Just curious...
Does anyone build ships with multiple SM magazines are a regular thing?
I've been looking through my ship catalogue. I have a total of 18 ships with
more than one SM launcher: of these, only two (Eli Arndt's
mass-267 _Wotan_ and David Briedis' mass-800 _Dreadnought_) carry
multiple magazines. The arguments would seem clear:
pro multiple mag:
- better resistance to magazine damage
anti multiple mag:
- greater flexibility
- if one launcher is damaged, the mag is still useful
- easier to get a mass per mag that's a multiple of 6
By my rough calculations, a ship with 2 SMLs and 2 magazines has a 91% chance
of having at least one SML firable with ammunication after a
level-1 threshold check; with one magazine, that drops to 81%. Clearly,
people don't think it's worth it. But are there dissenting opinions?
From: Roger Burton West
> anti multiple mag:
Eaiser to fix 1 mag than several.
But in any event, why buy a magazine? Buy racks. That way you can won't lose
all your capacity on a single luckless threshold check; and more importantly
you can slam your target instead of tapping it.
On or about Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:14:17AM -0400,
laserlight@quixnet.net typed:
> But in any event, why buy a magazine? Buy racks. That way you can
There's that too. The more you go down that slope, though, the more logistics
and resupply you need...
I think the best bet is to decide on how many missiles you need to throw
in one full salvo. If you want to be able to do that twice, SML+SMM is
more efficient than SMR. Even if you want one ER and one standard range, SMLs
are the way to go. It's only if you really need everything at once that SMRs
make sense.
I said:
> But in any event, why buy a magazine? Buy racks. That way you can
Roger said:
> There's that too. The more you go down that slope, though, the more
If I launch 5 SMR in one turn and you launch 1 SM/turn x 5 turns, I'll
need *less* logistics, because you'll be taking 4 more turns of fire than I
will and therefore more damage to repair. If I don't cripple my target in one
turn, I'll be ready to break contact.
(Yes, games with the Islamic Fed tend to be short).
> On 19-Jul-02 at 08:43, Roger Burton West (roger@firedrake.org) wrote:
> By my rough calculations, a ship with 2 SMLs and 2 magazines has a 91%
Clearly,
> people don't think it's worth it. But are there dissenting opinions?
My designs are all converting to 1 mag per launcher. To many threshold losses
to a single magazine.
> Laserlight wrote:
> >anti multiple mag:
...provided, of course, that you don't consider the missile salvoes to be
destroyed/individually damaged when the magazine is hit...
Later,
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 06:12:40PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Hmm.
I have always assumed that one SMM is one system. (Otherwise there would
be no point at all to multiple magazines - though since no canon design
uses them...) But I can't find anything conclusive to back that up.
> Roger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 06:12:40PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
It is - ie., you only roll 1 single threshold check for the entire
magazine, not for every single salvo inside it.
What I mean is this: If a fighter bay with fighters still inside takes a
threshold check you only make one check for the entire bay and its contents,
and if the bay fails the check the fighters in it are destroyed. AFAIK you
can't get them back at all, much less by simply repairing the bay they sat in.
Missile magazines/missile salvoes use the same rules as fighter
bays/fighters WRT taking the threshold check. Do they use the same rules
as
fighter bays/fighters WRT repairs as well?
Later,
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 06:12:40PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I don't see why they would be--other weapons aren't irreparably
destroyed when they fail a threshold. But if you assume they are, then you've
got even more reason to go with SMR. Allahu akhbar!
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> What I mean is this: If a fighter bay with fighters still inside takes
Um. I cannot find any precedent for this. MT pp6-7 only says "may
attempt Damage Control rolls for any ship that has lost systems as a result of
Threshold rolls. Note that Damage Control parties may NOT attempt to repair
structural hull damage (ie: lost Damage Points), nor may they repair any
system taken out by Needle Beams or other
'selective' weaponry". FB1 pp7-8 doesn't even say that much.
I am genuinely interested: what precedent is there for this?
I would tend to agree with the view that Magazines and bays are repairable. In
FT, it appears that when a system is hit (i.e. fails a threshold check) then
it represents a system failure that prevents the use of the system. It does
not necessarily represent the actual system
being hit, destroyed, mangled. The repair roll then represents back-up
system, re-routing or minor repairs that allow the system to be used
again. Multiple failed repair rolls would indicate that the damage is so
severe that such measures are ineffective.
So if a fighter bay is lost to a threshold check, it may represent the
mechanism for the opening the bay doors has failed - making the fighters
inside useless since they can't get out. A successful repair roll on such a
system might represent backup motors being used or they blew the explosive
bolts on the doors to release them. If a player tried three times to repair
the system it could represent that the bay was actually hit and there isn't
much salvageble from the mess.
"Captain, fighter bay #3 was hit, damage control is reporting in... Inital
assesment is that the bay doors are jammed and it will take 10 minutes to
clear." "Captain, Sargeant Smithers reports that the damage is greater than
first estimated and that main power and secondary power is out to the bay.
They are attempting to clear the doors manually."
"Sir, the fighter bay is a write-off, Sargeant Smithers estimates it
will take dock work to release the doors."
Based on this assumption, if a magazine were lost due to a threshold check,
the missiles might still be intact, but the computer system controlling the
feed mechanism shut down. In that case, a simple repair roll (patching in the
backup computer, manually controlling the feed
mechanism etc.) would bring that system back on-line.
Actual physical damage to the ship appears to be based solely on hull points.
Perhaps such items as hangars and magazines should be subjected to TWO
threshold check rolls, one for the component and one for the contents.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 02:18:20PM -0600, B Lin wrote:
It's a special case, though; and one of the virtues of FT, as far as I'm
concerned, is that it minimises the number of special cases you have to
remember.
I don't think it requires that much more effort since often fighter hangars
will be empty and you'll know if you have missiles in the mag since you'll
still have symbols left in the magazine. You only have to add the extra roll
to components that still contain something.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> B Lin wrote:
One of the sillier aspects, of FT, is that, a crippled ship with only two hull
boxes left and massive thresholded systems, could, given time, be fully
functional by that devoted damage control team.
The only systems they couldn't fix are the 'needle beamed' targets.
On or about Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 06:10:27PM -0400, Jon Davis typed:
> One of the sillier aspects, of FT, is that, a crippled ship with only
> functional by that devoted damage control team.
Fully functional, yes, but will pop as soon as anybody sneezes at it. "We
didn't know there was this much baling wire on the ship..."
Given the threshold points in the first place, I think it's a reasonable
abstraction.
> On 19-Jul-02 at 18:11, Jon Davis (davisje@nycap.rr.com) wrote:
> One of the sillier aspects, of FT, is that, a crippled ship with only
I don't see anything that says a "needle beamed" target can't
be repaired _between battles_. I also see nothing that says
a thresholded system actually remains functional for the next battle. Those
rules are left as an exercise for the gamer.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
It is. Given the time it takes to roll thresholds on the table top, it's a
simple and reasonable abstraction.
By comparison, the FTJava code rolls thresholds for all systems at each level.
A second threshold failure results in a destroyed system and is unable to be
repaired by the damage control crews. It's very frustrating for a ship to have
its fire controls 'destroyed' completely, but it's a suitable abstraction for
the computer moderated version.
> Roger Books wrote:
> > One of the sillier aspects, of FT, is that, a crippled ship with
No, but there's a rule which explicitly says that "needle beamed" systems
cannot be repaired by *damage control parties* - doesn't say anything
about
"during a battle". Sure, you can repair/replace needled systems between
battles... but only if you have access to more advanced repair facilities than
those of your DCPs.
Similarly, if a battle goes on for long enough even a single DCP is sufficient
to repair every damaged system aboard the ship *during* the battle.
Regards,
> Roger wrote:
> >What I mean is this: If a fighter bay with fighters still inside
I don't think there is any precedent. The rules say that fighters riding in a
fighter bay which is destroyed are "lost" (FT2 p.11) and imply that missile
salvoes in a damaged magazine are also "lost", but there is nothing
about but that's it :-/
The FT FAQ says:
"If a magazine for a salvo missile launcher is lost to a threshold test and
then subsequently repaired do you get the remaining missiles back?
Use the house rule that either all the missiles are lost or roll for each
salvo individually as a repair roll."
- but I don't remember if this came from Jon, or if it was the list
consensus. Either way, the feeling at the time seems to have been that you do
NOT get the missiles back automatically when the magazine is repaired
:-/
Later,
> - but I don't remember if this came from Jon, or if it was the list
I don't think there was consensus. You could: a. Roll once for the magazine
and all missiles; b. Roll once for the magazine, plus once for all missiles;
c. Roll once for the magazine and roll for each missile.
Whichever you choose for the threshold should apply to the DCP roll.
I'd say this should go on the List of Things to Be Clarified in FT3
> I don't think there is any precedent. The rules say that fighters
I have to wonder if that actually is intended to mean "irreparably lost" or
just "out of action until the DCPs fix things back up." No
G'day,
> Does anyone build ships with multiple SM magazines are a
Yep I do, better to spread the threshold risk in my opinion. Though I don't
usually go above 3 mags. Then again we play the "fix mag and unused missiles
are available again (assuming launcher also operative)" version.
Cheers
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> > - but I don't remember if this came from Jon, or if it was the list
Or just roll once when a hanger or SM mag is KO'd
1 - it's just the systems/hanger doors/missile conveyor that's hit,