Missiles as vehicles

[Aroooo]

I know we had started a thread like this on the temp forums, but I'd like to have an official record on the new boards. Plus, I'm still not convinced :)

Can someone give me a good explanation of why missiles should be built as vehicles, and not just as a standard ranged attack (RKA or other) with the special effect being 'its a missile'? I mean, aren't arrows usually just a ranged attack with charges?

Aroooo

[Dr. Anomaly]

1) Missiles usually take some time to reach their target. An attack (say, with an RKA) takes one Phase, at most, unless bought with Extra Time. Extra Time doesn't cut it, though, because something set up using Extra Time can be interrupted by attacking the character doing the setting up. Once the missile is away, it's away, unless you've got antimissile defenses.

2) Missiles can change course to track their target, even if the target attempts to evade. A RKA doesn't, unless you either buy a version of Indirect, or loads o' plusses to Ranged Skill Levels to represent the missile's ability to 'home in' on its target. Even then, see problem (1) of no 'flight time' for a standard RKA.

3) With a missile-as-vehicle, you have a chance to outrun it, evade it, lead it back so it smacks into the launching vessel, etc. -- all classic literary and cinematic bits -- and you can't do that vs. a normal RKA, unless you want to define it as a really strange variant of Missile Deflect/Reflect.

Need more? I'm sure I can come up with some others...

[Agent X]

Missiles work for space battles fought on large scales. They also work in space settings where ships move at ludicrous speeds.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Agent X
where ships move at ludicrous speeds.

They've gone PLAID!

[Syberdwarf2]

Missiles ARE vehicles. Every 'Missile' (i.e. Rocket, not an arrow or bullet) consists of two parts.

1) The Engine; A tube filled with fuel an moving (or non-moving) parts that projects force in one direction to convey thrust to a given payload.

2) The Payload; Anything attached to a Missile.

For example, the rockets used in early space flight were missiles. These were vehicles in the classic sense. The Payload was a manned compartment. On the same Token, a Nuke is also a vehicle. Sure the Payload is different. It's just unmanned. It still has an Engine and a Payload.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
Missiles ARE vehicles. Every 'Missile' (i.e. Rocket, not an arrow or bullet) consists of two parts.

1) The Engine; A tube filled with fuel an moving (or non-moving) parts that projects force in one direction to convey thrust to a given payload.

2) The Payload; Anything attached to a Missile.

For example, the rockets used in early space flight were missiles. These were vehicles in the classic sense. The Payload was a manned compartment. On the same Token, a Nuke is also a vehicle. Sure the Payload is different. It's just unmanned. It still has an Engine and a Payload.

It's a reason to effect thing. Some missiles are vehicles and some are energy blasts or rkas. It comes down to what they do as to how they should be built.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Agent X
It's a reason to effect thing. Some missiles are vehicles and some are energy blasts or rkas. It comes down to what they do as to how they should be built.

Say you build your PCs BattleVan. The heroes set the gas pedal and jump out. The van then roll down a hill, crashes into a building and explodes.
Question:
Is it still a vehicle? (It was a vehicle when you built it)
Also:
Other types of "missiles" such as bullets or arrows (or thrown rocks) are not vehicles. They're Charges. They are nothing but pure payload. The "engine" is a separate mechanism that doesn't go anywhere (bow, gun, and hand respectively)

[Syberdwarf2]

After glancing through the description of the Nuclear Missile in SH, I have to say that personally, I like the writeup. Basically, the point I've been trying to make is that the Missile is not the attack. The Nuclear Explosion is the attack. The Missile part is just a means of transportation to deliver the attack. That same attack could be delivered by car, plane, motorcycle, or crazy nut with a backpack full of plutonium on a bicycle. The missile/rocket just gets it to the enemy.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
After glancing through the description of the Nuclear Missile in SH, I have to say that personally, I like the writeup. Basically, the point I've been trying to make is that the Missile is not the attack. The Nuclear Explosion is the attack. The Missile part is just a means of transportation to deliver the attack. That same attack could be delivered by car, plane, motorcycle, or crazy nut with a backpack full of plutonium on a bicycle. The missile/rocket just gets it to the enemy.

It's all abou the sfx... and that's an excelent one.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly
3) With a missile-as-vehicle, you have a chance to outrun it, evade it, lead it back so it smacks into the launching vessel, etc. -- all classic literary and cinematic bits -- and you can't do that vs. a normal RKA, unless you want to define it as a really strange variant of Missile Deflect/Reflect.

You know, this is the most compelling reason I've seen yet to build a missile as a vehicle - no offense to everyone who's chimed in on this.

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
Missiles ARE vehicles. Every 'Missile' (i.e. Rocket, not an arrow or bullet) consists of two parts.

True. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, that's not how Hero thinks. Its about the effect, not the mechanics - but you know that :)

Thanks again to everyone who chimmed in here.

Aroooo

[Aroooo]

Okay, in keeping with the thought that a missile is a vehicle (at least built as one :) ), how would you handle a missile in a dogfight?

Starfighter A is in a dogfight with Starfighter B. In one turn, B launches a missile at A. Now you have 3 vehicles the dogfight. How is it resolved?

This also begs the question, how do you handle a dogfight with multiple participants? 3 on 3 for instance... The writeup in 5E talks mainly about 1 on 1. I'm thinking that everyone rolls their combat piloting, and those numbers are compaired to each other as you figure out who is attacking whome - essentially the 3 on 3 becomes 3 1 on 1's.

Aroooo

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Aroooo
Okay, in keeping with the thought that a missile is a vehicle (at least built as one :) ), how would you handle a missile in a dogfight?

Starfighter A is in a dogfight with Starfighter B. In one turn, B launches a missile at A. Now you have 3 vehicles the dogfight. How is it resolved?

This also begs the question, how do you handle a dogfight with multiple participants? 3 on 3 for instance... The writeup in 5E talks mainly about 1 on 1. I'm thinking that everyone rolls their combat piloting, and those numbers are compaired to each other as you figure out who is attacking whome - essentially the 3 on 3 becomes 3 1 on 1's.

Aroooo
Starfighters A&B are being controlled by a pilot,(be it a person or an AI). Such an entity will be able to make snap decisions of his own accord, reacting to conditions in a dogfight and maneuvering.
A missile, fired at said starfighter, will either be a smart bomb variant or a dumb missile. A dumb missile will pull an energizer bunny an just keep going, and going, and going....
A smart missile would have a computer in it with a very simple program; "Go to specified destination" (the target ship). It may also have other programs such as "Follow/Track last designated target". It would be able to maneuver after said fighter, but like any other vehicle, it might be outmaneuvered. However, it will only follow the instructions it is given prior to its being fired.

[Aroooo]

Okay, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but I finally got my copy of TUV, and on page 130, it says you CAN build a missile as a RKA with the Extra Time limitation. I feel vindicated :)

On a serious note, as I've been working on my B5 ships, it makes more sense building missiles as RKA's instead of vehicles if you use the Dogfighting and Intercept Combat (instead of mapped combat).

Aroooo

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Aroooo
it makes more sense building missiles as RKA's instead of vehicles if you use the Dogfighting and Intercept Combat (instead of mapped combat).

Aroooo


Probably a good reason to do it differently, sometimes the Gm has to build things differently rather than how the book exemplifies it simply for ease of mechanics.

After all there is no right way in HERO!


:)

[AlHazred]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
After all there is no right way in HERO!

Sure there is.

I've got my Right Way. You've got your Right Way. They can be completely different Right Ways. The beauty of Hero System is they can all still work.

[Vanguard]

Also away of thinking is this. It's also depends on the TYPE of missle you're trying to build.

Personally, I would go with something like this. If the missile is something like a Maverick or a Sidewinder, I'ld build as a normal RKA with appropriate Advantages and Limitations. If it was something like a Tomahawk Cruise missle .. Vehicle all the way. :)

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Also away of thinking is this. It's also depends on the TYPE of missle you're trying to build.

Personally, I would go with something like this. If the missile is something like a Maverick or a Sidewinder, I'ld build as a normal RKA with appropriate Advantages and Limitations. If it was something like a Tomahawk Cruise missle .. Vehicle all the way. :)

True. Something that takes a long time to target, or is really big, I would build as a vehicle. But for B5 anyway, most ship-to-ship missiles I plan on just making various RKA's.

Aroooo

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Aroooo
True. Something that takes a long time to target, or is really big, I would build as a vehicle. But for B5 anyway, most ship-to-ship missiles I plan on just making various RKA's.

Aroooo

I just wanted to clarify my earlier post. I see your point as well as Vanguard's. Big Stuff gets built as a vehicle (possibly with a computer etc) where a 'dumb' missile would be an RKA.
My point I was trying to make before was mainly concerned with ICBMs and the like. Sorry if I was unclear.... was just trying to make a point about the 'Big Stuff'.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Aroooo
Okay, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but I finally got my copy of TUV, and on page 130, it says you CAN build a missile as a RKA with the Extra Time limitation. I feel vindicated :)

On a serious note, as I've been working on my B5 ships, it makes more sense building missiles as RKA's instead of vehicles if you use the Dogfighting and Intercept Combat (instead of mapped combat).

Aroooo

The previous edition of Star Hero had a -1/2 Limitation called Slow Missile.
An attack with the Limitation wouldn't actually hit until the end of the segment when it was fired. Anyone within range can use a Defensive action, i.e. Abort, to attempt to shoot the missile at any point along its flight path.
The missile's DCV equals the OCV at which it was fired and any attack with at least half as many damage classes as the missile will destroy it.
It could probably be adapted to 5th edition with additional Limitations as the travel time is shifted down the Time Chart. Using Extra Time as a guide, maybe -1/4 for end-of-segment and an additional -1/4 per step down the time chart. You can make additional attacks, making it better than Extra Time, but it's balanced by the interception capability.