pointless, no?

Also, A TacOps platform is cheaper, more due to "In a gorram, not-moving BUILDING" than due to what weapon. Hence...

Cruise missiles are also cheaper.  Buildings are *much* cheaper than dropships.

Which supports the whole "TacOps platform cheaper &c." point I made earlier.  I believe I've been fairly consistent this entire time?

So, in conclusion, I *did* parse correctly (so I assume, since you're objections were based on A) a statement I don't believe I made, and B) BVs, which have nothing to do with parsing), Cruises are slightly fewer BVs, the whole DropShip platform was irrelevant (unless this is an invading force, naturally), and CapMissiles are far more accurate if you have spotters.

If you have a high-tech, combined arms, mobile force with *sweet* support, go with the (sub)CapMisses.  Otherwise?  SCUD.

Which is a very funny word.  SCUD.

Heh.

Also note: I am a pedant.  Says so over there under my name.

Edit: y'know, as far as flame wars go, this ain't so bad.  No profanity, and at least we're both using references to club each others skulls into concavity.  Also, a concession- yes, the Whote Shark is cheaper in BVs that Cruise/50.  So the cheapest you could do is probably a White Shark silo.  If you scale up at all, it become accuracy vs. damage, and from that perspective I still think cruise is better.  White Sharks for accuracy, Cruise for Hammertime.

Edit 2:  So, it seems combined arms wins again, as per usual.  I really should have seen that coming.

[Stormfury]

Post number 3 from Cannon_Fodder notes some of the unit types that can carry a Cruise Missile.

Post Number 4 from Arkansaw Warrior adds the DropShip to that list.

Your posts are three days after that.

In my very first post to the thread, I noted that in order for a DropShip to fire a Cruise Missile, it must land.

So whilst you can do it, it's not a good idea. Whenever the DropShip is in space, the Cruise Missile bay(s) are useless. Whenever it is flying in atmosphere, the Cruise Missile bay(s) are useless.

This is not a good investment of mass, weapon slots, BV, or C-Bills.

Further, while standard Capital Missiles are TW/TM weapons and Sub-Capitals are Advanced, Cruise Missiles are Experimental.

The cheapest Cruise Missile launcher is six times the price of a Killer Whale launcher, and almost four times the price of an AR-10. The smallest Cruise Missile costs as much as the largest Capital Missile.

The delivery system, silo or vehicle-bourne, is irrelevant. If you can use a (sub) Capital Missile launcher, you are flat-out better doing that. It will set you back less BV, less money, and potentially less mass for a more useful weapon system.

The primary use for the Cruise Missile is not for DropShips or for silos, but for large support vehicles. The Triton sub from TR: VA would make a good platform for them; the types you are advocating do not.

[Moonsword]

I'm going to make a few notes on construction that appear to have been lost.

No ground-based support vehicle (specifically not including naval units) short of a mobile structure or rail vehicles above 200 tons can carry any artillery or artillery-like weapon other than those on this list: Thumper, Sniper, Arrow IV, Piranha.  I mentioned the space requirements before without making that point clear enough.  In practical terms, this means that something like a SCUD system is off the table unless using Piranhas.  (Those of you looking at the Stingray, remember that ammo requires a space of its own.)

So let's look at the exceptions.  Rail units can carry up to a CM/50 but are limited to running on rails.  I'm sure all of us see the tactical limitations inherent in that.  Naval units are limited to the water and the larger ones necessary to carry cruise missiles start having depth limitations that can make them problematic to deploy... assuming you have a river available in the first place.  In addition, the larger units start having infrastructure requirements for construction and servicing that can be a headache.  Mobile structures can carry any of this (the Rattler and Wyrm both carry capital missiles, for instance) but are very expensive, require a lot of supporting infrastructure to build and maintain, and tend to be slow.  All of them will also require more manpower to operate than equivalently-armed DropShips, at the least because the gunnery crews have to be larger.

Where cruise missiles shine is as part of the supporting defenses for fixed sites.  They may also have somewhat different industrial requirements from capital/sub-capital missiles, which is a level of distinction BattleTech doesn't tend to make but may be important for campaign purposes.  Or they just show up in a different part of the budget and can be funded separately, which is why the AFFS had no OmniMech programs but several OmniVehicle ones.

More to the point, they're an option.  They lend variety.  And they're much rarer in-game (hence the experimental classification - while not meaning a lot for rules purposes to me, it does mean something in fluff terms).

[Arkansas Warrior]

XTRO Corp. has a 125 ton CV with a CM-50.  Theoretically, you could fit larger CM launchers, or more ammo, on larger superheavy CVs.

[NightmareSteel]

This all makes sense.

Wasn't aware of the arty restriction on vehicles.  Crud.

Interesting that the XTRO Corp seems to violate this.

Stand by previous statement- White shark, or maybe sub-cap, is best for accuracy and economy.  Once you're looking at higher damage, CMs seem to better better, point-for-BV.

C-Bills are a completely different ball-game, for reasons that are not apparent to me.

[Moonsword]

XTRO Corp. has a 125 ton CV with a CM-50.  Theoretically, you could fit larger CM launchers, or more ammo, on larger superheavy CVs.

Oh, absolutely you can to a limited extent, and I had it in mind when I called mounting them a pain in the neck the first time around (and very specifically said "support vehicles" when I made that last post).  Look at that design, though, since it illustrates why I said what I said.  It's slow to the point of being nearly immobile in a tactical sense, poorly armored, and only has a single round despite devoting 60 tons to the problem.  Worse, super-heavy combat vehicles are large enough that engine tonnage (and cost) rapidly turns into a larger and larger problem whenever you try to fix any of those issues.

Interesting that the XTRO Corp seems to violate this.

It doesn't violate it.  Support vehicles and combat vehicles use different construction systems.  Combat vehicles are far more able to mount artillery.  They cannot, however, carry sub-capital or capital weapons.

The Kalki's problem with the construction system comes because someone didn't read the fine print in TacOps - the structural tonnage is half of what it should be.

[NightmareSteel]

Sounds like that combat vehicle *is* the SCUD, then.

Lack of armour/speed isn't a real issue- if it's in combat, you've already lost.  Or done it wrong.  Built on "combat vehicle" rules, but a support vehicle in effect.

Bring along a 200t support vehicle as an ammo truck.

Makes sense, and it matches what I know about missile artillery.

I still say the (immobile) structure, built along the lines of a missile silo, is the best bet for deployment options, if defending a world.  If attacking, then just use a CapMis launcher on a DropShip, or use Arrow IV airstrikes.

Does that make sense?

[Moonsword]

Speed and armor are issues for different reasons.  At 2/3, relocating it for tactical purposes becomes a problem.  At 3/5, it has some limited ability to support advances without needing to be airlifted.  Since only DropShips are large enough to do this without the process of loading and unloading being a headache in and of itself, just deploying capital missiles off of DropShips starts being a more reasonable answer.  Keep in mind that even relatively slow units are readily able to generate a miss against something short of a nuke with extended flight times.

Armor is an issue for surviving counter-battery strikes.  You may be willing to settle for single-shot expendable launchers on that scale.  I'm not.

However, for mobile operations, honestly, cruise missiles and capital missiles are both not really what you need.  Smaller weapons types are quite capable of dealing with tactical artillery needs.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Oh, absolutely you can to a limited extent, and I had it in mind when I called mounting them a pain in the neck the first time around (and very specifically said "support vehicles" when I made that last post).  Look at that design, though, since it illustrates why I said what I said.  It's slow to the point of being nearly immobile in a tactical sense, poorly armored, and only has a single round despite devoting 60 tons to the problem.  Worse, super-heavy combat vehicles are large enough that engine tonnage (and cost) rapidly turns into a larger and larger problem whenever you try to fix any of those issues.

I may have misread your post, but I didn't see a reference to Combat Vehicles in your listing of platforms, so I was just throwing it out there in addition to your list.
 
 
 
 
 
I see a possibility for using CV CM platforms as mobile launchers within a fortress.  Even if they're 1/2 with basically no armor, you pull on up to a door, open the door, fire, close the door, and move to a different firing port.  Conceptually, it's not unlike medieval archers with arrow loops.  Slow isn't a problem because you're relocating within a comparatively small facility(small being relative to a city or open battlefield), and the facility is your armor.  You can do a 200 ton CV at 1/2 with 2 tons of armor and have 135 tons to play with.  You could probably do better than that with trailers and the like, but I'm quick-and-dirtying this in HMV, so I'm a bit limited.

[Moonsword]

You didn't miss anything.  Combat vehicles were left out of that list deliberately since I was answering a mention of support vehicles.

I get what you're saying about gunports, but that's a slightly different matter to me since their defenses are effectively provided by the fortification itself.  On the other hand, that's also the exact sort of fortification that starts drawing orbital bombardments down on its head.

[Arkansas Warrior]

If this were the Star League era that would bother me, but as long as I'm not facing the Snow Ravens, that doesn't bother me in the current era.

[Moonsword]

Just pointing it out.

That said, since pocket WarShips can be risked much more readily due to vastly lower replacement costs across the board, I'd expect that orbital bombardment will be undergoing something of a revival when people think they can get away with it.  We know the Bears engaged in some during the Jihad and it was featured in neutralizing the Wyrm mobile SDS fortresses as something of a case in point.  You won't be eating huge bays unless multiple PWSes concentrate fire, necessarily.

[Wrangler]

I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned the Nekohono'o variant from XTRO: Kurita.

I think right now is the only canon design that in semi-production has CM120s and CM70s on it.  I wish they'd be able have more general designs that would mount the Cruise Missiles.

[NightmareSteel]

Speed and armor are issues for different reasons.  At 2/3, relocating it for tactical purposes becomes a problem.  At 3/5, it has some limited ability to support advances without needing to be airlifted.  Since only DropShips are large enough to do this without the process of loading and unloading being a headache in and of itself, just deploying capital missiles off of DropShips starts being a more reasonable answer.  Keep in mind that even relatively slow units are readily able to generate a miss against something short of a nuke with extended flight times.

Armor is an issue for surviving counter-battery strikes.  You may be willing to settle for single-shot expendable launchers on that scale.  I'm not.

However, for mobile operations, honestly, cruise missiles and capital missiles are both not really what you need.  Smaller weapons types are quite capable of dealing with tactical artillery needs.

Counterbattery?  The Cruise 50 has 20 hexes more range than any cannon.  Counterbattery fire seems to be... not a concern.

Unless you get outflanked &c, at which point you lost anyway- you let the OpFor get to your support base.

Airstrikes, though... that's something I should have considered.

Dedicated niche weapons.  'Kay.

[Moonsword]

Counter-battery strikes aren't necessarily other artillery (airstrikes are a major issue), although you can probably get other artillery platforms into range intact.  Don't assume the cruise missiles are going to hit where they're aimed, and even if they do, generating a miss by maneuvering out of the impact zone at the outer edge of a cruise missile's range is not as large a problem as you seem to be assuming.  This makes being outflanked a concern you have to confront with this weapon system.

[NightmareSteel]

True- I didn't argue that.  But I keep saying that Cruise is better for bunker-busting and wall-cracking- which makes that irrelevant, I believe?

[Moonsword]

True- I didn't argue that.  But I keep saying that Cruise is better for bunker-busting and wall-cracking- which makes that irrelevant, I believe?

You've also been suggesting it for static defensive employment, which does not generally involve either task, so the accuracy problem still exists.  It certainly doesn't render vulnerability to being flanked irrelevant.  Now, there are ways to address that problem, but ignoring it is an excellent way to get your launch platforms taken out.

EDIT: Also, there are plenty of non-static artillery platforms out there.  Since I imagine defenders are going to object to getting their bunkers blown, the vulnerability to these objections is a very relevant issue.

[NightmareSteel]

Good point, I have suggested if as static.  Given the Cruises long range, I suppose that makes it perfect for applying counterbattery fire.  What do you think?

I never said that flanking was irrelevant, although I *might* (please note the emphasis on the qualifier) argue that it is irrelevant with regards to this topic only.  My statement from before continues to apply- if you let them flank you to the point that they took out your arty 30 mapsheets back, you're effed anyway.  Good job suiciding, General.

[Moonsword]

Your post didn't specify what you were calling irrelevant.  I chose to deal with both points to cover either possibility.

As far as flanking, keep in mind that there are some very mobile artillery platforms out there.  It's not an extreme threat but it's one to be aware of.  If you're content to let it rest there, so am I.

[Nebfer]

Not... really.  StS CapMissiles still affect a radius 5 area.

Nukes hit a radius that is variable, but IIRC, well over a twenty hexes.  Anything in that area is pretty much toast.

Not quite their are units that can survive 30m from a .5kt blast (from a Davy Crockett) per the rules.