[FT] Islamic Fed SSDs

IF SSDs have been posted at
http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/ft/ifships_v3.htm

(if anyone feels compelled to make neater, more artistic, better SSDs, feel
free and I'll be happy to replace these).

As to the new Heavy Missles, I don't like them. Easy to stop and no selective
targeting.Simply an oversized salvo missle with variable warheads. MT Missles
are only killed on aroll of 6 (even kravak scatter packs) due to the size of
the missle. MT missles can pass through a screen of mini ships and target a
better target behind them rather than be wasted on scouts and corvettes. You
woundn'tuse a salvo missle volley on these sponges. Why waste a long range
semi intelligent heavy hitter on garbage screen or use less than a third of
the range of a weapon?
> Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
IF SSDs have been posted at
http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/ft/ifships_v3.htm

(if anyone feels compelled to make neater, more artistic, better SSDs, feel
free and I'll be happy to replace these).

> Charles Lee wrote:

Quote: "A HM can spend an endurance factor to gain a secondary move, then
attack, in the same phase. This can be to gain additional range, or to choose
which target to attack by moving so that target becomes the closest one."

They either have longer range, or selective targetting.

Essentially, you move to within 6 MU of a group of ships in your turn -
then have 2 options (assuming you have 1 endurance left). a) Ignore them b)
Use your 1 endurance to move on top of the desired target with your 6MU bonus
move. It will then be "the closest".

Note that a "Misericorde" (3D6) missile only has 1 endurance, so is 18 MU
range and no selective targetting. It's much easier to shoot one down

than to get rid of *all* missiles in a SM. But if it hits, it does 3D6
damage - comparable to an unintercepted SM - and it only costs/masses
half as much. It's best use is as a "coup de grace" vs a crippled
target, with the best ratio of damage/cost of any weapon. They *have* to

be easy to shoot down, or they'd be grossly unbalanced for their
mass/cost.

Compare 1 SM incoming with 2 Misericordes. Or, at longer range, 1 SM(ER) with
3 Standards. They take multiple turns rather than 1 to come in (a big
disadvantage), but have the advantage of either a 54 MU range, or 36

MU plus selective targetting.

Sometimes one alternative will be better, sometimes another.

The Long Lance with a puny 1D6 damage and vulnerability is not often
used - except that with an effective range of 90 MU, it can either do a
"drone bombardment" a la Drone Frigate in SFB, or (more often) a swarm plays
"chase the escorts", getting rid of Banzai Jammers and small fry
so that the main punch can follow-up later. If all you have is 1
launcher but a large magazine, you can swamp the enemy defences by having a
few "loitering". For 5 magazine spaces, you could have 5

Charles said:
> As to the new Heavy Missles, I don't like them. Easy to stop and no

Thanks for the feedback, I've rephrased the paragraph about HM attacks which
will, I hope, make this point more clear.* Because they mostly can have a
secondary move, they can do some selective
targeting--ie by moving such that the desired target is also the
closest target.
  As for being too easy to kill--well, you may be right, that's why
it's in playtest. I gave the IF racks instead of launchers and magazines
because I wanted to be able to fire several missiles at
once--that way you have a decent chance of overwhelming your target's
defenses and getting some good hits in. If you have a chance, please
try a game or two--and feel free to tinker!  For instance, instead of
the Sahaabah having one block of beams and one of HM, should they have two
blocks of HM (total 8 missiles)? Let us know the results...

*also fixed the SSD for the Saif ed Din--the B2 blocks had 2 three-arc
and 1 six-arc, should be the other way around.

On another note about betas and whatknot, I noticed that some of the pulse
torps have more than three arcs (in one case, 5) and this isn't legal under
the current 2.5 rules... I'm wondering if that's just a woopsie or a change to
the effective rules. Cause if it is, I'm gonna have to revise some of my
designs:D

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:03:10 -0500, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Charles said:

> On another note about betas and whatknot, I noticed that some of the

That's not official yet, but it seems logical and no one on the Test List
argued with it. If your opponents get too stressed over it, substitute B3's
with the same arc. That would probably be a better choice for the
battlecruisers anyway.

Rather than simply calling them Battlecruiser and Light Cruiser, I need a
couple more names. I'm thinking of CL Dimashq (Damascus, named for cities) and
BC Jibrail (Gabriel, named for angels). But since the fleet carrier class will
be named for major cities (Medinah), I'd like to keep Dimashq available for a
light carrier, in case Jon ever sculpts one. Anyone have suggestions for
another class name?

G'day,

What are the existing class names?

Cheers

Beth

> -----Original Message-----

> What are the existing class names?

The list I have (including unofficial names in parens) [and meanings in
brackets] is: ash Shaulah SB [sting of the scorpion]
Khabar CT         [don't know--may be an island]
Hawar FF [don't know] Saladin DD [Islamic conquerors] (Dimashq?) CL [cities]
(Sahaabah) CP [companioins of the Prophet] (Hattin) CH [Muslim victories]
Sword of Islam (Saif ed Din) BB [Sword of the Faith] (Jibrail?) BC [angels]
(Arabiyah) SDN    [provinces/nations]
(Madinah) CVA [major cities]

> > What are the existing class names?

Just a note: there isn't actually a BC mini yet (when I do one, it'll
be FT1009). There IS already a 1011, which is a BDN/BBH
(Battledreadnought or Heavy battleship, depending on which nomenclature you
prefer). The BC and CVL are the only "missing" classes compared with the other
full fleets. And yes, I'll do them when I get the chance.  ;-)

> The list I have (including unofficial names in parens) [and meanings

> Just a note: there isn't actually a BC mini yet (when I do one, it'll

er...it's a battlecruiser in IFN nomenclature? (as I recall, WWI Brit BCs were
bigger than some of the battleships). Not convincing enough, I take it? Okay,
make it a BDN.

> The BC and CVL are the only "missing" classes compared with the other

Okay, let's save "Dimashq" for the CVL, use "Ashif" ("bold") for the CL,
and...hm...if we use the names of angels for the BDNs, then we still need a
name for the BCs.