I've noticed that some people on the list have complained that Missiles are
too powerful. This has been the opposite experience in our campaign.
What we have seen is the mounting of 3-5 PDAF on a large Capital (100
mass) and smaller ships mounting an ADAF and maybe a PDAF as well. Fleet
encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive about
8-12 dice of AF fire. Not many get through.
The Kzinti (a heavy missile using race in our compaign) have developed the
following missile systems to try and make their ships a threat again (not to
mention save there homeworld.)
________________________________________________________________________
___
Armored Missile
Mass:2 Cost:6
The Armored Missile is a variation of the 'normal' nuclear detonation type of
mine. It has sacrificed explosive power for an increased survivability factor.
The AM does only 1d6 of damage (ignoring shields as normal) to enemy ships
that it hits. All movement and endurance is handled as a normal missile. The
AM advantage is in survivability. In order to stop an AM from hitting a target
it must be hit by PDAF or ADAF fire two times within the same volley. So that
if a ship was defended by 6 dice of AF fire (maybe 4 PDAF on the ship and 2
ADAF from escorting ships) you would have to roll two 6's to stop the missile
instead of only one 6.
In campaigns that are a little more missile friendly the AM might be over the
top. An easy way to lower its capabilities would be to lower the endurance to
2 turns. (The missile sacrifices range and power for increased survivability.)
Other missile types (needle, EMP, etc) could easily be modified into an
armored form by lowering there abilities.
________________________________________________________________________
__
Missile Racks
Mass:3 Cost:10
A Missile Rack is made up of one missile launcher and four missiles. Each MR
may launch only one missile per turn. As each missile is launched cross off
one 'round' from that MR system, MRs may not share missiles within the scope
of one tactical engagement (scenario). The missiles carried by the MR are a
variation of the 'normal' nuclear detonated missile, but are not as large or
fully capable. An MR missile will detonate causing 1d6 damage (ignoring
shields). The MR missiles follow the normal missile movement rules and
restrictions (endurance,
etc.)
Again, players who feel that this system is too powerful may find that an easy
fix [other than simply not allowing it of course:)] is to lower the endurance
of the MR missile to two turns instead of three.
________________________________________________________________________
_
Mini-Missile
Mass:1 Cost:3
The Mini-Missile is an off shoot of the MR technology. It is
simply a scaled down version of the 'normal' missile or an MR missile loaded
in its own launcher. It has a damage capability of 1d6 (ignores shields) and
follows the normal movement and endurance rules for missiles.
The purpose of the MM is to overload the missile defenses of high ADAF and
PDAF mounting ships/fleets. It is also useful for putting some (small)
missile presence on even the smallest ships. As with the above, lowering
the range of the MM can help balance it in more missile-friendly
campaigns.
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Chad Taylor wrote:
> I've noticed that some people on the list have complained that
Fleet
> encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive
Has your group experienced standard hit and run by missile cruisers?? A
heavy missile cruiser armed with 4-6 standard missiles with a fleet of
6+
at a standoff distance of 54" is pretty bad. Most raids will have 6
cruisers fire everything at one capital ship. 24-36 missiles at one
target with time on target means it would take 24-36 PDAF's/ADAF's to
stop them. It only takes 4-5 hits to cripple or destroy a capital ship.
The cruisers then FTL away. Net cost 24-36 missiles for 1 capital ship.
A pretty good trade in any system. Rules modifications hve been made to
try to prevent this occurence since it makes perfect military sense - as
provided by Desert Storm, and the entire Cruise Missile concept - to use
cheap expendable ammunition instead of risking expensive ships and crews
to direct fire. The modern navy is built to defend against this tactic using
Aegis Cruisers and CIWS on nearly all front line ships. Several rules
modifications have been made to try to reduce the effect including allowing
fighters/interceptors/fast fighters to intercept missiles, forcing
missiles to move before pre-plotted movenent is revealed, and increasing
effectiveness of point defense systems vs. missiles. Just try being on the
receiveing end of a huge missile salvo, watch your fleet disintegrate and see
the enemy FTL away before your A batteries can come to bear. Now that's
annoying.
--Binhan
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Chad Taylor wrote:
> I've noticed that some people on the list have complained that
Fleet
> encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive
It depends on how you handle groups of missiles:
If you have a group of 4 missiles coming at a capital ship that has 6 PDAFS,
do you let all 6 PDAFS shoot at each of the 4 missiles one at a time, or do
the 6 PDAFS get one shot at all 4 missiles before they hit?
In the first case, it's likely that none of the missiles would get through,
while in the second case, it's likely that 3 of the missiles would get
through.
My group has always handled missile groups like fighter groups; i.e. you only
get one shot at the group before it hits. This is what makes them so
devastating.
> Rick Rutherford writes:
@:) If you have a group of 4 missiles coming at a capital ship that @:) has 6
PDAFS, do you let all 6 PDAFS shoot at each of the 4 @:) missiles one at a
time, or do the 6 PDAFS get one shot at all 4 @:) missiles before they hit?
How about neither? We allow, in any one turn, one PDAF to fire on one missile.
So if you had four missiles approaching your ship with six PDAFs, you might
assign two PDAFs each to two of the missiles, and one PDAF each to the
remaining two missiles. As usual, it's never explicitly stated in the rules
(and you can make your own anyway) that missiles do not move in groups, but I
think this is implied by the fact that the MT rules always refer to missiles
in the singular when discussing attacks on them by *DAF.
In any event, our group has also not been completely amazed by the
effectiveness of missiles. For us, this has little to do with PDAF and more to
do with the fact that missiles are not terribly manouverable. I guess this
means that we haven't had a lot of them launched at capital ships, though,
because those are even less manouverable than the missiles.
> Rick Rutherford wrote:
Fleet
> > encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive
you
> only get one shot at the group before it hits. This is what makes
As I understood it - the rules as they are written indicate that this is
the way it is performed 1 salvo against all the incoming missiles or
fighters - otherwise it is impossible to overwhelm a targets defences -
he simply keeps getting more *DAFs to shoot back with...
> Rick Rutherford writes:
I've always viewed FT missiles as salvoes of missiles, not
individuals. They seem _huge_ to me, and making them swarms makes up
for that. It also explains why they do so much damage.
> On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> In any event, our group has also not been completely amazed by the
We have had much the same experience. By giving careful thought to missiles
while you plot your movement we have found that most missiles can be forced to
miss entirely. The few that would be on target were often easy bait for the
*DAF systems. High speed was the best defense against missiles (or fighters)
for some time. We only recently had problems with a high number of *DAF system
defenses. James had taken to defending his fleets with specialized escort
cruisers that provided high numbers of supplemental ADAF defenses for his
fleets. This was compounded by the fact that we had misunderstood the *DAF
rules and have been allowing the *DAF systems to fire at each missile that
attacked the defended ship.
> Robert A. Crawford wrote:
Seems like large missiles would make sense, since the missiles can cover
extensive distances they would likely require larger propulsion systems and
support.
Chad wrote,
> I've noticed that some people on the list have complained that
Fleet
> encounters usually mean that a typical missile will have to survive
Another possibility would be to go the "low-tech" route by halving
missile
effectiveness and doubling the number you can carry/launch:
Mini-missiles: Mass - 1, Cost - 3. Does 1d6 damage.
(you might also want to give it only a 2-turn life)
Thus you overwhelm the target's defenses. Some missiles get through but do
less damage.
Just another idea, Scott
POLITICALLY CORRECT TERMINOLOGY: Inadvertently comical euphemisms mandated by
committees of humorless academicians for the purpose of offending no group
escept believers in free speach.
> Robert A. Crawford writes:
> @:) > Joachim Heck writes:
@:) > one PDAF each to the remaining two missiles. As usual, it's @:) > never
explicitly stated in the rules (and you can make your own @:) > anyway) that
missiles do not move in groups, but I think this is @:) > implied by the fact
that the MT rules always refer to missiles @:) > in the singular when
discussing attacks on them by *DAF.
@:)
@:) I've always viewed FT missiles as salvoes of missiles, not
@:) individuals. They seem _huge_ to me, and making them swarms makes
@:) up for that. It also explains why they do so much damage.
I have always imagined them as being similar to a Harpoon or Exocet missile,
one of which can severely damage or even sink a ship. Those are fairly large
missiles, but not huge. A fighter plane can carry two without a problem.
As far as the point I was making in my original message, it wasn't so much
about what is represented by a (1) FT missile. That could be a single missile
or a swarm or anywhere in between. I was more
concerned with the way missiles and PDAF interact - and I think that
for that each missile should have to be attacked seperately - a PDAF
shouldn't be able to fire at six missiles at once. So a single missile would
be the equivalent of a fighter group. If you imagine that a FT missile is
actually a salvo of missiles, that's fine by me as long as they all get
destroyed together when the PDAF rolls a 6.
> Scott Field wrote:
Check out the stats I presented not too long ago about using HE missiles
-
similar idea for a low cost missile system.
Mike Miserendino wrote,
> Scott Field wrote:
Where do you think I stole the idea from? ;-) ;-)
Scott
VALUES: The debased coin of our times: solid silver replaced by a cheesy
nickel-and-copper facsimile.
unsubscribe ftgzg-l
Sorry, never thought the volume would be so much...quite too much for a work
place. I'll subscribe at home as soon as I can. Also it seems to be all FT. I
play DS and SG. Thanks again. MSR