We have gotten our house rules for Salvo Missiles to where we like them, and
although I have given up trying to get salvo missiles really fixed officially,
I think there are a number of fixes that could be made without going all the
way to the "moving missile counter" method.
The following ideas can be implemented independant of one another.
Idea #1
The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe. Replace it with
a lock-on roll for each missile in the salvo. The missile must roll
the required # or higher to successfully lock on the target.
0-1 MU = 1+
1-2 MU = 2+
2-3 MU = 3+
3-4 MU = 4+
4-5 MU = 5+
5-6 MU = 6+
(option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest target,
etc. until all possible targets exausted. If missiles from a salvo attack more
than 1 target, maybe split salvo for PD purposes)
Missiles suffer -1 to hit per level of ECM (enhanced, superior) and -1
per level of stealth hull.
Idea #2) Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized. To encourage their use,
change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV (4 per MASS) or 15 PV (5 per MASS)
Idea #3)
1-arc SML = 2 MASS
5 arc SML = 4 MASS
if also adopt #2 above, 1- and 5-arc SMRs have same mass as
corresponding SML, but 4 or 5 PV/MASS.
Idea #4) SM magazines take threshold checks as protected systems (like Core
Systems)
Idea #5)
change SM magazine to 3 MASS for 1st salvo, +2 MASS for second salvo,
+1 MASS per additional salvo, and 6 PV per salvo.
Idea #6) Change ER missiles to be interchangable with standard SMs, but have
+50% range (compared to standard missiles) and 1d3 damage.
Add Long Range (LR) missiles with +100% range and 1 pt damage.
Add Heavy warhead missiles with -33% range and 2d6 damage.
Add X-Heavy warhead missiles with -50% range and 3d6 damage.
J
> The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe.
Why? I mean, you've shown a solution but you haven't shown a problem.
> Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.
<grin> Allahu akhbar! Underutilized by whom?
> Idea #4) SM magazines take threshold checks as protected systems (like
Reasonable
> Idea #5) change SM magazine to 3 MASS for 1st salvo, +2 MASS for second
Yeah, *that* would result in SMRs being underutilized.
G'day,
> We have gotten our house rules for Salvo Missiles to where we like
I'm sorry I have a really bad memory of late, could you please remind me what
it was you found broken about the SMs as is?
> The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe. Replace it with
Out of curosity about how many salvos would you fire in a game and what would
be the typical number per turn? Thinking of the games we play, where we can
have more than 40 salvos go off at once, your suggested changes would make for
a lot of dice rolling;)
If I remember correctly you play in vector. Have you found the "drop off in
chance to hit" as an alternative solution to just dropping engagement ranges
to3mu in vector?
> (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest target,
As someone who sees a fair amount of her missiles go "target, what target?"
I'm not immediately opposed to the idea (beyond the potential complexity of
tracking which missiles are going where). Could someone with a greater
knowledge of missiles with warheadlettes explain if its plausible (it probably
is I just don't know to judge)
> Idea #3)
Nice idea.
> Idea #4)
Do you find you lose a lot of magazines or is there some other reason for the
suggestion?
> Idea #6)
I am partial to the idea of multiple warhead types for missiles.
Cheers
> The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe. Replace it with
I had a little problem understanding the objection; is it that there's no
total miss?
How about using a d10, with 0 = miss, 7 = three hits, 8 = 4 hits, and 9
=
five hits? Not a bell curve, but is it closer to your desire?
The_Beast
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Idea #2)
Like Laserlight said, underutilized *by whom*?
Among the custom designs I've collected so far from all over the planet SMRs
are about as common as SMLs, and many players have asked us why anyone would
use SM*L*s when the SMRs are have such obviously advantages: higher launch
rate (gives better chance to overwhelm target point defences), and lower
vulnerability to threshold checks (so the SMR salvo is rather more
likely to be launched at all rather than the magazine-stored SM is).
In fact, I can't recall anyone else claiming that SMRs are too *weak* compared
to SMLs... though please note that I'm *not* saying that you're
wrong in the context of your gaming group, only that many other groups have
reached quite different conclusions than you have.
> To encourage their use,
Unless your missile boats are thrust-8 or faster, Mass 3, cost 15 makes
the SMRs *more* expensive overall than Mass 4, cost 12. Mass 3, cost 12 gives
them a bit of a rebate, though in light of what I wrote above I'm not at
all convinced that it is necessary.
> Idea #5)
So the 9-salvo magazine aboard the FSE Foch-class ships would have a
Mass
of 12 instead of 18 and the 6-salvo magazine on the Roma-class drops
from 12 to 9 Mass? That's nice, but I'm not sure how it fits together with
your
above statement that SM*R*s are underutilized (unless this SML-magazine
Mass progression is what *causes* the SMRs to be underutilized in your gaming
group?).
Regards,
> --- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
IMO, the best way to fix them is delete them from the universe... like the
Highlander 2 movie.
> Idea #1
SMs are dumber than dumb. They are like a flak load and the target basically
runs into them, so there is potential for a total miss. To say that SMs can
now seek another target misses the point of SMs. BTW, are you planning to now
say that SMs have a 54 mu range to account for the additional fuel load, now
you have to increase the mass of each missile to account for the additional
fuel, oh, and now I need to account for the smarter electronics (i.e.
targeting at up to range 6), so increase the mass some more...
Are you halving the targeting range when using vector movement?
ECM has no effect on targeting systems by the FB. If
you do that then I want the opponent to roll 4+(1d6)
to lock a fire control onto my ships [one try per FCS] for my using ECM
systems in normal space and I can't be targeted in a nebula. It might open a
Pandora's box.
> Idea #2)
I wouldn't use them EVEN IF thats all there is. For that mass, give me a pulse
torpedo.
> Idea #3)
(see comments under idea 5)
> Idea #4)
Don't like it, otherwise you may as well move ALL the weapons into that
protected status. I think that's the risk of having explosive warheads and
fuel in such close proximity to each other when being hit by large destructive
measures. I know that the grunts (at least) accept that risk.
> Idea #5)
Make the weapon system better and cheaper. Sounds a lot like SFB to me. Not
today nor tomorrow.
> Idea #6)
ERSMs and SM are interchangeable when using the SML. Might ever so grudgingly
look at it.
Westbrook! um..tell us how you REALLY feel! ;-)
and all good points, really. my group grapples with SMs for some reason, and I
keep thinking afterwards, ' I'm gonna use PTs next time'.
> --- Tom Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
AND don't forget: Serenity releases 30 September!
> I wrote:
> ...many players have asked us why anyone
<sigh> I should know better than trying to type when I'm dog-tired. The
above quote seems to be a mix of "...the SMRs are so obviously superior"
and "...the SMRs have such obvious advantages" :-( Same with the other
typoes and grammatical oddities.
Ah well; you understood what I meant, anyway...
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
No problem.
The "place missile marker, then it looks for targets" is really the biggest
problem. We use a "maneuver the missile to a specified target" house rule,
similar to MT missiles. This is the part that we gave up as "never going to
change".
The close second is the "1d6 missiles lock-on". We feel that missiles
should be much smarter than this, and the vast majority of misses should come
from PDS or evasive defenses such as Stealth Hull or ECM. I.e. if you have no
PDS or advanced capabilities of stealth or ECM, you
should suffer 90%+ hits. If I thought I wouldn't be laughed off the
List, I would have suggested 1+ or 2+ to-hit rolls against any target
in the attack radius.
Additionally, the "1d6 lock" mechanic limits the launchers to salvos in
multiples of 6. a "roll to-hit per missile" mechanic allows for future
development of a range of SML/Rs with varying numbers of missiles.
> > The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe. Replace it
In games with salvo missiles, a mixed beam-SM capital (BBG) will have
2-4 launchers, a missile capital (BG) will have 6-8 launchers, and
escorts might have 1-4 launchers. Each launcher usually has 4-8
salvoes in magazine with a couple of launchers sharing a magazine (so
8-16 salvo SMMs). Some players have fewer launchers, but then add an
equal number of SMRs (e.g. 6 SMLs and 6 SMRs instead of 8 SMLs).
Capital squadrons of 3-6 ships escorted by 1-2 escorts per capital.
Games of up to 12 capital ships per side.
For our group, having a box top on the table and rolling handfuls of dice is
no deterent. It's no different than rolling lots of beam dice. In fact, I
would think that for those who have complained about some weapons being too
wildly random, the statisitcal averaging of lots of dice would be a plus.
> If I remember correctly you play in vector. Have you found the "drop
No. My group plays cinematic. I am interested in trying vector again, but have
no opponents who want to play vector. So, for me vector is an interesting
theoretical exercise, but only a couple of actual games. As I said above, I
would have suggested high probabilities for hits if I thought anyone on the
list would even consider it. Since I don't, I didn't. To change my suggestion
ito Vector, just divide all the listed
ranges by 2 (wild guess here, based on 6-3 FB rules).
We tried this mechanic and it worked, but as our "targeted, maneuvering SM"
house rules require SMs to get really close now (1 MU), the TH rolls we use
now are related to the position of the target relative to the F of the missile
marker.
> > (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest
> explain if its plausible (it probably is I just don't know to judge)
Many models of torpedoes going back to WW2 have "search and acquire" modes.
Submarine launched torpedoes usually have a safety that disables the torpedo
if it turns 180 and returns a certain distance
(like 50%), but aerial and rocket-delivered ones have 360 search
patterns and some models, like the US MK-50 will return to reacquire
missed targets.
> > Idea #3)
"Feel", PSB, "suspension of disbelief". Just don't like the idea of magazines
being in the same category as "surface features". We do the same thing for
fighter hangers (which we have seperated from the
launch/landing bays)
> > Idea #6)
Do you mean a scale of warhead sizes traded against range (as I suggested) or
warhead *types*, as in "Standard Warhead", "Beam Warhead", "Nova Warhead",
"Hyperspace Warhead", etc.?
J
> --- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
[See reply to Beth Fulton's post]
> >Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.
Jon T. and the Official GZG-verse fleets (as Dean G. has stated that
Jon T. designed all the FB1 fleets).
There is only 1 FB ship that has any SMRs, and it is a variant
described in text only, no SSD. There are no SM-armed MTB/PT/PCG
designs at all.
Since 2 SMRs = 8 MASS, and 1 SML + 2-salvo SMM = 7 MASS, all of the
ships with small SM loads in FB1 use a SML rather than SMRs. This suggested
change would make SMRs lighter up to 2 salvos and a tie at 3 salvos.
> >Idea #5) change SM magazine to 3 MASS for 1st salvo, +2 MASS for
1 SML + 1 Salvo = 6 MASS vs 1 SMR = 4 MASS (or 3 if also adopt my other
suggestion above)
1 SML + 2 Salvoes = 8 MASS vs 2 SMR = 8 MASS (or 6)
1 SML + 3 Salvoes = 9 MASS (same as RAW) vs 3 SMR = 12 MASS (or 9)
the 3-salvo SMM is common in FB1 SM ships
J
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
Problem is too many missiles go wandering off without acquiring a target.
J
***
The close second is the "1d6 missiles lock-on". We feel that missiles
should be much smarter than this, and the vast majority of misses should come
from PDS or evasive defenses such as Stealth Hull or ECM. I.e. if you have no
PDS or advanced capabilities of stealth or ECM, you
should suffer 90%+ hits. If I thought I wouldn't be laughed off the
List, I would have suggested 1+ or 2+ to-hit rolls against any target
in the attack radius.
***
Boy, did I get a wrong number!
Sorry I misunderstood your objections; I guess my 'bell curve' suggestion
looked almost like an insult. I thought you were objecting to a) no
opportunity for all misses unless defended, and b) that possibilities of hits
were linear.
***
Problem is too many missiles go wandering off without acquiring a target.
***
;->= I'd just figured that out, and was in the process of writing my
apology. I must say now that I put my foot in it, I prefer a non-linear
solution, but still prefer the single roll as opposed to a roll per missle.
I have less of a problem with missles missing, though I guess I'd think if
SOME had a chance, more would do so, all or nothing, so to speak. Hell, from
my readings of current space research, I'm surprised beams hit at all.
However, I suppose I assume the SM's initially disperse randomly for whatever
PSB is necessary, and, as dispersed, would be more random as to aquiring
targets. Unfortunately, target's speed, manuvering, et al., probably should be
considered, but would make figuring final roll tortuous.
PSB in this case might be, however you may be speeding and twisting along,
some missle is pointed in your general direction.
The_Beast
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Jon T.'s FB1 designs, as well as being rather MASSive for the tiny strikeboats
some people on the list seem to like.
> Among the custom designs I've collected so far from all over the
I was thinking "too massive" or "overpriced", but if "other weapon(s) prefered
for same MASS" = weak, then OK, weak.
> compared to SMLs... though please note that I'm *not* saying that
Other players use 2 SMRs vs (SML + 2-S SMM) or 3 SMRs vs (SML + 3-S
SMM)?
> >To encourage their use, change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV (4 per MASS)
I understand the cost difference, I just don't know how much weight you give
to the "logistical slice" in figuring PV. You sound like you
would come down on the side of 4 PV/MASS.
> >Idea #5)
I would say that the above SMMs should stay the same MASS, and alter their
capacity rating accordingly. All of the FB designs are light on ammunition
IMO, especially if viewed in terms of ships actually
operating on cruises, rather than built for one-off games. How many
games do you see a missile collier or three taging along with the FSE fleet to
replenish them between engagements?
> together with your above statement that SM*R*s are underutilized
SMRs are rare in Jon T's Official designs.
J
> [See reply to Beth Fulton's post]
Okay, now that you've described the problem, I agree, at least to some extent.
I'd say that the idea is that warships have a certain amount of evasion and
ECM built in, so when missiles miss, it's because the defenses happen
automatically.
> > >Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.
You've overlooked the Gorshkov. However, IMHO the SMR is a better deal and
several iterations of the Islamic Fed used SMR exclusively
(ie no SML/magazine combos); I was one of the people who kept asking
Oerjan "why DOES anyone use SMLs?". But don't get hung up on the FB1
designs--at least some of them were intentionally sub-optimal. And
you're always free to write your own.
As far as I know, the FB3 Islamic Fed ships will be similar to these:
http://home.quixnet.net/%7Edeboe/ft/ifships.htm . Try them with SMR
replacing each pair of Heavy Missiles.
G'day,
> The "place missile marker, then it looks for targets"
Combining my answer to this and the final question of yours ("Do you mean a
scale of warhead sizes traded against range or warhead *types*").... One of
the compelling things for me in moving to missiles
that can have different warhead types or a trade-off between range and
warhead strength (to me they're all just different kinds of missiles as
I would presume you have to note before game what trade-off you chose or
did you mean an on the fly tradeoff?) is that you can easily grade from
something like a classic MT to a classic SM without as sharp a discontinuity.
> The close second is the "1d6 missiles lock-on". We feel
Given those features weren't covered as standard in the original FB couldn't
you argue the roll was representing that and that you only need to adopt
modifications such as the ones you've put forward as stealth and ECM become
explicit rather than implicit. I'm guessing you do have more explicit sensor
stuff?
> Additionally, the "1d6 lock" mechanic limits the launchers to
Good point.
> For our group, having a box top on the table and rolling
Its not for us either, we have a bucket of >100 D6 dice of various colours and
you pull what you need. Still sounds like a lot of extra
rolling if you then have ECM/PDS on top and then attack. Given adding
sensors to the game fullstop has run into dice-rolling bottlenecks (even
when only rolling per FC) I can just see rolling for 240 odd missiles in a
decent round of missile fire as adding a bit of time to the game;)
I am also imaging the chaos of tracking which missile went where if you
also allow misses to try and re-lock on a new target. I'm not saying
it's a bad idea, its actually a nice idea, I'm just trying to think of the
implications for our playing style.
> No. My group plays cinematic....
That takes you down to half mu something I'm not overly keen on. For someone
who doesn't want to go that route would you think just using
every other entry you gave would work as well in practice (so 2+, 4+,
6+)?
Cheers
> --- Tom Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest
I figure SMs are (semi-)autonomus homing munitions like modern SAMs,
AAMs, torpedoes, or the missiles that show up in SF. That is why I want to
improve their performance in the game.
> BTW, are you planning to now say that SMs have a 54 mu range to
I don't see the connection or logic of this. What fuel load are you talking
about?
> now you have to
What additional fuel?
> oh, and now I need to account for the
Huh? RAW the attack targets up to 6 MU, So I don't see what your bitching
about.
> Are you halving the targeting range when using vector
Don't know. Have to get opinions from those who actually play vector.
> ECM has no effect on targeting systems by the FB. If
Why so sarcastic and unreasonably over-the-top? If you want a good,
genuine discussion kicking around ideas for an integrated
Stealth-ECM-FCS-Sensor system, why don't you start a thread? I'd be
happy to contribute without getting pissy.
> > Idea #2)
Can't. PTLs are 6 MASS for 3-Arc, not 3.
> > Idea #4)
Maybe conscripts whose countries can't afford anything better than
soviet cast-offs, but the trend is to protect crews. Nothing in the
rules implies that the missiles or warheads are a volitile hazard. RAW
thresholded SMMs can be repaired and then used normally. Implies no munition
detonation.
> > Idea #3)
As I am someone who never played Star Fleet Battles, perhaps you can explain
this?
> > Idea #6)
No they aren't. ER take 50% more MASS RAW. I said interchangeable, as
in 1-to-1 exchange. That is why my suggestions have trade-offs between
damage and range.
J
In a message dated 3/17/05 3:14:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jlhilal@yahoo.com writes:
<snip> someone said:
> SMs are dumber than dumb. They are like a flak load
I figure SMs are (semi-)autonomus homing munitions like modern SAMs,
AAMs, torpedoes, or the missiles that show up in SF. That is why I want to
improve their performance in the game.
<snip>
A parallel with obvious limitations to FT:
A current discussion of modern AAMs on the Air War C21 list pointed out the
fact that missile generation went from 'Why bother unless you are outside of
gun range' in the first generation missiles (result was 'ripple firing' in
Vietnam based on assumption first missile would miss or misfire (essentially a
dud/miss hung up on the wing) to relative lethalness in the 4th
generation).
Basically each first generation weapons encounters massive 'hiccups' which are
then solved causing reasonable to highly probable kills then the defenses get
smarter causing ineffectiveness followed by a new generation of missiles with
'teething problems' followed by higher kill rates, and on ad infinitum. In
modern experience the defense has had smaller and smaller windows of
effectiveness as the missile designers have gotten better at defeating the new
defenses -- plus there are only so many kinds of defensive measures you
can use. Combinations are more effective but then the defenses become more
complex and undergo the same kind of generation problems the missiles have
already undergone.
It seems to me that the defenses are currently holding an upper hand in FT.
Also, if you start making those 1D6 damage each SM's hit more often
(potentially 6 - 36 points -- bye-bye anything but a cruiser or
larger), then to keep game balance they need to 'cost more' else they become a
uber-weapon.
Well, maybe not an uber-weapon, at least in my hands ... but 'cheap at
twice the price' weapons.
Just my dos centavos.
Gracias,
> J L Hilal wrote:
> The close second is the "1d6 missiles lock-on". We feel that missiles
Actually, I've always assumed that the 1d6 (or 1d6-1 or whatever) effect
wasn't because the missiles were stupid, but instead reflected the basic,
innate point defense systems that didn't offer enough tactical flexibility to
be an icon on the SSD. Every warship simply must have some sort of basic ECM
and point defense, it's factored into the randomness in the game system. In
fact, it's one of the best explanation
for there being any randomness at the FT level of detail at all.
I don't know if Mr.Tuffley intended it this way, but I think it makes good
PSB.
ECM
2 mass / 5 pts
Each ECM gives a +1 DRM to any PDS firing vs Salvo Missiles. ECM must
be assigned on a 1 ECM = 1 Salvo basis.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
First off, my name Tom
Second, I can't truly say what if feel about SMs on the list without a lot of
censorship.
> --- Inire <inire@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Westbrook! um..tell us how you REALLY feel! ;-)
Replying to several posts at once here:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.
Jon T's "official" GZGverse fleets:
1) do not cover every "official" nation of the GZGverse; in fact FB1
explicitly states that it doesn't even cover all of the ship designs used by
the four powers described in FB1,
2) form at best a few percent of all Full Thrust ship designs created and used
under the Fleet Book rules, and
3) include three times as many SMR-armed ships as you claimed ;-)
In short, FB1 on its own is *far* too small a sample base to give you any idea
of how commonly used a particular weapon is. All it tells you is that Jon
didn't include SMRs as a major part of the "design themes" of the any
of the four FB powers - but it doesn't tell you anything about his ideas
for *other* GZGverse fleets' design doctrines, and it doesn't tell you
anything about what the hundreds or even thousands of *other* Full Thrust
players around the world think of the weapons.
(FWIW I don't know what all FT players think either; only those I've been
in contact with. That's why I'm subscribing to so many GZG-related
mailing
lists - to try and sample the thoughts of as many players as possible.)
> There is only 1 FB ship that has any SMRs, and it is a variant
The following three FB1 ships use SMRs:
ESU Gorshkov-class Heavy Cruiser (standard variant, SMRs shown on SSD)
FSE San Miguel/M-class missile destroyer (described in text only)
FSE Athena/M-class missile corvette (described in text only)
How small would a ship have to be in order to qualify as an "MTB/PT/PCG"
craft, BTW?
> Since 2 SMRs = 8 MASS, and 1 SML + 2-salvo SMM = 7 MASS, all of the
No, ships with *large* SM loads use SMLs since they're the ones that save
significant amounts of Mass from doing so. The FB1 ships with the *smallest*
SM loads both use SMRs (can't get smaller loads than 1 salvo,
like), and of the 3 designs with the next-smallest SM loads (2 salvoes)
2 designs use SMLs, the 3rd SMRs.
> though please note that I'm *not* saying that
2xSMR is more common than SML+4-Mass magazine, yes. Being able to launch
both salvoes at once is a major consideration here, as is the SML's higher
vulnerability to threshold damage.
3xSMR on a single ship is less common than SML+6-Mass magazine, though
I'd say that that's as much because SMR players tend to use numerous ships
with
1-2 SMRs each rather than fewer ships with many SMRs.
> To encourage their use, change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV (4 per MASS)
Talking NPV here, not CPV. Apologies for any confusion that caused!
> I understand the cost difference, I just don't know how much weight
Figure out what fraction of the ship's engines the weapon requires, and what
they cost.
Add the cost for the Basic Hull Structure holding the weapon *and* its
fraction of the engines (ie. 1 pt in the NPV system, a variable amount if you
use CPV instead).
Add all three costs together.
Eg., let's study a Mass 4/cost 12 weapon aboard a thrust-6 FTL-capable
ship
of TMF 20. The ship has 8 Mass of engines and thus 20-8 = 12 Mass of
systems and hull boxes who have to share those engines; so the Mass 4
weapon's share of the engines is 4/12 = 33%, or 2.67 Mass. These engine
bits cost 2.67*2 = 5.33 pts.
The Basic Hull Structure to hold a 4-Mass weapon and 2.67 Mass of
engines is 6.67 NPV, or (in a TMF 20 ship) 1.33 CPV. The total cost of this
weapon
in this ship is therefore 12+5.33+6.67 = 24 NPV or 12+5.33+1.33 = 18.67
CPV.
> Idea #5)
How many battles do you expect a ship to fight on each cruise, before
returning to base for repairs and resupply? More importantly, how many battles
do you expect them to fight before they can meet up with a fleet
collier and top up their magazines?
> How many games do you see a missile collier or three taging along with
In one-off games? About as often as you see carrier task forces include
freighters to carry replenishment fighters to fill up the emptied hangar
bays after a battle, ie. very rarely. They're nice objectives in scenario
games, though.
In campaigns, and specifically campaigns which track missile usage? Very
often, though usually both the missile colliers and the fighter replacement
transports stay far enough behind the front lines that the enemy has to go
through the warships before it can reach them.
Regards,
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
No problem. My original post was kind of vague on this.
> However, I suppose I assume the SM's initially disperse randomly for
However, while this explains the "1d6 lock on", the logical extension is that
the missiles that don't lock on to the nearest target should get to roll for
other viable targets. <shrug>
J
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
<flip, flip, flip> yep, I did. <blush>
J
> J L Hilal wrote:
[...]
> > However, I suppose I assume the SM's initially disperse randomly for
PSB, I believe, is the inate ECM that is below the abstracted level of the
game that throws off or decoys the missiles that miss. I think someone
mentioned earlier in this thread similar, that and/or the missiles were
taken out with a point-defense suite too small to be reflected or
tracked in the abstracted level of FT. I personally don't go for the latter,
but I can easily subscribe to the former. And then when the "real" ECM rules
get hammered out properly, those would be the "larger" ECM generators (or
whatnot) that can be tracked at the resolution of FT.
My two bits worth, Mk
***
However, while this explains the "1d6 lock on", the logical extension is that
the missiles that don't lock on to the nearest target should get to roll for
other viable targets. <shrug>
***
Hive brain; they can only focus on one target. ;->=
***
> You've overlooked the Gorshkov.
<flip, flip, flip> yep, I did. <blush>
***
Heck, ESU is my first/main fleet. I've used the Gorshkov's plenty, and I
didn't pipe up with them.
Oerjan:
***
The following three FB1 ships use SMRs:
ESU Gorshkov-class Heavy Cruiser (standard variant, SMRs shown on SSD)
FSE San Miguel/M-class missile destroyer (described in text only)
FSE Athena/M-class missile corvette (described in text only)
***
And, leave it OO to find the items I missed buried amongst the 'fluff'.
<blush>
The_Beast
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
I mean "select before game" not "on the fly".
So you decide which of the warhead-size/range combination you want and
also which warhead type you want. It also might not have been clear,
but I meant that these salvoes are 1-to-1 interchangeable in terms of
MASS, which is different from the FB1 ER salvoes.
The next weapon design step would then be to offer SMs in a variety of Size
classes: E.g. 1, 2, 3, etc.. The Rack, Launcher, and Magazines then are
described with 2 numbers: the size of the missiles fired and the number
of missiles in each salvo. So the FB1 SMLs are "SML-1/6". SM systems
firing other size missiles have the same MASS but fire a different
number of missiles, such as MASS 3 = SML-1/6, SML-2/4, SML-3/3, etc..
The launcher is determined at the time of ship construction, but allows a more
generic design to be presented in the fleet book, so that players can fill in
which launcher(s) they want on a particular ship. Magazines carry only one
size SM, but nothing prevents a ship having 2 sizes of launchers with seperate
magazines.
The larger sizes of missiles would have the same options for
damage/range trade-offs:
Standard missile has 24 MU range and damage = (Size class)d6 Extend range by
50% per reduction in damage dice, smaller than 1d6 is 1d3 (light), and then 1
pt (mini).
Increase damage dice by +1 level for -33% range, by +2 levels for -50%
range, or +3 levels for -66% range.
Note that the FB1 "ER missile" would be a ER-SM2 in this system as it
does 1d6 and has +50% range. This then leads to the possiblity of
larger launchers/racks with more missiles
All sizes of missiles and warheads would also have a variety of warhead types:
Standard Warhead - damage as per FB
Beam Warhead - stand-off weapon that fires Beam Dice at target ship,
affected by screens, lesser chance to shoot with PD/AD/AS
Nova Warhead - Big Boom area affect weapons, lesser chance to shoot
with PD/AD/AS
Hyperspace Warhead - no boom, transists/jumps to FTL/hyperspace instead
of detonating, damaging nearby ship(s)
Interceptors - Mini warheads (and appropriate range) specialized to
attack fighters and missiles.
> > The close second is the "1d6 missiles lock-on". We feel
We have Stealth Hull and ECM each in a scale of 0-4. The basic FT/FB
rules for combat and ship design are assumed to represent ships with
Stealth-2 and ECM-2 (Standard military grade). Our Level-3 corresponds
to Noam Izenberg's Stealth Hull-1 (WDA/NI test fleet), and our Level-4
to Noam's Stealth Hull-2. Stealth and ECM cumulative, so Stealth-3 +
ECM-3 on the same ship corresponds to WDA Stealth Hull-2, and Stealth-4
+ ECM-4 = WDA Stealth Hull-4. If a ship is damaged and degrades
Stealth and/or ECM below level-2, then attacking ships get the benefit
of extended range bands when targeting the ship with less than
Stealth-2 + ECM-2.
> I am also imaging the chaos of tracking which missile went where if
Well, if you normally mark the salvo in some way to indicate how many missiles
have locked on, you can simply add an additional salvo marker for the missiles
locked on to a different target. E.g. the Salvo locks 3 missiles onto target A
and 2 missiles onto target B. Mark the initial salvo location as 3 missiles as
you normally do, then place an
additional adjacent marker indicating a 2-missile salvo for target B.
PSB is that as the missiles spread out against seperate targets, they can no
longer be fired upon with a single firing solution.
> That takes you down to half mu something I'm not overly keen on. For
Sure, but you would have to detemine if 2+, 4+, 6+; or 1+, 3+, 5+ works
best. That might be a matter of taste. <shrug>
J
> --- Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
OTOH, why waste such damage on overkilling something small? Also makes
larger ships more wary in the manner of 1900's wet-navy TBs and MTBs,
and an incentive to build TBDs.
J
> --- Michael Llaneza <maserati@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> flexibility to be an icon on the SSD. Every warship simply must have
We have made similar assumptions for our Stealth and ECM rules by
placing the standard FT/FB rules as assuming level-2 systems free with
the FB ship design system for military ships, but then we give "Fleet
Book"-type ships the chance to *lose* those free level-2 systems to
threshold rolls.
J
> J L Hilal wrote:
J,
Might part of the problem be the added variables you guys have introduced to
your games? New stuff can quickly destabilize or unbalance established systems
(then again, sometimes established things can unbalance as well
;-)
Mk
From: Indy kochte@stsci.edu
> PSB, I believe, is the inate ECM that is below the abstracted level of
I think I was the one to say that....but I don't necessarily agree that's how
it *should* be.
-- One would expect a NAC cruiser to have better defenses than a PAU
destroyer, and a PAU destroyer to have somewhat better than an unarmed
merchie.
-- It ought to be possible to use ECCM or advanced missiles to counter
ECM, or to knock out a target's ECM on thresholds or with needles.
I'd be happier if missiles had a chance to hit what they're supposed to,
rather than "nearest target." If you're operating as a banzai jammer this
turn, you ought either to attract missiles from a longer distance than 6mu, or
you ought to be hit be all six missiles from each salvo.
Or a salvo could be split among multiple targets-- if only one missile
locks onto your DD, then maybe another one has gotten lost but the remaining
four have gone after the BB behind it.
In a message dated 3/21/05 8:30:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> jlhilal@yahoo.com writes:
> --- Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
OTOH, why waste such damage on overkilling something small? Also makes
larger ships more wary in the manner of 1900's wet-navy TBs and MTBs,
and an incentive to build TBDs.
J
Uh, well, as an ex-USAF type I don't like or use the 'Naval' model in
my mind or games. Seems like the AF has at least as much potential to control
space forces as the Navy of any nation or group. Or in the case of the old
Evil Empire (real world, not miniatures) the Army!
Gracias,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Replying to several posts at once here:
<flip, flip, flip> Someone else beat you to the punch on the Gorshkov:) I
missed the Athena, yasure, youbetcha.
> How small would a ship have to be in order to qualify as an
I wouldn't put a TMF figure on it, just a description. SMR Athena is a
good MTB/PT, and SMR San Miguel kind of on the top end of a PT/PCG.
Gorshkov is more of a CAG (not even CG) due to size, speed, and significant
other armament.
> >I understand the cost difference, I just don't know how much weight
<snip explanation>
Thank you for explaining the "logistical slice" computation. This helps me.
> >I would say that the above SMMs should stay the same MASS, and
Since a lot of the backgroud in the GZG setting involve ships on solo or
squadron cruises, they probably are either going to be bored or fight several
engagements, low probability of just 1 battle IMO.
J
> --- Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
A reasonable question, but I don't think so.
We played with salvo missiles "out of the box" before we decided that we
didn't like them.
We did not apply our ECM or Stealth rules when we tried the Fighter Beta
rules.
Our Stealth and ECM effects on range bands we worked out vs. beams,
PTs, and K-guns similar to what is on the W&DA, just that we called the
"basic FB rules" to be level 2 for everything, rather than level 0 as
W&DA. For SMs, we give them +'s (and -'s) to the missile's TH roll in
the SM system that we use. I am not sure what would be a good way to have them
affect RAW SMs.
J
I found the Athena... but somehow I can't find the Yasure and the Yabetcha...
Is my FB1 missing a page? There don't seem to be any that look torn out, a
misprint? What are the classes of these two? What other two ships am I
missing?
> --- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Remember, even light is shaped by the darkness that surrounds it, and the true
crafters are seldom ever seen. Welcome to the shadows kid.