We recently had a situation arise while battling in dust clouds. After
nominating that certain batteries were going to fire on a particular ship we
rolled to get a weapons lock, and failed. My opponent then declared that
because the weapons had not been fired and because their ship had 3 firecons
that they could try to fire the same batteries by attempting to get a lock on
with the next firecon and if that failed with the next one. The rules state
that firecons can be used to target multiple opponents not the same ship
multiple times. Any Ideas??
> Darryl Hills wrote:
A firecon can target any ship, even one already targeted by another firecon.
Since you're not using the standard rules for firing, but requiring a target
lock roll, your group will need to agree on a resolution. Under the standard
rules, allowing multiple firecons to fire the same weapons would be a stretch
of the rules. I would link each weapon to a firecon (using the standard rules
for sharing a firecon as well). If the firecon fails, its linked weapons do
not have a target solution. If the lock suceeds, all weapons under that
firecon's control may fire at the target.
> Darryl Hills writes:
@:) We recently had a situation arise while battling in dust @:) clouds. =20
After nominating that certain batteries were going to @:) fire on a =
particular ship we rolled to get a weapons lock, and @:) failed. My opponent
then declared that because the weapons had @:) not been fired = and because
their ship had 3 firecons that they @:) could try to fire the = same batteries
by attempting to get a lock @:) on with the next firecon and = if that failed
with the next one.
@:) The rules state that firecons can be used to target multiple @:) opponents
= not the same ship multiple times. Any Ideas??
My take on this is that your opponent would have had to declare that
he was attempting to use multiple firecons to target your ship -
before he attempted to fire on your ship. Otherwise I would assume that only
one fire control had been allocated and that there is no instantaneous backup
fire control.
Darryl writes,
> We recently had a situation arise while battling in dust clouds.
> ship we rolled to get a weapons lock, and failed.
> batteries by attempting to get a lock on with the next firecon and if
> the same ship multiple times.
Well, in the regular rules, say you have a cruiser with both beams and
torpedoes (or needle beams). You need one firecon for each type of system,
right? There doesn't seem to be any reason you couldn't fire both beams and
torpedoes at the same target, so you *have* targetted the same ship with 2
firecons. And we've certainly never tied firecons to specific weapons --
if you lose 1 firecon, you are only limited in the number of weapons you can
fire, not which ones.
So I don't think there's anything in the rules that says you can't do it that
way if you want. I *would* say that if you want to use redundant firecons
like that, you must declare it before rolling any dice, ie -- if you
allocate 3 firecons to lock onto the same ship and make it with the first one,
you can't turn around and use the other firecons to engage different targets.
OTOH, if you want to only allow 1 roll per ship, then you could simply make it
a function of sensors rather than firecons, maybe giving bonuses to
enhaced/superior sensors.
Your game; your rule. (God, I really love FT!)
Scott
RABID: Foaming ominously at the mouth, like a mad dog or an activist on either
side of the abortion issue.
Reading the rules... Fire Cons can be used to target mutiple ships and that
multiple batteries can be split between them Therefore if two firecons were
used to target a ship then the sum of their tracks would be usable for all
batteries slaved to that target. The only exceptions are Needle batteries that
are tied up for its own solution and C batteries firing at fighters. Phil P.
Being a Fire Control Officer, I must say that many systems can be tied to one
sensor but more and morea are capable of utilizing multiple sensors with a
system that chooses the highest accuracy rating. Open source documents will
explain that there are now systems that can fire off other ships tracks and
even combine multiple track data to build the best possible track, enabling
ships to fire on targets they cannot see. This would really change things in
FT. Imagine that all you need was one ship getting a track and the whole fleet
being able to engage that target...
> At 07:25 PM 1/31/97 +1100, you wrote:
I would probably let the ship try to target the one ship with all firecons if
the player wanted. That would actually give firecons an extra use. On the
other hand, I would make him declare all his firecons before he started to
roll to hit with his weapons. If he wants to use all three firecons on your
ship, he gives up the chance of firing at any other ship that turn.
> Darryl Hills wrote:
My own feeling is that you should tie your weapons to Fire Control
Channels before any die-rolls. Then allocate fire control channels to
targets. (BTW this is how modern naval vessels actually work - each
weapon is informed which data source to use for tracking data, then the
trackers are allocated to targets - but I digress)
So, say you have a standard SuperDread. You might allocate 3 A-beams to
> At 07:25 PM 1/31/97 +1100, you wrote:
Seems to me that being in a dust cloud, if the first firecon "couldn't see"
the target, that the others wouldn't see it ether....
> AEsir@aol.com wrote:
Concur. I design Naval Combat Systems for a living. Of course, target
illumination, as opposed to tracking, is another matter.
I recently did an AI TEWA (Threat Evaluation and Weapon Assignment) system
that had to use as tracking Data: 2 TMK trackers, 1 TMX Tracker, and a STIR.
Only the STIR and TMX had Target Illumination capability. Weapons were NSSMS
(ie a missile system), a GMC 5", and 3 quad 25mm CIWS mounts. Plus decoys, ECM
etc. Often we'd only get initial data via
Link-11, then had to steer a tracker into a search pattern before
acquiring the target with a high enough TQ (Track Quality) for engagement.
Just doing this for 1 ship was bad enough. Doing fleet engagements using
offboard tracking is Tricky. Possible, but Tricky. To get maximum hit
probability with many weapons requires updates at about 50 Hz - that is,
> In message <19970202002127488.AAA155@nas1-19.acd.net> Donald wrote:
> Seems to me that being in a dust cloud, if the first firecon "couldn't
<pedantic>
And given the general density of interstellar dust clouds, if the fire con
can't see the target, it's probably several million kilometres away, and hence
out of range.
</pedantic>
> The rules state that firecons can be used to target multiple opponents
We have always played that multiple fire controls could target the same target
(some weapons require a fire control all to themselves [pulse torpedos, needle
beams]). Thus to target the same ship with both beam weapons and pulse
torpedos would need a fire contorl (each) targeting the same ship.
> We recently had a situation arise while battling in dust clouds.
No reason why the others wouldn't automatically not 'see'. Unless you're
ruling that way. I'd say that if one failed, there is still a chance the
others could lock on. Redundancy in targetting and tracking systems. One
fails, another tries.
Mk
> At 10:20 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Brian Bell wrote:
> target (some weapons require a fire control all to themselves [pulse
If you're looking for justification,page 4 has an example involving multiple
weapons on one target. "[when announcing fire before rolling for fire effects]
'I am firing both A Batteries at the Heavy Cruiser in my fore arc'." I take
that to mean that more than one firecon is allowed to target the same ship. Of
course,I could be wrong,I'm very new to the game and the list.:)
-Scott
> At 11:40 AM 2/2/97 +0100, you wrote:
If the target is out of range....why target it in the first place?? :-)
I hadn't thought of that. At the range most ships do there fighting,
He should see his target anyway.....Now that I think of it, fighting in a dust
cloud sounds interesting...
> At 07:25 PM 1/31/97 +1100, you wrote:
Say...what situation was that anyway? How did the fight end up in a dust
cloud?
Sounds like an interesting "terrain" feature....:-)
> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 AEsir@aol.com wrote:
This sound interesting...:) You want to come up with a rule for
it? :)
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
> We have always played that multiple fire controls could target the same
> target (some weapons require a fire control all to themselves [pulse
As far as I understand the original question the game involved being able to
lock on to the target with the firecon, this being because of a dust cloud in
the play area. I am of the opinion that the usual FT rules would apply, that
firecons dictate the number of targets that can be fired upon in the phase.
Now the player only stated one target, and so therefore even if multiple
firecons were fitted to the vessel he would only get one try. If that firecon
couldn't lock then tough. Of course it is one of those instances where you
wish that the particular occurance had been covered in a
pre-game agreement.
> Brian Bell
regards gent
---
Slums may well be breeding-grounds of crime,
but middle-class suburbs are incubators of apathy and delirium.
****************************************