Hello everybody
We recently had a discussion about salvo missiles under vector rules. It would
be more realistic to add the launching ship's velocity vector to the 24" range
of the SML's. However, this is generally disliked because
it would make SMLs from a fast-moving ship the weapons with the longest
range in the game.
I propose to make the accuracy of placing the aiming point of teh SML depend
on the range as follows:
- place aiming point as under present rules
- displace aiming point by the ships velocity vector
- measure range from ship to aiming point
- throw two dice, one for left deviation, one for right deviation
- divide the range by 10, and multiply by the difference between the
two dice
- displace the aiming point according to the result of the multiplied
dice throw to left or right, perpendicularly to the line joining it with
the launching ship
This is more complicated than the present procedure, but, I hope, not
unacceptable. It also needs play-testing, and perhaps some adjusting of
the numbers involved. I chose the divisor of 10 because it's a nice round
number. Possibly, the 3" intercept range for SML should be increased for these
rules. Also tactics of both sides may change with less accurate SML's.
PSB: Assume the SML's are two-stage missiles, with a booster and an
intercept stage. After the booster burns out, they fly in a straight line
until the intercept stage is fired. With limited boster accuracy, the lateral
precision or the aiming point depends linearly (in 2D) on the range.
Any comments?
Greetings Karl Heinz
> I propose to make the accuracy of placing the aiming point of teh SML
The part that bothers me about this is that, in the accepted scale, you're
talking about 1000's of km of deviation and no particular physical reason
(wind, current) for it.
And if you're maneuvering at high speeds, presumably he is too-in which
case a missile strike like this is very much a gamble, in cinematic at least.
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
In the PSB explanation at the end of my message, I tried to give a reasoning
for the scattering, namely the natural accumulation of random
errors in the aiming/boost process of the missiles. This applies to any
type of shooting in real life, though in precision weapons, these errors are
so small as to make no difference.
Note that this is different from the systematic deviations caused by winds and
currents, which can (in principle) be corrected for. Have a 10
knot wind from the left? Aim 5 degrees to the right of the target.
The random error I proposed is certainly very large, but I made it so
to discourage long-range shooting. Feel free to alter the numbers in the
proposal.
The standard deviation of the difference of 2 dice is of the order of
2, that is 2/3 of the throws will be in the value range +-2. As proposed
in the rules, it will be 20% of range, large indeed. At 24", 2/3 of the
hits will be within 4.8" of the aiming point.
Perhaps we really should divide the range by 20 rather than 10 to get at the
deviation, resulting in a sigma of 10% (2.4" at 24").
> And if you're maneuvering at high speeds, presumably he is too-in
Well, I was looking primarily at vector. But, yes, the point was to
make extra-long-range missile strikes very much a gamble. A ammo is
limited, presumably it would be wise to wait with the missiles until you get a
reasonable shot. Of course, if the enemy comes on a wide front, you would hit
wherever the missiles decide to go.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> Note that this is different from the systematic deviations caused by
... and you'll be sure of missing.
If the wind is from the left you need to aim to the left of the target.
> > I propose to make the accuracy of placing the aiming point of teh >
But they don't apply any more to "SMR Boost + accumulated ship velocity"
than they do to "SMR boost alone".
> > And if you're maneuvering at high speeds, presumably he is too-in
In which case, if you're going that fast, you're going to end up in his lap
this turn or next turn anyway. "Turn Left 3" doesn't let you swoop off the
side edge of the universe in Vector the way it does in Cinematic.
> But, yes, the point was to
Sensor rules would perhaps be a better method. There's nothing like
discovering that 5 racks worth of SM's just homed on a Frigate (or more
accurately, 1 rack homed on the frigate, 4 racks homed on the resulting
plasma). This can happen even when you know what you're shooting at--if
you're shooting at bogies, why bother to shoot?
G'day Karl,
> - divide the range by 10, and multiply by the difference between the
Not trying to rain on your parade but those two words (divide and multiply)
when brought up mid game tend to make people sweat or get exasperated. I'd
suggest something easier like 1D6 for every 12" (or 6" or whatever you like)
beyond 24" that the aim point is from your ship. Roll the D6s, for
each die that rolls 1-3 deviate 1" left, 4-6 deviate 1" right. Though I
still have reservations about whether it'll actually completely solve the
missile boat from hell problem.
Cheers
Beth
How about a simple question...why is it in vector, only ships move that way?
When everything should move the same way. This should eliminate discussions of
SML's having different effects in Vector and Cinematic.
Donald Hosford
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> Hello everybody
(snippage)
> Any comments ?
> Absender: LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET
The point is that it's really an angular error, and thus its effect increases
with range. If you are shooting at something 5 meters away, an
error of 1 degree makes little difference. Shoot at something 5000 meters away
and you will miss by a wide margin. Using vector movement for SML, you
increase the distance travelled significantly
> > Well, I was looking primarily at vector.
his lap this turn or next turn anyway.
If he is still there after the missile strike - and able to shoot
back.
> >But, yes, the point was to make extra-long-range missile strikes
Maybe, at least, it's a different one. Both could be combined
> Absender: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
exasperated. I'd suggest something easier like 1D6 for every 12"
> (or 6" or whatever you like) beyond 24" that the aim point is from
I have no problem with using range bands, certainly easier than dividing.
However, I would like to keep the throwing of two dice, calculating the
difference and multiplying that with the basic deviation. This
results in a nice bell-curve shaped distribution centered around the
intended aiming point, with low porbabilities for really extreme results.
Better,
IMHO, than the flat distribution of a single die.
For example: Range deviation
12" - 36" 1"
36" - 48" 2"
48" - 60" 3" etc.
The difference of two dice is between 0 and 5, so the numbers involved would
be small and easy to handle.
Say, you are shooting at something 50" away, dice are left 3, right 6,
difference is right 3, muliply by 3" and you end up 9" to the right of you
intended target.
Greetings Karl Heinz
G'day Karl,
> I have no problem with using range bands, certainly easier than
OK doesn't sound too bad (probably easier then checking heaps of dice anyway).
IF I get a chance over the weekend I'll try and give it a go.
Cheers
Beth