Happy Easter to all!
I'm rolling several subjects into this one post to cut bandwidth. Please bear
with me.
> On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
I did some calculations:
By products: A ship doing 1pt turn ends up 0.97x vel" 15deg to side 2pts is
0.97x vel and 45deg (You turn much sharper when you turn before moving) 3pts
is 0.87x vel and 60deg 4pts is 0.87x vel and a full 90degs to side.
Interesting to note is that 4-pt turn is sharp enough to effectively
move sideways.
Now, a missile moves 18" per turn. It projects a movement cone in the
following manner:
1 turn: 30 deg cone, 17.39" rad (roughly) 2 turns: 45 deg cone, 29.94" 3
turns: 60 deg cone, 53.38"
It's not really exactly a neat cone, but close enough. Ok, this outlines
the space where the missile can get. In addition, the missile has a 6"
striking radius. Figure this slice of pie surrounded by an extra 6" in every
direction. That's the danger zone.
That's where you don't want to be.
What does it take to get out? I did some examples.
Assuming a head-on, down-yer-throat missile at 18", you need following
minimum velocities for guaranteed escape, *provided* you make the detailed
turn:
1 -pt. turn: 22"
2pt: 18" 3pt: 13" 4pt: 11"
With longer range 36" case, a 4-pointer is guaranteed to take you out of
trouble. Other cases are a bit more complex to calculate, but the velocities
needed are still in excess of 10".
If you don't meet the velocity, you're in a guessing game with a missile
swarm. That's not a good place to be.
Another thing to consider: My gaming table's 54" wide. For 130 points, I
can buy enough bathtub launchers to fire a saturation salvo that CAN NOT
MISS. Why? Because it's striking zone covers every inch of the table, that's
why. I could probably do it with even less points, if I bothered to calculate
spreads from slightly bigger launcher ships.
Yet another thing to consider: A missile does average damage of 7. That's
a kill against a Mass14 ship. A mass 14 ship hull+FTL, no thrust, no
weapons, no nothing, costs 42 points. I can almost get 2 bathtub launchers for
that price.
Shooting missiles is a numbers game. If you're missing, you're not using
enough of them.
> when they do hit. Oh, also we generally restrict FTL disengagement
No need for that. A thrust 8 ship can launch, hard turn, never get a single
INCH closer to foe and promptly exit table. *Even* if you play with a floating
map, nothing has thrust over 8. You can never close the distance, unless your
initial velocity was greater.
> note that in a campaign situation you'll have to pay (big) money for
Assumption. I'd say a missile must cost a mere fraction of what a scrapped
friendly ship does. I'd even say it's cheaper to get a new
missile than repair and slagged B-battery. Because if your ammo's more
expensive than that, you should be using kamikaze ships.
Ok, about points: Yes Jon, I *DO* think that *all* point design systems are
either fundamentally flawed, or optimizing is the name of the game. Don't take
this personally. I know very well how hard it is, and IMHO you've done a
pretty good job. So good in fact, that I really don't think
capital ships are a problem -- missile saturation from scores of
small ships might be. There are small optimization loopholes, but nothing
major in FT.
What next? Ok, bigs vs. smalls. I thought the whole idea was that capitals
were supposed to be badder than escorts. Yes, a BB will take a pounding while
killing some DDs. But you can field it with battle damage, your systems are
relatively easy to bring back online, so you're basically talking about a few
lost hit points.
Assume you need 3:1 odds to kill my BB, and even then you suffer twice my
points in casualties. So your remaining DDs get away. So what? So did my XXX
whatevers, that were never even present!
At the end of the day, the thing that *really* matters is who got most
kills pound-for-pound (or point-for-point).
The real setback of biggies is that they can be in fewer places at once. But
that enters the campaign background again. You don't necessarily *have* to be
all over the place. Simple example:
Take the Lafayette incident. It's a perfectly viable defense strategy (a
boring one, though) to pool all forces at Lafayette. The attacker just can not
win without facing a major showdown there. And unless he calls your bluff,
he'll be chewing up some his fleet against local defenses while looking for
your "mobile" fleet.
Ok, on to "Harpoon in Space":
Why disallow "C-s as PDAFs"? Because if you don't it becomes a viable
tactic to stick 50 C-s in a dreddie. That baby shoots down an average of
8.33 missiles per turn in PD mode. That's a major whopper to saturate.
Let's look at history. First we had torpedo boats, then we had torpedo boat
destroyers to keep them at bay and then we had just plain destroyers (tada),
which are so useful mainly because they're expendable.
Apart from their ASW duties, DDs kept enemies at bay through the threat of
torpedo attack. Torpedoes were, compared to big guns, short range
weapons -- but the only thing that could halt a dreadnought with a
single hit.
In FT missiles are otherwise nice, but they have too great range. It doesn't
really deter anyone from closing if they can shoot you across the
board anyway. Sub-packs might be ok, but I'm not sure they're nasty
enough
to keep anyone at bay. Maybe single-arc Kravvie scatterpacks?
Honor and rules: Jon, IMHO the best option would be to offer "tournament"
rules for those who want to use them. Ten players are likely to have ten
different ideas of what *exactly* is a balanced fleet. When you know the
people, you can get close enough, but when you game with strangers, you just
need black on white.
Btw: I oppose any suggestion that would mean the Kriegsmarine should never
have set sail. You can sail capitals without a destroyer screen,
and some real people did -- sometimes rather successfully.
In a message dated 97-03-28 19:43:19 EST:
<< Another thing to consider: My gaming table's 54" wide. For 130 points, I
can buy enough bathtub launchers to fire a saturation salvo that CAN NOT MISS.
Why? Because it's striking zone covers every inch of the table, that's why. I
could probably do it with even less points, if I bothered
to calculate spreads from slightly bigger launcher ships.
> [quoted text omitted]
Our "house rule" is that missiles that fly through dust clouds and nebulae
automatically lose their lock on and are effectively destroyed. The way I've
constructed my space "terrain" board, there are sufficient clumps of clouds to
make missile firing speedboats an ineffective way to go, unless supported
by the gun-carriers.
-- John I.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
> @:) On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
@:) >
@:) > Missiles indeed do terminate operations after 54". The @:) > question is
whether they actually hit their target in the mean @:) > time. I've heard a
lot of talk about missile boats and the like @:) > but given that typical
fleet speeds in our games are 15", it's @:) > not at all uncommon to see the
ships moving faster than the @:) > missiles. This makes it extremely difficult
for them to hit.
@:) What does it take to get [away from a missile]? I did some @:) examples.
@:)
@:) Assuming a head-on, down-yer-throat missile at 18", you need
@:) following minimum velocities for guaranteed escape, *provided* you @:)
make the detailed turn:
@:)
@:) 1 -pt. turn: 22"
@:) 2pt: 18"
@:) 3pt: 13"
@:) 4pt: 11"
I wouldn't be surprised. However, please note that this is a
_guaranteed_ escape. In the real world, the missile has a choice (in
any given turn) of five points to move to. It can go straight, or
turn up to two points in either direction at the mid-point of its
move. At speed 18, this produces a cone 15.58" across. Note that the attack
range of the missile is only 6" so it's actually possible for a missile moving
at speed 18 to completely miss a stationary target. Of course that would never
happen, right? Why? Because the player driving the missile would correctly
predict where the target would end up and put the missile there. Or would he?
I say no. I say your 22" with a one point turn is enough to guarantee that
your ship will escape but a significantly smaller move would be enough to
give you 50/50 odds. Don't forget to add in the 1/6 chance, per PDAF,
to shoot the thing down, and don't forget ADAF from your escorts (because the
smaller the ship, the more likely it can dodge the missile) and eventually it
gets somewhat unlikely. Don't get me wrong
- missiles are still pretty scary, but I think your analysis grossly
overrepresents the danger of an individual missile.
@:) With longer range 36" case, a 4-pointer is guaranteed to take you
@:) out of trouble.
Luckily, you probably don't need to manouver until the missile is one turn
away. But enough of this.
@:) Another thing to consider: My gaming table's 54" wide. For 130 @:) points,
I can buy enough bathtub launchers to fire a saturation @:) salvo that CAN NOT
MISS. Why? Because it's striking zone covers @:) every inch of the table,
that's why.
Really? That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9). The cheapest ship
I can buy is 112 points for a mass 23 cruiser with 1 thrust and no FTL. Is
this one of your "bathtub launchers"? Maybe I'm missing something, but it
seems like a ship like this would be completely
unable to withstand _any_ fleet that managed to escape the missile
volley. You would imagine the remains of the fleet to be quite small (I would
expect it to be larger) but in either case your ships have NO WEAPONS and NO
FTL. They are meat. Points wise, it's possible you may come out ahead by
trading my escorts for your cheap cruisers, but again I would suggest that my
escorts could mostly avoid your missiles.
@:) Yet another thing to consider: A missile does average damage of
@:) 7. That's a kill against a Mass14 ship. A mass 14 ship hull+FTL,
@:) no thrust, no weapons, no nothing, costs 42 points. I can almost @:) get 2
bathtub launchers for that price.
A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS. I am still convinced that
the hit rate of missiles is pretty low. In any event, this statement seems to
indicate that your "bathtub launcher" is a mass 3 thrust 8 cost 21 escort with
FTL and 1 missile. Sound right? Nine of those would cost 189 points, which
again conflicts with your previous saturation statement.
@:) Shooting missiles is a numbers game. If you're missing, you're not @:)
using enough of them.
OK, this I agree with. But the question is just how many you need
to shoot to hit - and more importantly how many you need to shoot to
hit the things you need to hit.
@:) No need for that. A thrust 8 ship can launch, hard turn, never get @:) a
single INCH closer to foe and promptly exit table. *Even* if you @:) play with
a floating map, nothing has thrust over 8. You can never @:) close the
distance, unless your initial velocity was greater.
This is true. This tactic is remarkably similar to the ever-popular
Kaufmann Retrograde. There is no defense against it, and it is completely
useless for almost all real situations. It is an artefact of the game rules
system. So yes it works but it's also one of the few examples of true
"powergaming" that I've heard. The solution, of course, is to implement a
strategic map so that the ships cannot move infinite distances. You can then
use your missile boats to attack and run away but they are useless for defense
because they are forced to run away and whatever they are defending will get
nuked.
@:) I'd say a missile must cost a mere fraction of what a scrapped @:)
friendly ship does. I'd even say it's cheaper to get a new missile
@:) than repair and slagged B-battery. Because if your ammo's more
@:) expensive than that, you should be using kamikaze ships.
Missiles have a cost in the rule book. They certainly are cheaper than ships.
Even if you expect to have to fire four of them to guarantee a hit, they come
out cheaper. Unless you don't kill the ship. If the ship survives then you
have to start comparing resupply costs to repair costs which I don't have
anything like the energy to do.
Ok so my rebuttal is over. What have we learned from all this? Arguments can
be made for the total superiority of missiles (interestingly basically the
same argument can be made for thrust 8 capitals with AA megabatteries) but
there are some serious problems to be addressed.
1. Missiles are only totally superior when used in a completely defensive
mode. The tactics required to do this make little
sense in "real-world" (read campaign) terms. They are useful in
pick-up games but your opponents will think you are a goober.
2. Missiles cause significant damage only when they hit the target. Although
they are manouverable they are by no means guaranteed to hit the target (as
are, for example, SFB drones). Depending on the manouverability of the target
you can expect to need up to four missiles to maximize your chances of hitting
and this may still not guarantee damage if the target is fast.
3. Missiles are most cost-effective against very small ships, but
are most likely to hit very large ships.
4. Missiles become more effective as their numbers increase. Since saturation
is the key, missile boats become more effective as
their non-missile systems decrease. The ultimate optimization of
the missile boat has no weapons and no FTL and is completely useless in a
fleet situation. It is only useable with the tactic in statement 1.
I think missile boats are quite useful, and I think they should probably come
in, fire their missiles and leave. After that point, the REST of the fleet
should come in fast behind the missiles and get behind the target ships who
have all turned their flanks to the enemy in an attempt to avoid the missiles.
Then they should kill them. The problem is that the enemy will probably
significantly outnumber the attackers at this point, so you'd better hope the
missiles managed to kill someone.
I should point out that if an argument like this can even be happening,
missiles must be pretty balanced. I'm actually quite pleased to see that other
people have opposing (and wrong, of course)
views about these things - it means the system doesn't have obvious
ways to win. Unless I'm wrong, of course, in which case the system is fatally
flawed.
> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised. However, please note that this is a
Well, actually it's not. I was away from my rulebook when I did the
calculations and to be on the safe side, based them on single 30 degree turn.
I need to redo these a bit... but all safe speeds will INCREASE as
a result.
> In the real world, the missile has a choice (in
Actually, it has *infinite* points, as it can move UP TO 18" and turn UP
TO 60 degrees. Even if you only allow full inches and full clock facings, that
comes out as 91 places to be. But this is a minor point.
> the attack range of the missile is only 6" so it's actually possible
You're contradicting yourself. Stationary, by definition, does not move.
> - missiles are still pretty scary, but I think your analysis grossly
Individual missiles are not (that) bad. Actually, they're very easy to avoid.
My analysis represents your chances of escaping a missile spread from a single
source.
> Luckily, you probably don't need to manouver until the missile is
Depends on your speed. The breakpoint is probably thrust 5. Slower than that,
and you probably need to start evasion 2 turns away (or have base velocity
around 20").
> Really? That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9).
Nope. 6" RADIUS gives 12" DIAMETER. 54/12=4.5 or 5 to be on the safe
side.
> FTL. Is this one of your "bathtub launchers"?
FYI: Bathtub launcher: Mass 4, FTL, Thrust 8, 1 Missile. Costs 26 points.
Thinking about it, since ship costs are linear, this *is* the optimal design
(for this particular mission). I could probably save a few points
by cutting the thrust, but this is good enough.
> Maybe I'm missing
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to fire off its missile and exit table.
Zero risk. The REST of my fleet is there to kill off the cripples.
> You would imagine the remains of the fleet to be quite small
Eh? 130 points is 2 frigates. 260pts (two sure-hit volleys) is roughly a
single vanilla heavy cruiser. Not that large a part for a 1000-2000
point engagement. And the more juicy cap targets you have, the more worthwhile
it gets.
> (I would expect it to be larger) but in either case your ships have NO
Eh? False assumption.
> A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS. I am still
Maybe I'll do a simulation if I feel like it, but you're ofcourse free to
believe what you will.
> this statement seems to indicate that your "bathtub launcher" is a
No, since that's an illegal design. Odd masses are not allowed, and in
any case, a missile weighs in at 2 mass. But you got close ;-)
> OK, this I agree with. But the question is just how many you need
True. But generally speaking, the more targets there are, the more it pays off
to shoot large volleys.
> This is true. This tactic is remarkably similar to the ever-popular
No it's not. It's a completely legit tactic based on the game reality.
Take a real-world comparison: A 30-knot BB outranges a 30-knot CA. The
best possible tactic for the BB is to stay out of the CA's range and pound the
little sucker. No matter what the CA does, it can not close the range because
they're both equally fast. It can't really disengage either. It's a dead duck
unless the BB runs out of ammo or the night falls.
Yes, this is pretty boring. Yes, it will result in a number of inconclusive
battles. But it IS realistic.
Realism doesn't always make a fun game.
> The solution, of
Borders in space? Are you serious? Strategic map for one-off or
tournament games?
> You can then use your missile boats to attack and
To make this crystal clear: I never said I'd build an entire fleet of bathtub
launchers. But they will make a fine and rather cheap boost to the firepower
of a balanced fleet. You could say a fleet *without* its share of launcher
ships is not balanced.
They make fine scouts and raiders by themselves, nevermind a good deterrant to
attack. And they absolutely slaughter space stations and other stationary
targets.
> ship. If the ship survives then you have to start comparing resupply
We were talking about resupply in a campaign. What does it cost to replace
a spent missile (or any other one-shot weapon)? Not specified anywhere.
I'm speculating it must be less than building the system completely anew.
> Arguments can be made for the total superiority of missiles
There's this little thing called points cost. Since thrust is the only thing
that's not linear, I'm willing to bet a selection of smaller ships
would prevail.
> 1. Missiles are only totally superior when used in a completely
I wouldn't call "hit & run" defensive.
> The tactics required to do this make little
Au contraire. For the cost of missiles, you're inflicting damage your opponent
needs shipyards to repair. The only way he can hurt you is to
attack your resupply bases -- thus you'll have the base defenses for any
stand-up slugfests on your side.
> pick-up games but your opponents will think you are a goober.
Eh? Do you think the americans were goobers because they bombed the japanese
into submission rather than launch a manly amphibious assault? In real
warfare, if you have a tactic the other guy can't defend against, you use it.
> Depending on
Four? I was thinking more on the lines of 10 missiles per capital size target.
A vanilla BC costs 381 pts. That's 14 missiles from bathtub
launchers. An average of 3 of them need to hit -- which could leave 11
missiles to wreak havoc among the escorts.
> 3. Missiles are most cost-effective against very small ships, but
Not true. The almost linear ship costs mean they are more cost effective
against larger ships, which have paid more points for the same evasion ability
(i.e. thrust). And you're less likely to "waste damage" if your target's big
enough. Actually, they're LEAST effective against Mass 2 couriers, because
those cost less than the launching platform.
> I think missile boats are quite useful, and I think they should
Hey! We DO agree!
> problem is that the enemy will probably significantly outnumber the
Crippling or wounding are good results too. And I guess we disagree just
what constitutes "significant outnumbering".
> pleased to see that other people have opposing (and wrong, of course)
Thank you. How flattering.