Wire-guided missiles

[Korzon77]

There was either a product or a playtest document that had stats for wireguided and other "modern" weapons that were pretty obsolete even during the age of war== but I can't for the life of me remember where they were. Anyone care to give me a hand?

[Martius]

A Time of War Companion pg. 174 has roles for archaic weapons. Not sure if this is what you meant.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

  My group's ongoing campaign has archaic weapons. The TOW missile equivalent does 15 points of damage and has a 90% chance of hitting, based on modern wargaming rules. We also have Saggers and S11s, which are even more primitive WG missiles.

  We have our own rules on missile speed; the slower missiles, such as the Sagger, could be shot down or the firer could be killed before impact.

[idea weenie]

For guided munitions, I'd expand the medium range into both short and long ranges to reflect the guidance ability.

I.e. regular LRMs are (6) 7/14/21
Guided missiles would be (3) 4/17/21

It has an advantage at ranges 15-17, and at ranges 1-4.  Regular LRM have an advantage at ranges 6-7.


The other option would be a boost to the cluster roll (like Artemis).

[Arvanna]

Hmmmm 15 points sounds a tad excessive for a archaic weapon predating mech armor.

[Red Pins]

Actually, I have something from my AU project pretty well playtested.  They're an interesting weapon, but the main penalty is they are vehicle only, and must be fired from a dead stop.

Thunderbolt-TOW Missile
   Left with shortages of modern electronics and seeking to counter the growing use of electronic warfare among the New Clans, the Legacy Cluster’s Civil Government ordered historical databases combed to identify possible battletechnology they might be capable of producing.
   The Thunderbolt-TOW system duplicates the most common anti-armor system of the 21st Century, allowing missile crews the ability to guide a projectile by means of a nose-mounted camera and wire drum mounted with the launcher.  Ignoring the EW raging around their vehicles, Civil Government forces are able to use the system to its full potential, attacking and destroying specific locations on BattleMechs and vehicles.

Game Rules
   The Thunderbolt-TOW provides a gunner the ability to inflict the full damage of a standard LRM launcher while ignoring ECM penalties, but can only be fired from a stationary launcher.  With the optical guidance system, however, the missile can be guided over terrain obstacles such as hills but restricts it to vehicle use.  It is unable to engage BA, Infantry, and airborne targets.
The system allows players to make aimed shots at a +2 penalty, even when out of direct LOS, but depends upon visual conditions at the time of launchings.  The Thunderbolt-Tow missile is vulnerable to AMS systems, and is hindered by Smoke and weather conditions (found in Tactical Operations).  The Thunderbolt-TOW is the only missile allowed on portable turrets.

              Heat    Dam           Range        Ammo      Wt                         Space              Tech
Weapon               Std      Std         M/S/M/L        (ton)      (tons)   M  E  CV  SV  F  SC  DS Rating
TTOW-10                 5         10         5/6/12/18          6            5        -    -   1      2   -     -      -      D
TTOW-15               7         15         5/6/12/18          4            7        -    -   1      3   -     -      -      D
TTOW-20               8         20         5/6/12/18          2            9        -    -   1      5   -     -      -      D

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Hmmmm 15 points sounds a tad excessive for a archaic weapon predating mech armor.

  The guidance system is archaic with a modern warhead. Like all BT weapons, it is merely a delivery system, like a catapult tossing C4 bundles instead of rocks.

  I was able to use WGMs on Luthien with a militia unit. Took down a Koshi.

[Nahuris]

I'd base it on the Thunderbolt Missile system... and maybe add a half ton for the electronics and wire guidance system.... maybe give it a +1 to hit...... OR...... allow it to ignore ECM and gain a bonus on AMS, as you can fly it in low and make it difficult for an automated system to shoot down.

That way, you can later add the iT-bolt, which has it built in.

Nahuris

[Paul]

  The guidance system is archaic with a modern warhead. Like all BT weapons, it is merely a delivery system, like a catapult tossing C4 bundles instead of rocks.

TOW is about 20kg. SRM's are 10kg. Going from 2 to 15 seems excessive, especially if your WG-missile uses 20th century equivalent warhead tech and explosives.


As for the to-hit chance: if it's that accurate, why did the BT weapon systems replace them in your setting? You mention the slower ones can be shot down, what about the non-saggers?

[Nebfer]

The Wire Guided missile is found in the AtoW companion, It deals 1.08 B-tech damage and has a range of 2/4/6 and has a crew of 4.

Though oddly given the RPG to B-tech conversion rules the damage should be .44.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

TOW is about 20kg. SRM's are 10kg. Going from 2 to 15 seems excessive, especially if your WG-missile uses 20th century equivalent warhead tech and explosives.


As for the to-hit chance: if it's that accurate, why did the BT weapon systems replace them in your setting? You mention the slower ones can be shot down, what about the non-saggers?

  The GM designed them and used BT tech warheads. They may have been based on TOW, not duplicates, and much heavier.

  TOW travels at 300m per second while a Sagger at about 100m/second. A slower missile allows in-flight corrections, especially for moving targets.

  One of my buddies in the Army was a TOW crewman and he said he could "jump" his missiles over obstacles to hit targets behind them.

[Paul]

  The GM designed them and used BT tech warheads. They may have been based on TOW, not duplicates, and much heavier.

Which one besides the Thunderbolt can do 15?

And *shrug* I guess you guys have fun with having 60s tech outclass standard BT tech. There's no harm in that, but I'll be over here, doing something different. =)

Paul

[Arkansas Warrior]

I'd base it on the Thunderbolt Missile system... and maybe add a half ton for the electronics and wire guidance system.... maybe give it a +1 to hit...... OR...... allow it to ignore ECM and gain a bonus on AMS, as you can fly it in low and make it difficult for an automated system to shoot down.

That way, you can later add the iT-bolt, which has it built in.

Nahuris

I'd think ignore ECM but be more vulnerable to AMS, owing to its slower flight speed.  Perhaps also allow it to partially negate TMM like precision ammo, since it's doing the same sort of in-flight corrections, just with a human operator on a wire instead of an onboard computer.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

And *shrug* I guess you guys have fun with having 60s tech outclass standard BT tech. There's no harm in that, but I'll be over here, doing something different. =)

  WW1 artillery make BT artillery look like a joke. A RL battery could turn a BT map into the cratered surface of a moon with little effort

  A TOW as designed would have over 8 maps range. I'll take 1960s tech.

[Alexander Knight]

Sure, if you think that 1960s armor is just as tough as 3000s armor  (hint:  It sure isn't)

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Sure, if you think that 1960s armor is just as tough as 3000s armor  (hint:  It sure isn't)

No, they didn't have magic unicorn armor in the 1960s.

[Alexander Knight]

No, they didn't have magic unicorn armor in the 1960s.

So why assume that 1960s weapons tech will work better against BT armor than BT weapons?

[glitterboy2098]

  WW1 artillery make BT artillery look like a joke. A RL battery could turn a BT map into the cratered surface of a moon with little effort

  A TOW as designed would have over 8 maps range. I'll take 1960s tech.

and the game has acknowledged that the ranges are artificially pathetic due purely to game play reasons. see the intro to Total Warfare.

so give battletech some credit.. if you use 'real' ranges for 1960's tech, you gotta inflate Btech ranges to match what their real performance would be. or you need to reeduce the 1960's tech to match Btech game performance.

[Diablo48]

Actually, I have something from my AU project pretty well playtested.  They're an interesting weapon, but the main penalty is they are vehicle only, and must be fired from a dead stop.

That looks like a good starting point, but I would make a few changes.  First, I would give it a permanent +1 penalty to hit to reflect the lack of electronic assistance and the delays from human reaction speed.  Second, I would allow indirect fire without a spotter, but apply another +2 to hit (or +1 with a spotter) because the operator has to manually identify the target and aim at mid-flight which is much more difficult than pointing the launcher at the target and then staying on track after pulling the trigger.  Third, I would give it a smaller precision ammo effect to reflect the operator's ability to guide it in after firing, although it would only reduce the TMM by one.  Fourth, I would make it more vulnerable to AMS than normal Thunderbolts to reflect the lower approach speed compared to normal missiles.  Fifth, I would give it an increased penalty from poor visibility to reflect the fact that it has only optical targeting so it cannot use other sensors to try to get a better picture of what is going on.

Remember, there is a very good reason wire-guided missiles are falling out of favor now and are completely obsolete in BT, so the rules should reflect that.

Which one besides the Thunderbolt can do 15?

And *shrug* I guess you guys have fun with having 60s tech outclass standard BT tech. There's no harm in that, but I'll be over here, doing something different. =)

Paul

I really do not see why you are so fixated on the damage.  It is a normal Thunderbolt missile with a crummy 60's targeting system due to electronics manufacturing issues so it should definitely be harder to get onto the target, but there is no reason it would not do full damage if it hits.

[verybad]

I really do not see why you are so fixated on the damage.  It is a normal Thunderbolt missile with a crummy 60's targeting system due to electronics manufacturing issues so it should definitely be harder to get onto the target, but there is no reason it would not do full damage if it hits.

I think it's the huge OP factor that makes people go  :o.

[Nebfer]

Never mind that WW1 artillery would have difficulty's dealing with B-tech units, Direct fire they could be timely I believe, but in indirect fire, could take a while for the fire mission to come in (particularly as the only real mobile communications systems was by runner or field phones, both of which take some time to set up), WW2 speed up that time, but depending on the country it could still take 5 to 15 minutes. Though in 1914 indirect fire was rarely used, as most country's concentrated on direct fire, as such favored lighter guns of around 75mm in caliber.

I do not think 75mm guns would be that much of a threat for most B-tech forces (sure infantry would be at risk, but due to the wide spread use of full or near full coverage body armors in house units casualty would be noticeably lighter than historical real life units), even the heavier guns like the 105s and larger would probably be some what lackluster.

Then theirs the fact that many B-tech units have or can reach off road speeds of over 100kph, some can reach over 300kph, in WW1 that's an out of character context in of it self (notwithstanding B-tech units them selves), and slightly less so in WW2 (in WW1 a tanks off road speed is under 10kph, often under 5, in WW2 that's under 30kph with many under 20, and AFAIK modern would be around 30 to 50kph).

-------------------------
In regards to the TOE doing 15 damage well if it's at lest 150kg, I could say it's plausible, using a B-tech warhead, lighter than that nope, if not much heavier than a real TOW well at most I could see is around 3.

[Red Pins]

Which one besides the Thunderbolt can do 15?

And *shrug* I guess you guys have fun with having 60s tech outclass standard BT tech. There's no harm in that, but I'll be over here, doing something different. =)

Paul

...So - besides this idea of 'reality' and tech comparisons between 1960 and 3050 - is there any reason the CONCEPT of a wire guided missile won't work in Battletech?

That looks like a good starting point, but I would make a few changes.  First, I would give it a permanent +1 penalty to hit to reflect the lack of electronic assistance and the delays from human reaction speed.  Second, I would allow indirect fire without a spotter, but apply another +2 to hit (or +1 with a spotter) because the operator has to manually identify the target and aim at mid-flight which is much more difficult than pointing the launcher at the target and then staying on track after pulling the trigger.  Third, I would give it a smaller precision ammo effect to reflect the operator's ability to guide it in after firing, although it would only reduce the TMM by one.  Fourth, I would make it more vulnerable to AMS than normal Thunderbolts to reflect the lower approach speed compared to normal missiles.  Fifth, I would give it an increased penalty from poor visibility to reflect the fact that it has only optical targeting so it cannot use other sensors to try to get a better picture of what is going on.

Remember, there is a very good reason wire-guided missiles are falling out of favor now and are completely obsolete in BT, so the rules should reflect that.

Actually, the tech for the AU is pretty firmly set.  But if you want to PM me, we can discuss it further - I have to playtest most of the 'Unique Tech' by myself, and its hard to make it realistic and still get what I need out of it for the setting.  Oh, and I mention the TacOps weather modifiers.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Though in 1914 indirect fire was rarely used, as most country's concentrated on direct fire, as such favored lighter guns of around 75mm in caliber.

  I suggest studying the Battle of the Somme where the battle began with British artillery regiments bombarding German positions for five days prior to units advancing. Units would advance following indirect artillery bombardment marching ahead of them.
  If primitive artillery could do 1 point of damage (considering that infantry with rifles do far more damage) you'd have 'Mechs dropping in no time at all. I played a scenario where Clan Omnis were driven from the field due to infantry mortars using current rules. Even primitive artillery is more powerful than mortars.

[FedComGirl]

Never mind that WW1 artillery would have difficulty's dealing with B-tech units, Direct fire they could be timely I believe, but in indirect fire, could take a while for the fire mission to come in (particularly as the only real mobile communications systems was by runner or field phones, both of which take some time to set up), WW2 speed up that time, but depending on the country it could still take 5 to 15 minutes. Though in 1914 indirect fire was rarely used, as most country's concentrated on direct fire, as such favored lighter guns of around 75mm in caliber.

I do not think 75mm guns would be that much of a threat for most B-tech forces (sure infantry would be at risk, but due to the wide spread use of full or near full coverage body armors in house units casualty would be noticeably lighter than historical real life units), even the heavier guns like the 105s and larger would probably be some what lackluster.

snip

75mm Tank Cannons are equivalent to Light Rifle Cannons and thus do 0 damage against armors BAR 8 +. The 105mm Cannon would be equivalent to either a medium or heavy rifle cannon doing either 3 or 6 points of damage to BAR 8+ armors. We don't have official stats for it though but the 8.8cm is equivalent to a medium rifle cannon.

[Diablo48]

I think it's the huge OP factor that makes people go  :o.

How is a Thunderbolt launcher with a worse targeting system OP?  It does nothing the canon system cannot do, and misses more often while it is at it so it is clearly underpowered, not overpowered.

Actually, the tech for the AU is pretty firmly set.  But if you want to PM me, we can discuss it further - I have to playtest most of the 'Unique Tech' by myself, and its hard to make it realistic and still get what I need out of it for the setting.  Oh, and I mention the TacOps weather modifiers.

Oh, I must have missed/misread the thing about smoke and weather then.  Beyond that, I am a bit curious as to what you are looking to get out of it because this seems to me like a case of slapping together whatever you can to try to hurt the enemy, not a sophisticated piece of technology intended for real combat so I would expect it to have many more drawbacks than advantages.  You can take it to PMs if you want, but it seems relevant to this thread to me so I am inclined to leave it here.

  I suggest studying the Battle of the Somme where the battle began with British artillery regiments bombarding German positions for five days prior to units advancing. Units would advance following indirect artillery bombardment marching ahead of them.
  If primitive artillery could do 1 point of damage (considering that infantry with rifles do far more damage) you'd have 'Mechs dropping in no time at all. I played a scenario where Clan Omnis were driven from the field due to infantry mortars using current rules. Even primitive artillery is more powerful than mortars.

BT units would not stay there long enough for the guns to zero in on them, let alone conduct a five-day bombardment mission.  Really, the whole WWI static trench system was brought about by the inability to conduct mobile operations without getting torn to pieces by machine guns, and the heavy armor of BT units makes that a non-issue.  The stalemate would be cracked in a matter of minutes by an armored thrust with a core of assault 'Mechs and IFVs with other supporting units which would advance through the fire and storm the trenches without too much trouble.  This is mirrored by real life developments considering WWII bombardments rarely lasted very long due to the more mobile nature of the fighting, and combat has just gotten faster since then.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

BT units would not stay there long enough for the guns to zero in on them, let alone conduct a five-day bombardment mission.  Really, the whole WWI static trench system was brought about by the inability to conduct mobile operations without getting torn to pieces by machine guns, and the heavy armor of BT units makes that a non-issue.  The stalemate would be cracked in a matter of minutes by an armored thrust with a core of assault 'Mechs and IFVs with other supporting units which would advance through the fire and storm the trenches without too much trouble.  This is mirrored by real life developments considering WWII bombardments rarely lasted very long due to the more mobile nature of the fighting, and combat has just gotten faster since then.

  I've seen Dropships driven from LZs by artillery and 'Mechs in lager scattered in disarray. I've also seen 'Mech offensives stalled and defeated by dug-in infantry and field guns with artillery support.

  The Wehrmacht on the eastern Front would disagree with your assessment -Artillery was the determining factor in most of the fighting, even more than air power. The Germans never had enough artillery and he Soviets fielded Artillery on the Corp level. Germans expected a Russian offensive to begin with several hours of intensive, accurate shelling and the theory of maneuver warfare was long abandoned because the Germans were mobile only on paper -Most of their infantry depended on rail travel or horse-drawn carts while most of the German artillery fielded employed horses as well.

[imperator]

But by it's nature BT is much more mobile than WW II battles.  I've seen artillery units overrun by Aerospace units, Mediums Mechs, and Hetzers because they staid in one place too long outside their lines and got pinned long enough for the heavy and Assault units to catch up.  Their where a lot of dead long toms.   

[Korzon77]

But by it's nature BT is much more mobile than WW II battles.  I've seen artillery units overrun by Aerospace units, Mediums Mechs, and Hetzers because they staid in one place too long outside their lines and got pinned long enough for the heavy and Assault units to catch up.  Their where a lot of dead long toms.

Not to mention the small matter of transatmospheric fighters taht can attack a target anywhere on the planet. Btech vs. WWII tech isn't going to be battlemechs fighting shermans, it's going to be battlemechs landing in downtown Washington DC, New York and Los Angeles.  Any Btech level commander who loses anything to a WWII force should be immediately Cashiered and if he's Kuritan, offered the Garden to make his apology to the coordinator.

[I am Belch II]

I think the Tow missile would have less damage but could break thru the armor better.  The Tow when fired had to be done sitting still, that's a disadvantage to other weapons.

[Red Pins]

That looks like a good starting point, but I would make a few changes.  First, I would give it a permanent +1 penalty to hit to reflect the lack of electronic assistance and the delays from human reaction speed.  Second, I would allow indirect fire without a spotter, but apply another +2 to hit (or +1 with a spotter) because the operator has to manually identify the target and aim at mid-flight which is much more difficult than pointing the launcher at the target and then staying on track after pulling the trigger.  Third, I would give it a smaller precision ammo effect to reflect the operator's ability to guide it in after firing, although it would only reduce the TMM by one.  Fourth, I would make it more vulnerable to AMS than normal Thunderbolts to reflect the lower approach speed compared to normal missiles.  Fifth, I would give it an increased penalty from poor visibility to reflect the fact that it has only optical targeting so it cannot use other sensors to try to get a better picture of what is going on.

Well, it is an AU, some people don't appreciate discussing it.  So, as to your points;

1. A +1 for operator guidance rather than computer guidance sounds ok, especially presented like that.
2.  Well, the main use for the system is 'hide behind a ridge and fire over it', and it needs accuracy to be effective.  What would you say to the proposed +1 for human targeting and another +1 to reflect the use of a camera on the missile - like an earlier poster said, operators could 'skip' over terrain obstacles.
3.  The precision ammo idea is fine, but it cancels out the +1 for operator guidance - I think it's a wash between operator guidance and precision.  Perhaps abandon the argument for the precision ammo.
4.  I never thought about it being slower - but AMS only fire once, regardless.  What do you suggest?
5.  For poor weather, smoke, etc., I refer the reader to the weather rules.

I guess the idea of a -2 for aimed shots isn't appropriate - your opinion?