G'day guys,
A few more unsolicited thoughts on missile guidance and targeting in FT from
Derek.
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
If you're playing a game of FULL THRUST without the advanced sensor rules or
your own home grown house rules for sensors then you don't have to worry about
the following discussion. Why? The answer is simple, you see everything on the
playing area, and you don't have to roll for a sensor lock-on before
firing at a target.
In this situation the MT missile rule on page 3 of MORE THRUST. "One ship may
launch any number of missiles in one turn, subject to the number it is
carrying; each missile may have a different target, as they are guided by
their onboard AIs and their own fire controls." is fine, the missiles get to
'see'
just as far as anything else on the playing area so can be launched at any
target on the playing area.
The only modification to this I would suggest is to write down the missile
target at the time of launch. Why? Simple, it ensures honesty, I don't mean to
upset anyone but some people will take advantage of the paperless system and
have their missiles change to more opportune targets after launch (for
example; the intended target is destroyed or goes FTL before the current wave
of missiles hit. All of a sudden the missiles deviate from their course and
move toward a 'new' target.) With a written record there's no problem.
But if you're using sensor rules things start to get interesting.
Let me ask a question, what is the range of the sensor/fire-control
system on board the missile? This is important because it determines the range
at which the missile can be FIRED and then FORGOTTEN.
At the moment I wouldn't have the missile's sensor range being any better than
that of a fighters, under the sensors rules I've being developing (based on
discussions on the list) I've given fighters a passive sensor range of 18
inches and an active range of 27 inches (we use 1inch = 1000km).
If the missile has the same sensor ranges then it will be unable to launch at
targets beyond the 27-inch range, why? It can't see the target. In order
to be successfully launched at a target beyond it's own sensor range it will
need to be guided by either the launching or some other friendly ship or unit
(fighters?), until the target can be detected by the missile's own
sensor/fire-control system. The guiding ship or unit has to have a
working
fire-control system and have the target within sensor range (I'm
assuming that
fighters have the equivalent of a fire control-system).
Of course another way to launch at targets beyond the missiles sensor range is
to allow some sort of inertial guidance. The launching player would have to
pre-plot the missile course at the time of launching, the missile would
travel this course until its endurance is expended.
As the missile travels along the pre-plotted course potential targets
will come into the missile's sensor range; there are several options which can
be used to determine whether the missile will accept a possible target as a
valid target and attack.
The missile may simply attack the first target that comes into it's sensor
range this may be modified by allowing IFF identification to prevent the
accidental targeting of friendly vessels. Mass can be a factor, the launching
player can specify a mass limitation, for example, attack only targets above
mass 50. The missile will discount all possible targets of mass 50 or smaller.
The launching player could even specify the exact ship, attack only targets
resembling the superdreadnought 'Tiger', this would only be possible if the
launching player had good sensor information (a sensor roll resulting in you
getting to see the SSD of the ship you want to target). The launching player
could also designate where and when along its course the missile will start
searching for a target (terminal active homing?) or whether it will use active
or passive sensors.
Like all things in GZG games, it comes down to what you want to do (and how
you want to do it).
Derek.
Derek wrote via Beth:
[On MT missiles without sensor house rules]
> The only modification to this I would suggest is to write down the
This is a very good description of what the Swedish STRIX mortar
grenade does - changes to a new target within its sensor footprint if
the one it originally aimed for is destroyed by something else before the
grenade can strike. Of course it doesn't always find a new target to attack
before it hits the ground, but the MT missile has the same problem if there
are no other targets to attack within 6mu.
In other words, we had the ability Derek considers potentially
dishonest in smart artillery ammunition ten years ago - though of
course the sensor footprint of these smart rounds is vastly smaller than that
of MT missiles. So are the rounds themselves; an MT missile is some 10,000
times bigger than a STRIX, and built with far more advanced technology to
boot.
Suggestion rejected as unrealistic as well as unnecessary :-/
> But if you're using sensor rules things start to get interesting.
Probably a bit better than that of a fighter, given that the missile is
bigger and doesn't waste mass on long-range endurance (only 3 turns as
opposed to effectively unlimited non-combat endurance) or life support
:-/ The warhead can't be that big - not when you can cram six
half-sized ones into an SM salvo - so I'd expect at least some of that
extra mass to be sensors.
[snip]
> Of course another way to launch at targets beyond the missiles sensor
> The missile may simply attack the first target that comes into it's
Not "may". "Will" :-/
> Mass can be a factor, the launching player can specify a mass
> The launching player could even specify the exact ship,
This also requires the *missile* to make such a successful sensor roll against
each enemy unit in sight, until it detects a target which fits the profile.
Sounds somewhat unlikely if starships with sensors as big as the entire
missile are limited as to how many targets they can scan.
> The launching player could also designate where and when along its
> homing?) or whether it will use active or passive sensors.
These latter options only matters if the active sensors give the
would-be target a better chance to avoid or destroy the missile before
it hits <shrug>
Regards,
G'day Oerjan,
> This is a very good description of what the Swedish STRIX mortar
I think you're talking at cross purposes here as Derek meant its entire flight
not the final 6mu. He understands why people may well abhor
book-keeping in the game, but if the missle is autonomous then you
should proabbly plot something otherwise you may well get a missle doing a
change
of target only a 1/3 of the way through its flight. I know nothing of
artillery ammunition and Derek isn't here to respond personally, but can the
mortar change its target on a fraction of the way into its flight or is it
only in the final stages? And to forestall another set of cross wires, maybe
such a change isn't possible under standard MT missles rules with their
limited turn allowance (or whatever it is, I must confess to be ignorant on
that one), but it may well be very possible under the plethora of MT missle
houserules that have proliferated while we wait in eager anticipation for FT3.
> In other words, we had the ability Derek considers potentially
> advanced technology to boot.
Regardless of how you may have interpreted Derek's intent, he really didn't
post the stuff in an effort to convince everyone to accept new rules or change
the way they play. He just wanted (at least would've liked) some constructive
criticism and discussion.
> Probably a bit better than that of a fighter, given that the missile is
I guess that's upto the players to decide. Derek's houserules give them the
same sensor capability, but maybe yours would be different.
> This also requires the *missile* to make such a successful sensor roll
That'd be when it gets out its Janes and quickly flicks through.....;)
Seriously, I think what he was trying to convey was that you'd need a really
good sensor contact on the firing ship first so then you'd be able to pick out
some specific ship characteristic (say power plant leakage profile due to
battle damage or something) and tell the missle to look for that alone. You'd
probably have a default fall back position in case you can't find anything
when you get to your 6mu range (as you suggested above), but I don't think
specific target designation is beyond the boil (especially if they have better
sensors than fighters as you suggested above). I think some of the issues here
are potentially coming from differing opinions on how the missles work, so how
do you think the missle
tracking and target acquistion systems/processes work?
> The launching player could also designate where and when along its
I think we was pointing out that it came down to how far you wanted to take
it - the ideas were based on general concepts he picked up from reading
reference books and playing modern naval and he thought maybe some would be
interested in extending it to FT as well).
Cheers
Beth
*sigh* I think folks are over complicating MT missiles. These are big assed
cruise missiles. If they loose target lock on a previous target, they will
look for a new target and IFF it, if its hostile, then it will
attack. Presumeably something the size of a fighter can be fitted with enough
of an AI to realize the best target to nail. If you want to, write a "routine"
on target priorities. Keep it simple guys. If you overcomplicate it, they game
will suffer.
G'day Ryan,
More *sigh* material for you from Derek;)
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
> *sigh* I think folks are over complicating MT missiles. These are big
Ryan
Your right, the aim is to keep it simple. Jon has provided us with a excellent
set of wargame rules that are simple and very flexible, any
add-on house rules shouldn't detract from the elegance of the 'core'
model. After all when we play a game we what to be the 'Fleet Admiral' not the
'sensor/weapons tech'
But before I go further I would like to point out that as soon as anyone
starts using sensor rules (Full Thrust/More Thrust or your own house
rules) a level of complexity is automatically added. Without sensor rules life
is laid bare and you see everything, and what you see you can shoot. With
sensors you know something is out there, but you can't shoot it until you get
to see it.
And this was the environment I had in mind when posted (via Beth) my thoughts
on Fire and Forget MT missiles hoping for reaction.
Regarding your "routine" on target priorities idea, what I had in mind for a
fire and forget MT missile;
At time of launch designate target, if the target is within the missiles
sensor range (insert your range here) missile moves towards the target and
attacks when in range as normal. If the target is beyond the missile sensor
range then plot course to where you anticipate where the target will be, once
there the missile turns on it's sensor and looks for the designated target. If
the target is now within the missile sensor range the missile will move toward
the target and attack when in range, if the designated target is not in sensor
range then go to back up and attack the nearest target.
I don't think this is too hard to manage in a game? comments?
Derek (missile fiend) ;-)
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Beth Fulton wrote:
> But before I go further I would like to point out that as soon as
granted.
> And this was the environment I had in mind when posted (via Beth) my
Well if the target is beyond sensor range how are you targeting it in the
first place with an MT missile? Presumably the target has been revealed and
you know it is in fact a BDN worthy of the MT missile and not a measly escort.
If you are getting your target ID from another vessel, then you are getting
relayed data from from that sensor picket. Theoretically your task force has a
data net that can include the Missile. Thus the missile has constant updates
on ship positions and can
keep them straight even if they go beyond the 54" range for active (not that
it could reach that distance)
If you launch a missile at a target and another target is revealed by the
radar picket, I see no problem shifting the missile to that target. See it as
a Fire Control Officer sending a "nudge" command to the missile to
shift targets. Now I don't see a MT missile as being a valid means of
revealing ships from blip status, just following a target you want hit. See
this as an issue with the sensor aperature on the MT Missile. Ship board
sensors have much bettero resolution based on inferometry and signal power.
> At time of launch designate target, if the target is within the
Why do I have to predict where that ship will be 3 turns from now? Why can't I
give the MT missile a bit of help with guidance just like wireguided torps are
handled nowa days?
G'day Ryan,
Here's Derek's reply.
Have fun
Beth
> Well if the target is beyond sensor range how are you targeting it in
> and you know it is in fact a BDN worthy of the MT missile and not a
I'm assuming that you do have a friendly unit that is within sensor range and
has gained a fire control solution (sensor lock) sufficient to launch the
missile( OK. Under the sensor and ECM rules for our local campaign you can
have varying degrees of success with sensor rolls, one of which gives you
enough information to attack but doesn't yet reveal the ship.).
If you are getting your target ID from another vessel,
> then you are getting relayed data from from that sensor picket.
No theory involved here, even today such a network exists. NDTS I think is
what the US Navy calls it.
> Missile. Thus the missile has constant updates on ship positions and
> that it could reach that distance)
> it as a Fire Control Officer sending a "nudge" command to the missile
Here is the rule from my house rules for controlling missiles.
Controlling missiles.
The player designates a fire-control system on a friendly ship which
will guide
the missiles towards their target, the fire-control system can guide any
number missiles to a single target and can switch targets from the original to
a new target if desired.
If the guiding fire-control system is destroyed the owning player can
immediately allocate a previously unused fire-control system in the same
or different ship to take over guiding the missiles.
The player can also hand control from one fire-control system in one
ship to another in a different ship if circumstances warrant.
The other additions I would want to mention is that fighter groups can guide
missiles if they are uninvolved in combat and the obvious one, the target for
the missile has to be in active sensor range (if your using sensor rules).
I agree totally with what you are saying while missiles are under control and
not autonomous the controlling player can control the course of the missiles
and can even change targets. He could even slow some missiles down so they
arrive on target the same time as other missiles and/or fighters to help
overwhelm the enemy defences.
> Now I don't see a MT missile as being a valid means of
> See this as an issue with the sensor aperature on the MT Missile. Ship
You're right I see the sensor system on the missile as optimised for its
purpose, that is to guide the missile to its target. So missile sensor systems
are not rolling to 'reveal' a ship from it's blip status, it's just trying to
make sure the missile hits.
> At time of launch designate target, if the target is within the
I think you misunderstood the suggested rule is for 'FIRE AND FORGET' MT
missiles which are autonomous, that is once you launch them you have no
further control over what they will do.
Derek.
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Beth Fulton wrote:
> I'm assuming that you do have a friendly unit that is within sensor
> No theory involved here, even today such a network exists. NDTS I
I'm making unneded assumptions. I'm so used to that damn "we lost simple
technological concepts" rule with so many sci fi wargames....
> Here is the rule from my house rules for controlling missiles.
Actually it really looks like we agree on this for the most part...
[snip]
> The other additions I would want to mention is that fighter groups can
makes sense. I'm thinking that a scout fighter is in order. 1-2 for a
large vessel and 2 more to act at SWACS...I really want to do some special
fightertypes...
> I agree totally with what you are saying while missiles are under
that would make sense. Imagine their horror to realize those MT missiles
are inbound the same turn some Salvo Missiles and Fighters are inbound. Spread
those PDS's out really thin...
> I think you misunderstood the suggested rule is for 'FIRE AND FORGET'
MT
> missiles which are autonomous, that is once you launch them you have
To a degree. I think the initial intent was that the play launched them and
didn't have to designate a firecontrol. The sophistication of the missile
being such that it required minimal control from the launching
ship and thus didn't require the entire staff/systems allocation of a
Firecon. I see a firecon as being a set of telescopes, sensors and a small
staff of operators that collate the data on a particular target the captain
said to "zap", and then make it zapped.
But if the system requires a firecon to be spare to re-direct/update the
missile, I have not a problems with it...
> At 01:26 11/11/99 -0500, Ryan wrote:
Yeah I always get a chuckle from those backgrounds, 40K is the worst for that,
for thousands of years after the loss of technonlogy there has been little or
no recovery (?).
> Here is the rule from my house rules for controlling missiles.
Me too, something along the lines of Jared Noble's or Phil Pournelle's maybe.
> that would make sense. Imagine their horror to realize those MT
> Spread those PDS's out really thin...
And with your battleline joining in with it's heavy weapons (Class 3 and above
and similar) just watch the other player cringe.
> I think you misunderstood the suggested rule is for 'FIRE AND FORGET'
MT
> missiles which are autonomous, that is once you launch them you have
> and didn't have to designate a firecontrol. The sophistication of the
I'm leaning towards a missile sensor system that is multi-function,
something similar to command or SARH with the abiltiy to have I/TARH if
required.
Derek