> --- Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what is the latest on the fighter front? I like the concept,
Beta fighter rules from the list archives
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00286.html
After I posted some feedback about trying these rules, Laserlight invited:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200503/msg00422.html
And so I posted
Movement http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00037.html
Turn Sequence http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00038.html
Fighter Attacks http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00039.html
added correction http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00043.html
Attacks Against Fighters
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00042.html
The only response was
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200505/msg00044.html
J
Yuk! *This* is the future direction of FT? The game that's supposed to be
quick and fun to play? Really?
One of the great attractions of FT is that it generally doesn't require lots
of plusses, minuses and modifiers. This seems to take mechanisms that are
*mostly* optional rules in FT2.5 and make them core in FT3, and a *lot* of
extra chits, markers etc. are going to be needed to keep track of screening,
escorting, evading etc.
Apart from the complexity, this "fighter fix" also smuggles in some
pretty major changes to other non-fighter "ordnance"-style systems:
1) Arbitrary bonuses for certain weapons systems: "Salvo Missile,
Plasma Bolt, and AMT markers AUTOMATICALLY gain a -3 target DRM to
any non-PD-mode fire against the marker." Why? For example, an AMT
has the same mass as a Heavy Missile, so why should it be harder to
hit? In fact the privileged projectiles that receive this -3 DRM seem
to be not just harder, but *impossible* to hit with non-PD weapons,
while Heavy Missiles are laughably easy to knock down (see next comment).
2) Evasion and missile range: The "burn an endurance point for evasion" rule
is very hard on standard Heavy Missiles which have only three CEF, greatly
reducing their effective range if they evade. My feeling is that missile
ranges are already short compared with beams, and this only exacerbates this.
On any turn when an HM *doesn't*
evade, by the way, a B4 anti-ship battery (for example) could knock
it down with one shot at 48mu as easily as a dedicated PDS would at
point-blank range! That feels completely artificial and gamey, and
*certainly* puts my suspension-of-disbelief meter in the red zone.
Finally I was left a bit gob-smacked by this comment: "Similarly the
fighter morale rules are GONE. They were always dubious from a PSB point of
view (why would robotic fighters be scared of being destroyed?)". Since when
have FT fighters been robotic? With the exception of the Cylons in Blunderstar
Gargantua, does any movie or TV background feature robotic fighters? The whole
*point* of space fighters is so that spunky young things with great hair and
teeth can zoom round the galaxy packing attitude and disobeying orders...
> Yuk! *This* is the future direction of FT? The game that's supposed
All I can say at this point, Robert (and all out there), is "don't
panic!!" ;-)
The beta fighter test rules that you are referring to are fairly old now,
having been generated by lot of thrashing around on the playtest list a good
while back.... please don't consider them "official", even from a beta test
standpoint. At the moment, as time allows I'm working on some VERY much
simpler proposals which I believe address the most important fighter issues
while staying in the spirit of the original FT rules. Not a lot has happened
for some months due to a lot of Real Life(tm) issues getting in the way, but
I'm gradually getting back on to the development stuff. I don't want to say
too much more at this point because there is still a good bit of testing and
tweaking needed before I can consider releasing a "public beta" to the main
list, but watch this space....
:-)
Jon (GZG)
> One of the great attractions of FT is that it generally doesn't
> Robert Bryett wrote:
> Yuk! *This* is the future direction of FT? The game that's supposed
<g> You sound *exactly* like I felt before I tried this concept out for the
first couple of battles... and there are lots of others who reacted just
like this too, only to change their minds after trying it out in a game. It
looks very ugly on paper (particularly if you read the "explain everything in
triplicate" version you linked to), but it actually plays about as fast as
standard FT2.5.
> One of the great attractions of FT is that it generally doesn't
The DRMs from the "Advanced and Specialized Fighter Types" section are
optional in FT2.5, true. CEF aren't though, and although beam rerolls are
*nominally* optional the entire Fleet Book ship design system was created
around the assumption that beams do reroll '6's... which makes the reroll
rule about as "core" as it could be :-/
> and a *lot* of extra chits, markers etc. are going to be
Screening/escorting status is tracked by moving the fighter groups into
base-to-base contact with whatever they're protecting, and if you track
CEF expenditure by tick boxes on the fighter group's SSD instead of using
fiddly little dice on the fighter group's base, you don't need any extra
chits to track evasion either.
So no, you don't need even one single extra chit or marker :-)
> Apart from the complexity, this "fighter fix" also smuggles in some
Yep. Which isn't very surprising, considering that those other
ordnance-style systems have balance problems that are quite similar to
(though less extreme than) the fighter ones...
> 1) Arbitrary bonuses for certain weapons systems: "Salvo Missile,
Salvo Missiles because their sub-missiles are tiny targets assumed to
evade by default, Plasma Bolts because they were difficult targets even for
PDS under the old FB2 rules (and also because they're *very* easy to wipe out
without the DRM), and AMTs because by the time you get to shoot at them
they has already deployed a number of warheads MIRV-style throughout the
target area.
> For example, an AMT has the same mass as a Heavy Missile, so why should
See above. The HM is a single fairly large target; by the time you get to
shoot at an AMT, it consists of multiple small targets.
> In fact the privileged projectiles that receive this -3 DRM seem
"Impossible"? No. Difficult, yes, that's precisely the point with the -3
DRM; but beams still hit on successful rerolls, and P-torps/K-guns hit
on
rolls of 5+ at range 0-6 and on rolls of 6 at range 6-12.
> while Heavy Missiles are laughably easy to knock down (see next
Provided that the targets can bring their non-PD weapons to bear against
them (the HMs' secondary move can make that difficult) and have enough FCSs to
engage them with (a ship needs to dedicate a separate FCS to each Heavy
Missile it wants to engage with non-PD fire).
> 2) Evasion and missile range: The "burn an endurance point for
I'm curious here: How often do you fire Heavy Missiles at their theoretical
maximum range of 60 mu? (3x18 mu moves + 6 mu target acquisition range =
60 mu from the launch point.)
> My feeling is that missile ranges are already short compared with
The Heavy Missile is around TMF 1 in size; the smallest spaceship you can
build under the Fleet Book design rules is TMF 2. Why would it be
impossible/unbelievable for the B4 to hit the TMF ~1 Heavy Missile at
range 48mu, when it is perfectly capable of hitting the TMF 2 spaceship at
that range?
> Finally I was left a bit gob-smacked by this comment: "Similarly the
Since about five minutes after the first munchkin player bought More Thrust
back in 1993. Robotic fighters is by far the most common argument used by
those players who don't/didn't want to use the (optional) More Thrust
fighter morale rules to explain why their fighters shouldn't have to make the
morale tests...
However, the real reason why the fighter morale rules were removed is that
they were counter-productive. Without the morale rules small numbers of
fighters were pretty ineffective while massed fighter swarms could sweep
all before them... and the effect of the MT fighter morale rules was to
penalize small numbers of fighters even further while having very little
effect on the massed fighter swarms :-(
Regards,
> From: Oerjan Ariander
Amen. Have you still got the UFP Lite I sent you? Might be more palatable.
> if you track CEF expenditure by tick boxes on the fighter group's > SSD
Which you should definitely do, particularly if you have even one
fumble-fingered friend participating in your 20-fighter-group battle.
"Was that die for the torpedo fighters or for the interceptors? I think it was
for my interceptors, that one was for yours...and mine was a 5, not a 3"
> On 29/06/2006, at 2:16 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> It looks very ugly on paper (particularly if you read the "explain
On the face of it that seems unlikely, but I suppose it depends what one means
by "about".
> The DRMs from the "Advanced and Specialized Fighter Types" section
It was the DRMs I had in mind. Screens are a FT2.5 core DRM of course, but I'd
just as soon not add any more.
> Screening/escorting status is tracked by moving the fighter groups
That doesn't seem to be true. What the "Fighter Fix" note *actually* says is:
"A fighter group within 3 mu of a friendly or enemy ship at the start of phase
3 may declare that it is "screening" that ship instead of making a primary
move. The fighter will not move in phase 3, but will instead follow the ship
it is "screening" during phase 5 (Ship Movement). The fighter group ignores
its normal maximum primary move distance, and must stay within 3 mu of the
ship throughout the ship's movement. It may move to any other position
relative to the ship as long as it remains within 3 mu from it."
Apparently there is *no* requirement for screening fighters to be in
base-to-base contact with whatever they're protecting. So presumably
some form of chit, marker or paperwork will be needed to distinguish a fighter
group that is screening from one that just happens to be within 3mu, so
everyone will be clear on when and how it's legitimately able to move.
Escorting fighters do indeed have to move into base-to-base contact
after declaring their status, but let's have a look at the escorting rules:
"A fighter group that is ESCORTED by another fighter group may not be attacked
by enemy fighters unless: the escorting fighter group has fired OR the
escorted fighter group has fired OR the attacking fighter group targets each
escorting fighter with at least one of its own fighters, with only the
remainder able to fire on the escorted fighter group OR the attacking fighter
group is prepared to take fire from the escorts immediately, out of initiative
order, before its own attacks are calculated. Note that once either the
escorting or the escorted group has fired,the effect of the escort vanishes
and the escorted group may be attacked normally by other fighters in the
normal sequence."
Frankly my brain melted halfway through that load of old garlic, but it seems
there's plenty of stuff to record here, beginning with which group is
escortED, and which is escortING, and perhaps going on to which fighter groups
have fired and at what.
> In fact the privileged projectiles that receive this -3 DRM seem
I confess I hadn't thought of K-guns and P-torps in this context, but
clearly you're correct.
With the beam re-rolls, I am obviously not understanding something.
Let's say a B2 fires at an incoming SM salvo, and rolls a 4 and 6.
DRM-3 reduces the 4 to 1 so it's a miss? The usual beam mechanism on
the 6 would give normal damage (two hits) plus a re-roll. However
applying -3 DRM would presumably prevent the two hits from taking
effect, so you're just left with a re-roll? Roll a 5 on the re-roll,
and that's a miss? Roll a 6 on the re-roll and you again get 2 hits
(cancelled by the DRM-3) plus another re-roll? I must be wrong here,
so how does this work?
> while Heavy Missiles are laughably easy to knock down (see next
I think the secondary move of Heavy Missiles is problematic because of the
reduced effective endurance imposed by the need to evade (See next point). The
FCS issue is interesting though, because it's not just the *targets'* FCS that
are relevant, but potentially every FCS on every ship that's in range and arc.
I can certainly see FCS proliferating on custom designs for the new rules,
rather as PDS do under the old ones.
> 2) Evasion and missile range: The "burn an endurance point for
We've only recently added Heavy Missiles to our games. I don't think anyone's
tried to shoot an HM in a dead straight 60mu line, but one of my nephews tried
to use the max range to zigzag and "sell the dummy" to intercepting fighters.
I confess it didn't work;) but he had fun anyway! More usual is to launch an
attack from outside B3
range, attempting to time it so that it's 18 + 18 + 6 (secondary) + 6
(acquisition) mu, or a *potential* max of 48mu. Burn one CEF for evasion under
the new rules, and that range is cut to 30mu (less than
an ER SM), or 42mu if you sacrifice the secondary, and any anti-ship
beam in range and arc can still knock the missile down pretty easily
(including that B4 from the other side of the table).
Under the new rules the HM had better be used as a combined arms
weapon fired from the same range as other anti-ship weapons.
Launching from outside the bad-guy's anti-ship range envelope would
just let him concentrate on your missiles and knock them down like the
proverbial fish in a barrel, unless you can shoot at him while he's engaged
with other ships or into a blind arc. Maybe the most effective way to use an
HM under these rules would be to use it like
a short range SM from 18 + 6 (acquisition) mu burning two CEF for
evasion, and giving the enemy the least possible time to react. Launching from
deep within the enemy's beam envelope would at least
allow the launching ship to "decoy" some of the enemy's anti-ship
weapon fire away from the missile:). It seems that HM would become
Yet-Another-Short-Medium-Range-FT-Weapon :\ *shrug*.
It's suggested above that the secondary move somehow makes HMs difficult to
keep in arc. I don't see that in cinematic where wide
arc weapons are the rule and and the proposed anti-ship weapons are
so effective against missiles, even at long range. In vector, HM range is
reduced because the secondary and acquisition moves drop to
3mu, but there might be more chance to stay out of arc for anti-ship
weapons. Even one sixty degree arc covers a lot of real estate at say 36mu
though.
> The Heavy Missile is around TMF 1 in size; the smallest spaceship
What seems unbelievable to me is that the anti-missile kill
probability of the B4 at 48mu and the PDS at point-blank range is
*identical* (0.5). If your PSB can swallow the idea that weapons and
fire control are so accurate that a long range heavy anti-ship weapon
can pluck a missile out of the sky at 48mu, how come PDS is so *inaccurate* at
short range when it's purpose designed for shooting down fighters and
missiles? For me, either the PDS is believably accurate and the B4 is
unbelievably accurate, or if the B4 is believably accurate, the PDS is
unbelievably inaccurate.
The TMF2 ship you mentioned is an interesting point. According to
Shiptool, a TM2 non-FTL ship could have a Thrust Factor of 14! In
other words it could accelerate 14mu per turn indefinitely, while carrying a
crew, life support fuel etc. By contrast an HM is restricted to a steady speed
of 18mu for a measly three turns while just carrying a warhead. Seems to me
that the HM ought to be a *lot* smaller than the TMF2 ship, unless the warhead
is really, really big.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 29/06/06, Robert
> N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
As in exactly the same amount of time. It may look complicated but in practice
it is very easy and very satisfying to use. My group has been using these
rules since they were first posted on this list and have never looked back.
To reiterate-it does play just as fast, really, I kid ye not.
Cheers,
> Robert Bryatt wrote:
> It looks very ugly on paper (particularly if you read the "explain
In this case I'd estimate that "about" means "marginally faster than FT2.5
with similar numbers of fighters and ships".
> Screening/escorting status is tracked by moving the fighter groups
Doh! Sorry about that - I forgot that "3mu" is longer than base-to-base
contact if you use inches for measuring units... We use 1mu = 1cm, and since
most of our ship and fighter bases are ~3mu across and we measure
from centre to centre even for fighter groups, "3mu" and "base-to-base
contact" become effectively indistinguishable :-(
'Course, the fighter screening movement rules come virtually straight out of
FB1, including the 3mu distance! Whatever the reason, in the years we've
used the beta-test fighter rules we have never felt any need for
"screening" markers - not even in battles with 50+ fighter groups per
side.
> Escorting fighters do indeed have to move into base-to-base contact
Try this instead:
"If an enemy fighter group tries to attack an escorted group before either the
escorted group or the escorting group(s) have fired, the escorts may
immediately fire at the attackers out of the normal initiative order before
the attackers fire."
This says exactly the same as the above quote, but uses only one third as many
words to express it. See what I meant by "it looks ugly on paper but
plays smoothly"? :-/
> In fact the privileged projectiles that receive this -3 DRM seem
You missed the bit which says that only DRMs that are due to the *firing
weapon's* abilities apply to rerolls, whereas DRMs due to the *target's*
abilities or actions do not. Why this complexity? Because that's what the
[official] Q&As have said since very shortly after FB1 was published, and it
survived into the
beta-test fighter rules...
According to FB1 and the Q&As, an Attack fighter's +1 DRM applies both
to the initial die and to any rerolls, but its target's screens (which are
effectively a kind of "DRM" to beam dice) only degrade the initial die.
In the same way an Interceptor's +1 DRM applies to both the intial die
and
any rerolls, but the SM's -3 target's DRM does not (analogous to screens
not degrading rerolls). Because of this a roll of '4' or better on the
reroll hits the SM salvo in spite of its -3 DRM.
(And yes, it would be a fair bit simpler if *no* DRMs applied to rerolls
:-/ )
> while Heavy Missiles are laughably easy to knock down (see next
To me the secondary move is the heart and soul of the Heavy Missiles; it is
that ability above anything else which sets them apart from SMs and Plasma
Bolts.
> The FCS issue is interesting though, because it's not
As long as you can rely on your opponents using lots of HMs (or lots of
FCS-eating EMP beams) this can happen; otherwise those extra FCSs cost
you more than they're worth whenever you're *not* facing a HM wave (or EMPs).
> 2) Evasion and missile range: The "burn an endurance point for
If someone launches HMs to hit my ships such that the missiles are expected
to fly 40+ mu from the launch point before they reach me, I will almost
certainly be able to avoid most or all of them if I choose to do so (in
Cinematic, that is). For me such long-range missile launches are purely
intended to make the enemy move in certain ways so my ships and/or
fighters can engage him with direct fires on favourable terms; any damage
inflicted
by the long-ranged missiles themselves is an unexpected bonus.
'Course, since both sides are aware of this it is sometimes beneficial to
take on the enemy missiles head-on rather than to allow the enemy ships
to park in your (A) arcs!
> Burn one CEF for
Or as battlefield-shaping weapons, as described above. If I want Heavy
Missiles to actually inflict damage, I launch them at short ranges.
> Launching from deep within the enemy's beam envelope would at least
Or, conversely decoy some of the enemy's anti-ship weapon fire away from
your *ships*... particularly useful when you're facing Phalons ("Hm... do I
fire my Pulser-C at the enemy ships, or at this missile which will
probably kill *my* ship at the end of the turn...?"), but quite useful against
other enemies as well.
> It seems that HM would become
"Wide arcs" very rarely means "all arcs"; most Cinematic-designed ships
lose a *lot* of their firepower when the missiles move from the (FP/FS)
arcs into the (AP/AS) ones, and under the standard rules they can't fire
any anti-ship weapons at all at missiles that get into their (A) arcs.
But
yes, if you launch from 40+ mu away the missiles will most likely have
to spend some time in the enemy's stronger arcs.
> The Heavy Missile is around TMF 1 in size; the smallest spaceship
The B4+FCS combination is at least 9 Mass, ie. at least 9 times larger
than the PDS. The FCS *alone* is the same Mass as the entire PDS. With that
huge difference in Mass (and cost), I really don't have any problem at all
with them being vastly different in capability as well.
(It also helps that I don't see either the B4 or the PDS as firing *one*
shot each per game turn; instead I see them as firing lots of shots to
saturate the entire volume the target could be in. At long ranges most of
those shots will miss, but there are enough of them to give the B4 it's 50%
hit rate at range 48mu. The PDS, being so much smaller, fires
correspondingly fewer shots than the B4 - enough to give it a decent hit
rate at close ranges, but severely limiting its effective range.)
> The TMF2 ship you mentioned is an interesting point. According to
2D6 points of damage *is* really, really big :-/
Regards,
> Laserlight wrote:
> >It looks very ugly on paper (particularly if you read the "explain
Yep. A page and a half long, and half of that is the turn sequence... and
about a quarter-page of the rest is the fighter escort rule, which can
be
cut down to about one-third its current size (as shown in my latest
reply
to Robert B.) :-/
I don't have any web site to put it on for downloading, though :-(
> >if you track CEF expenditure by tick boxes on the fighter group's
"Was
> that die for the torpedo fighters or for the interceptors? I think it
Very much so. It gets even worse if you use a second D6 to track the number of
surviving fighters...
Now if we could only get Jon to see the light too ;-)
> The TMF2 ship <snip> carrying a crew, life support fuel etc. By
A warhead, plus its own fire control system, plus ECM/ECCM to help it
survive long enough to attack. And the 2 mass for a "missile" actually
includes the launching rack too.
> On 30/06/2006, at 6:48 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> You missed the bit which says that only DRMs that are due to the
This sort of stuff is why I think DRMs are bad news and that their ugliness is
best confined to optional rules that gaming groups like ours (with players as
young as eight) can safely ignore.
As regards the beam re-roll example I used before, can I confirm that
it works like this: Suppose a B2 rolls 2d6 against an incoming SM
salvo, scoring 4 and 6. 4-3=1=Miss. 6-3=3=Miss but gains a 1d6 re-
roll. DRM does not apply to the re-roll, so normal damage applies
(1-3=0, 4or5=1Hit, 6=2Hit+Re-roll)?
> To me the secondary move is the heart and soul of the Heavy
I couldn't agree more. That's one reason why I keep banging on about the
evasion mechanism eating away at the CEF of heavy missiles. It looks to me as
if the combined effect of very effective long range
anti-missile fire, and having to burn CEF points to evade it, pretty
much vitiate the factors that distinguish HMs from SMs - longer range
and the secondary move.
> As long as you can rely on your opponents using lots of HMs (or
Exactly. And isn't that exactly what people apparently find so offensive about
the existing rules? That you have to invest heavily
in PDS, which don't pay off if the enemy doesn't bring missiles and/
or fighters to the party? FCS are more versatile than PDS though, so the
effect might be less marked.
> If someone launches HMs to hit my ships such that the missiles are
In our admittedly limited experience, that depends a *lot* on the target's
thrust rating. One of the main benefits of the placed marker missile mechanism
is to make fielding a lumbering Thrust 2
battlewagon, or using sit-'n-spin tactics, a riskier cost benefit
proposition.
> For me such long-range missile launches are purely intended to make
Using missiles to constrain the enemy's manoeuvre is certainly a paying tactic
under FT2.5. One of my nephews "invented" the tactic for himself a while ago;
I was *so* proud.;)
However missiles have to be a credible threat for this to work. Only
multi-turn missiles can offer a threat to which the enemy has a
chance to respond by manoeuvring, and under these proposed new rules HMs seem
far too easy to shoot down to be credible.
> (It also helps that I don't see either the B4 or the PDS as firing
I'll give up on this since I'm essentially arguing PBS which is always futile.
It strikes me as deeply bogus, but that's only IMHO and other people's milage
may vary.
> 2D6 points of damage *is* really, really big :-/
Is it? It's just two of those "tiny" -3 to hit SMs. It's *less* than
the damage potential of those -3 to hit AMTs (though they're 33% more
expensive in points than HMs of course). I don't have a copy of FB2 on this
computer and we don't play alien races yet, so I don't know
what -3 to hit Plasma Bolts do (but they're not one-shot weapons I
recall).
As regards the SM salvo, two missiles would represent about 4/7 of
the 3.5 missiles that would on average survive the "lock-on roll", so
effectively one "buys" 2d6-worth of damage for 4/7 of the mass and
points cost of an SMR. That's a mass of 2.29 (2.86 for ER) and points of 6.86
(8.57 for ER). If that's correct, it seems that at 2 mass and
6 points, an HM is a relatively "cheap" way to buy 2d6-worth of
damage under FT2.5. However PDS affects SMs and HMs very differently, and
unfortunately I'm not mathematician enough to assess that. So I could well be
wrong, but it *seems* to me that the relative ease of shooting down HMs vs.
SMs under these proposed "fighter fix" rules is
an over-correction.
I should probably shut up about this, since Mr.Tuffley told me not to panic,
but Mr.Ariander's comments are so intriguing...
> From: Robert N Bryett
How about if HM got a bit more CEF? I agree with you that I'd like HM to be
long range weapons, not just channelizing (or as OA put it "battlefield
shaping") weapons.
> you have to invest heavily in PDS <snip> FCS are more versatile than
I think you'll still want to bring some PDS, but you won't need as many as you
do now.
Oerjan said:
> I will almost certainly be able to avoid most or all [missiles]
RBrett said:
> In our admittedly limited experience, that depends a *lot* on the
And the velocity. A Thrust 6 ship poking along at speed 4 isn't as safe as a
Thrust 2 ship at speed 24.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAssuming there are
no small ships to soak damage that thrust 2 ship has to be in 1 of 3 places.
Those places are close enough that I can easily narrow my choice of SM
placements to two. A placement that covers a left turn of one and a placement
that covers a right turn of one. Both will cover the no turn option. The ships
actual thrust is so small as to be fairly irrelevant.
And I can probably narrow it down to one placement by table configuration and
my estimate of my opponents best strategy.
It's pretty hard to get a thrust 2 to 24 without flying out of the battle
anyway.
What absolutely wipes out a SM player is K'rvak. The dodge circle is huge.
> Robert Bryett wrote:
> As regards the beam re-roll example I used before, can I confirm that
Correct.
> To me the secondary move is the heart and soul of the Heavy
To me the long nominal range has never been a vital feature of the HMs or
their MT missile predecessors, simply because long-range launches are so
easy to outmanoeuvre. The HMs are more manoeuvrable than the MTMs were, but
not enough more to make them dangerous at long ranges.
> As long as you can rely on your opponents using lots of HMs (or
> fighters to the party? FCS are more versatile than PDS though, so the
I'd actually call it the other way around - excess FCSs are generally
*less* versatile than excess PDSs, because the excess FCSs are really only
useful against two weapons (HMs and EMPs) while the extra PDSs are also useful
against SMs, fighters and Plasma Bolts (and to a very limited extent against
starships as well).
> If someone launches HMs to hit my ships such that the missiles are
Indeed. Which is why I very rarely fly thrust-2 ships, and consider
thrust-4 ships to be rather sluggish :-)
> For me such long-range missile launches are purely intended to make
Not at all. What you respond to is where the missiles might be *next* turn,
not where they are *this* turn, so any ship armed with SMs or Plasma Bolts can
be used to "herd" the enemy in this fashion.
> and under these proposed new rules
Not in my experience <shrug>
> (It also helps that I don't see either the B4 or the PDS as firing
The above description of B4 and PDS fire is essentially how today's
real-world point-defence systems work: fill the volume the incoming
missile has to fly through with so much crap that the missile can't avoid
being hit by some of it... having a good FCS merely limits the volume that
needs to
be filled with crap; it doesn't allow single-shot kills.
> 2D6 points of damage *is* really, really big :-/
Each of which is about one-third the size of a HM but has shorter range,
allowing them to use a larger proportion of their tiny hulls for the
warhead :-)
> It's *less* than
And those AMTs also have quite a bit shorter range than the HM, allowing
them to use a larger proportion of their hull to carry the warheads :-)
> I don't have a copy of FB2
FB2 Plasma Bolts can only be hit by *PDS* on rolls of '6', making them
*extremely* difficult targets. Allowing anti-ship weapons to hit them at
-3
makes them quite a bit easier to defend against (which is deliberate, since a
fair number of players have complained about the FB2 version as being
overpowered).
> As regards the SM salvo, two missiles would represent about 4/7 of
I've done the maths many times over. I won't list all the numbers here (IIRC
they're in the list archives already, posted some years ago), but basically
for a given amount of PD fire 2 HMs on target inflict slightly
less damage than 1 SM salvo on target (unless the defences are very weak, in
which case the HMs do better than the SM).
Now, at first glance this might look like a reasonable balance - the HMs
are slightly cheaper but slightly more vulnerable to PDS, so it seems to
even out - but the key words above are "on target". Thanks to their
secondary move HMs launched from short ranges are considerably more likely to
*be* on target than SMs are, which means that for a given cost of missiles
there'll usually be more than 2 HMs on target for every SM... so if the target
is only defended by PDSs the HMs will usually inflict quite a bit more damage
than the same cost of SMs would.
Which is the *game* reason (as opposed to the PSB reason) why the
beta-test
rules make HMs more vulnerable to *anti-ship* fires than the SMs are -
to
compensate for their much higher accuracy :-/
Regards,