Greetings, folks!
Lonnie & I managed to get a little playtesting in of the proposed MT missile
rules upgrade before our regularly scheduled Tuesday evening melee. All in
all, we like the endurance/fighter movement mechanics for MT missiles,
provided one *MAJOR* restriction is employed.
Standard "damage" missiles only. *NO* needle or EMPs allowed.
Reasoning? The ability to burn an endurance point for a half move in turns 1
or 2 allows the MT missile to basically always hit something. SM's can miss
by the target changing speed/jinking, but allowing a secondary movement
to the MT missile negates the target's ability to avoid by maneuver. Limiting
the MT missile to standard damage types only balances the point costs with the
expected damage & effects, IMO. If Needle & EMP missiles are allowed to use
this movement paradigm, then the mass & point costs of those missiles needs to
be adjusted upwards to balance the game effects, especially since a "missile
boat" using MT missiles can flush it's racks in a single turn and easily
overload the point defense on one or two targets.
One possible way of toning down the "massed EMP missile attack" to balance the
points cost is to combine all simultaneous attacks on a single target into a
*single* die roll as follows:
All EMP missiles attacking a single target combine their attacks into a single
die roll. For each additional EMP missile that successfully attacks the same
target, 1 is added to the effects die roll.
This way, multiple EMPs can be used to negate the effects of a ship's shields,
but no matter how many EMPs you toss at a target in a single turn, there is
only 1 possible threshold roll taken by the targetted ship.
Personally, I would cost out the needle and EMP missiles at 4 mass & 12 points
if they're allowed to use the proposed movement rules, and I would restrict
the EMP missiles as above in addition to the mass/points increase. I
*do*
like the new rules - they make the MT "capital" missile a usable and
balanced weapons system again.
Comments?
G'day guys,
Great to hear they've been playtested. I'm in a rush, but Derek should get to
see it all tonight.
Here's his response to all your previous comments.
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
Thanks to everyone who replied to Beth's posting of my attempt at modifying
the MT missile rules, your comments are welcome and have been taken on board.
But as someone who never let's an opportunity pass
by..................
But before I start I should warn you, Beth actually brings each the days posts
to the GZG list as a large text file which I then read I my spare time, so I
have grouped all your posts and my replies into one (goes without saying lots
of snippage).
"Oerjan Ohlson" oerjan.ohlson@telia.com wrote
> Beth wrote:
> One ship may launch any number of missiles, subject only to the
> I'd add in the same provisio as for SMs (only in the FAQ, IIRC - not
It all comes down to how the missiles (whether they are MT missiles or SMs),
are controlled or guided. If you think missiles need to be guided into their
target (similar to SARH, track via missile or beam riders) then you really
should have one FC system per target (yes, it is also possible to suggest a
limit to the number of missiles a FC can control, but I'll stop here for now)
so under this assumption we could end up with FC requirements similar to those
used by pulse torpedoes.
On the other hand if you think that missiles/SMs are an autonomous, fire
and forget system then the use of dedicated FC systems (even one) is not
required. The ship's sensors provide the targeting information to the
missile(s) and once they are launched and on their way, no further input or
control from the launching ship is needed.
I think I can understand why the 'One working FC system' at the time of launch
rule might be appealing. But as I see it, it's a rule fix to stop
missile/SM armed ships, which have been denuded of their FC systems,
continuing to fire while their beam and torpedo armed cousins in the same
situation are unable to do so and have to grin and bear it (And before anyone
asks I do use the 'One working FC rule' when playing at the local club).
An alternative would be to pencil in a sensor icon on the SSD and make
threshold rolls for sensors with all the other ship systems, as long as the
sensor is operating and can clearly 'see' the target(s) missile/SMs can
be fired.
This has opened a whole new train of thought for me to consider (Bugger. And I
wanted to have the first draft of the 'operational movement' rules finished by
the weekend so I could at least make a start with the 10 000 point fleet
action against Beth. We intend on using a whole star system as the
battleground.).
Another alternative is to combine both methods and allow the player to choose,
depending on the tactical situation.
> Attacking (or defending against) missiles.
> Class 1-beam batteries and screening fighter groups can also engage
> Since an MT-style missile is about as large as a fighter I'm sorely
I'll admit one the main reasons that I chose the 5 or 6 score was to keep any
possible confusion about what type of missile had which chance to be hit
during playing down to a minimum. But under the standard 'More Thrust' rules a
score of 6 on 1D6 was required to kill a missile (talk about hard to hit), so
I think that the defending side hasn't come out of this choice two badly. So
far in the playtest games I had so far the scores required seem OK.
> Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
> missile defence.
> Only if you allow salvo missiles to target fighters IMO. (Especially if
As Beth mentioned we already have considered this, but I considered a group of
rules dealing with MT missiles an inappropriate to place such a rule.
> Missile attacks.
Actually I don't use the 3 inch rule at all myself, regardless of whether I'm
using vector movement or not. I think that the SM and MT missiles are
handicapped enough as it is, SMs and MT missiles require judgement and good
dice rolls to be successful and Beams only require goods dice rolls (and they
get rerolls too). This is the main reason I gave the MT missiles a secondary
move,
> Apart from my intense dislike of the Needle missile (if a 2-Mass system
I dislike needle missiles and (sometimes needle beams)too for a different
reason, I find the assumption that I will always know the layout of the enemy
ship so well that I will able to individually target and destroy whatever
system I desire
'Gunnery Officer!' 'Yes Captain?' 'Target the enemy captain's private
washroom. Next time he needs to go he'll just have to use the ratings
washroom. He won't like that! HA! HA!
HA!'
'Aye Captain. But sir, the bugs don't have the same body functions as we
do.'
'They don't? Well target the washroom anyway, he doesn't need it.'
> I'm not sure I agree with these movement rates. (I'm not sure I
this >version is slower than Standard fighters :-/ OTOH, giving them a
movement >allowance of 36mu might be a bit over the top <g>
This time around I was just working out the movement rules, so I left the
missile types as they are, further down my 'to do' list is alternative missile
types (maybe).
> From: "Denny Graver" <cyberdruss@clara.net>>How about a smaller, faster
> Mass 1
Like I said, alternative missile types are further down my to do list, but in
a straight line the MT missile still outranges most other weapons. three 18"
equals 54".
> From: Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com>
> Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
I offered this optional rule because at the moment there is no long range
missile defence (apart from fighter interception). Given the right situation I
probably will use my SMs to thin out a large MT missile barrage, so my point
defence will have a better chance to handle the remaining MT missiles. But
don't worry as far as your ships are concerned I know exactly where to aim my
SMs (evil grin).
Derek Fulton.
> At 2:22 PM -0800 3/10/99, Beth Fulton wrote:
G'day back atcha
> This has opened a whole new train of thought for me to consider
rules
> finished by the weekend so I could at least make a start with the 10
The operational rules are on my to-do list as well, just not as high up
as yours :-(
Let us know how the solar system campaign goes!
> One possible way of toning down the "massed EMP missile attack" to
This would work, but I hesitate to do it that way unless you're assuming that
the missiles are all coordinating their attacks (which they might). See my
previous post concerning toning them down in the first place.
The problem with combining them is that you can then be almost assured of
knocking out a single ship if you use enough missiles on it. For example: an
NAC SDN will take out an average of 4.4 missiles with its defences, assuming
it's fighters are unavailable for screening. So 9 missiles virtually gaurantee
knocking out 50% of its systems. That's 321 points for a 54 point investment.
Even at 12 points a missile, I'll take those odds. Granted this takes the
single ship "in a vacuum" so to speak, but it gives food for thought.
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >One possible way of toning down the "massed EMP missile attack" to
That was the intended PSB for the suggestion. <G>
> See my previous post concerning toning them down in the first place.
Notice that my original suggestion was to allow only 'standard' missiles.:)
However, I'll take on your point about the cost investment. Even in the case
of a 'single ship in a vacuum', I believe that the relative points & mass
costs will balance out. After all, in order to weild 9 EMP missiles, you need
to allocate 36 Mass and 108 points - remember, I also suggested on
upping the mass & cost of the 'specialty' missiles to 4M & 12 pts a piece.
Let's take the same NAC SND and equip it with 9 EMP missiles. In order to do
that, we'll need to strip out some components in order to make room - 36
mass
worth of components. Let's see - tossing the two fighter bays and all
three Class 3s will do it nicely. That leaves us with,..., what?
2 Class 1 Battery, 6 arcs 2 Class 2 Battery, 6 arcs 2 Pulse Torpedo, 1 arc
Considering the loss of firepower after you've "blown your wad" in the single
salvo, I'd hazard a guess that you'd have a fairly even fight -
especially since the two full fighter squads can be released from screening
duties to pound your sorry arse in revenge. It will be interesting to playtest
this.
Food for thought, yes? <g>
> Notice that my original suggestion was to allow only 'standard'
missiles.:)
Point well taken. I hate them too.
> Let's take the same NAC SND and equip it with 9 EMP missiles. In order
This isn't the abuse that I was fearing, though nice job on the illustration.
What I'm worried about is an "eggshell" mounting three missiles, say:
Mass 20 Missile Boat:
Fragile Hull, 2 MASS, 4 POINTS FTL Drives, 2 MASS, 4 POINTS Thrust 3, 3 MASS,
6 POINTS 1 FireCon, 1 MASS, 4 POINTS 3 EMP Missiles, 12 MASS, 36 POINTS
54 POINTS
Three of these babies can take down our SDN "in a vacuum," at 162 points.
Schoon wrote in reply to -MWS-:
> What I'm worried about is an "eggshell" mounting three missiles, say:
points.
It's not quite that bad.
First, DCPs can repair EMP damage. They are unable to repair Needle damage and
damage from 'other "selective" weaponry', but EMP missiles
aren't very selective IMO :-/ So, unless you have other ships ready to
batter the SD immediately it is fairly likely to bounce back rather too fast
for the missile barges' liking.
Second, destroying half the weaponry aboard a ship without damaging its hull
structure at all is not the same thing as destroying half its combat power
(ie, half its point cost). It is only worth roughly 30% of the cost, and
that's assuming that the damage can't be repaired. As seen above, EMP missile
damage can be repaired.
So, in the Valley Forge vs 3 missile barges example the missile barges
*temporarily* knock out on average ~190 points worth of SD, and have
themselves completely expended 162 pts to do so - all the missile barges
can do is to withdraw as fast as possible, which may not always be possible
given their low Thrust rating.
If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
would've taken on average 4.6*7 = 32.2 pts of damage... no, sorry, -MWS-
only wanted the specialty missiles to be doubled in size, not the
standard ones. OK, it gets hit by 18 - 4.4 missiles, for on average 95.2
pts of damage - a rather massive overkill, I think. *This* is
unbalancing IMO.
There's *very* little chance at all to dodge the missiles - if you move
at speed 15 or less in Cinematic, not even a Thrust-8 MT Kra'Vak ship
would be able to dodge at all since the 12" secondary move and the 6"
engagement radius, together with the ability to engage any target rather than
the nearest, covers all possible end locations for the ship... OK, I usually
fly faster than that, but Human drives allow much less dodging than KV ones.
I think Derek seriously underestimates the ease of hitting with these
missiles. That is probably to be expected if he draws on experience from
battles against Beth's FSE ;-) ;-) ;-)
(Schoon guesstimated the increased hit probability of the Derek missile
vs the SM salvo to 2-3x better. It depends a bit on how fast you fly, of
course, but judging from my "how to place SMs" Excel spreadsheet I'd say
4-5x better at speeds of 25 and above, infinitely better (*no* chance of
missing, unless your ships consist of nothing but engines) at speeds of
15 and less... interpolate for the area inbetween <g> The 4-5x better
could be a bit low, though - I have Excel at work, and the past few days
have been... hectic, like :-/ )
Without the secondary movement, Derek's missiles would be much better balanced
IMO. They still have longer range and somewhat better hit chances than SM
salvoes (no banzai jamming helps a lot!), trading this for somewhat lower
damage against heavily protected ships.
And a comment to Derek's post:
On the FC requirement:
> On the other hand if you think that missiles/SMs are an autonomous,
I assume that the missiles are autonomous once fired, but they need to be
programmed with the target profile to know what to look for. Without the FC's
data processing resources, this can't be done (just as the local fire control
of a beam battery can't pick out a target without guidance from an FC)... and
a missile which doesn't know what to lock onto is either a dud or a fratricide
waiting to happen.
Later,
> I think Derek seriously underestimates the ease of hitting with these
Hey, I heard that! OK its a fair comment, but I still heard it!
;)
Beth
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[snip]
> So, in the Valley Forge vs 3 missile barges example the missile barges
Agreed, which is why I suggested the combined EMP roll - it seems to
balance the effects with the point cost.
> If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
Not by that much, though. However, I'm not sure that we can find the right
"balance point" without fractional points cost - something I'm sure we
all want to avoid.
Taking another look at the numbers, and using the "first order" approximation
of the effectiveness of PDS fire as follows:
PDS vs SM = -0.8 missiles
FTR vs SM = -0.6 missiles per fighter, or -3.6 missiles per fighter
group
C.1 vs SM = -0.4 missiles
PDS vs MT = -0.5 missiles (can only kill 1, and 6's have no reroll)
FTR vs MT = -0.33 missiles per fighter, or -1 missiles per fighter
group
C.1 vs MT = -0.33 missiles
If you take the NAC SDN "missile boat" we've been using as an example, it
could wield 18 MT missiles (scary!!), or 9 SMRs. Assuming all of the SMR
salvos hit the opposing ship - just for the sake of comparing numbers -
and using straight summed average damage and missile hit numbers, we end up
with the following:
NAC standard SDN defenses: 4x PDS
+ 2x Std Fighter groups screen
+ 2x Class 1 Beams
SMR Salvo: 9 * 3.5 missiles = 31.5 missiles
Total Defense: 4 * -0.8 + 2 * -3.6 + 2 * -0.4 = -11.2 missiles
Missile Hits: 31.5 - 10.4 = 20.3 missiles
Damage Points: 20.3 * 3.5 = 71.05 points
MT "Salvo": 18 missiles
Total Defense: 4 * -0.5 + 2 * -1 + 2 * -0.33 = -4.67 missiles
Missile Hits: 18 - 4.67 = 13.33 missiles
Damage Points: 13.33 * 7 = 93.33 points
Hmmmm. Overpowering, but not horribly so, except for the fact that the MT
missiles will almost *certainly* have a 100% on-target rate (unlike SMs)
at medium to slow speeds.
> There's *very* little chance at all to dodge the missiles - if you
OK, I
> usually fly faster than that, but Human drives allow much less dodging
Minor correction - since the movement rate is 18", the secondary
movement would be 9", not 12". At least, that's how we playtested them the
other night.
As far as your "fly fast" speeds go, I've yet to play a game in which
*any*
ship has gone faster than about 20. Mostly, we're moving in the 9 to 16 range,
so my view of the effectiveness of Salvo Missiles is probably quite different
than yours.:)
However, the numbers above suggest the following "fix" to balance out the mass
& points costs.
If you use the 9" secondary movement rules for MT missiles, then increase the
cost of the standard 'damage' missiles to 3 MASS and 9 points a piece. Using
our example above, the missile boat SDN would then wield 12 missiles -
instead
of 18 - for an average expected damage of 51.33 points. Considering the
games I've played, where SM's have over an 80% attack success ratio, this
balances out quite nicely.
If you use 3 turns endurance with 18" missile movement rules and *no*
secondary movement, then keep the costs at 2 MASS and 6 points. The attack
success ratio will then be quite a bit lower than SMs, IMO, because even with
the increased number of turns allowed, their lower movement range makes them
easier to dodge - and more subject to multiple turn interception by
fighter groups. Also, point defense against small numbers of MT missiles is
more effective than point defense against SMs, because *any* hit kills an
entire unit of MT missiles, while hits against SMs usually leaves you with at
least *some* missiles on target.
> I think Derek seriously underestimates the ease of hitting with these
I agree, and our playtesting tends to bear this out. *All* the missiles I
launched hit their targets in our test game, using the secondary movement
rules.
[snip]
Personally, I would feel comfortable using the 18" movement, three turn, no
secondary movement rules at 2 MASS & 6 POINTS per standard missile.
Furthermore, I'd feel comfortable playing *against* them with those rules.
I'm not sure that I like either the Needle or EMP missiles of any sort in any
situation, unless you're trying to implement a specific genre.:)
As far as the FiCon goes, use the same rules as SMs - a ship needs a
[single]
working FiCon to launch missiles.
> Three of these babies can take down our SDN "in a vacuum," at 162 >
Agreed. I was making a point about potential abuse.
> Second, destroying half the weaponry aboard a ship without damaging its
This is a very good point.
> If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
Truth be told, I'm more concerned with the standard version than the EMP or
Needle, as you've so aptly illustrated.
Better yet, hit 'em with the EMPs first, and then follow with standards
- -
erm, I'm getting off the subject.
As for the FC issue, I rather liked the suggestion of 1 FC per missile on the
turn of launch, but I have no PSB justification; it just seems balancing.
> If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
I didn't see any fractional costs here (??)
> If you take the NAC SDN "missile boat" we've been using as an example,
This is a problem. You can't assume that all the SMRs are going to hit
before PDS fire. Where-as you can almost be sure that all your missiles
will. (See Olerjan's previous post concerning hitting with the proposed
system)
SMR fire is spread out to catch a ship in a net. On average, maybe half will
hit. The MT missiles are "pinpoint" weapons.
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
[snip]
> This is a problem. You can't assume that all the SMRs are going to hit
You need to finish reading the rest of the post <g>, since you'll see that I
came to the same conclusion and suggested that the secondary movement be
eliminated from the proposal.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> What I'm worried about is an "eggshell" mounting three missiles, say:
But if you use the "need 1 FC per missile" proposal, you need another 24
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
I'd vote for one FC per missile target. So 5 missiles at 1 target need 1 FC,
but 5 missiles at 5 targets need 5 FCs.
- Sam
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> I'd vote for one FC per missile target. So 5 missiles at 1 target
Since the missiles determine which target they're going to attack only after
they and their victims have moved, how do you define a "target" for missile
launch purposes?
> -MWS- wrote:
> > If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
> > the standard ones. OK, it gets hit by 18 - 4.4 missiles, for on
[snip a bit]
> NAC standard SDN defenses: 4x PDS
Yep, I forgot that there are no multiple kills or re-rolls against MT
missiles: OTOH, the original example assumed that the fighters were busy
elsewhere; to compare this with Schoon's example you have to drop the fighters
from the equation and inflict another 14 pts of damage on the SD (for a total
of 107).
> Hmmmm. Overpowering, but not horribly so, except for the fact that
> SMs) at medium to slow speeds.
Exactly. You have to move pretty fast at the start of the turn to have a 50%
ability to dodge (ie, your enemy needs 2 missiles to cover all your potential
turn end positions). IIRC (did this at work but forgot to write the numbers
down; they may be 1 pt too low):
Thrust 8 MT KV drives: Speed 16
Thrust 8 Human drives: Speed 19 (slow for a thrust-8 ship IMO)
Thrust 6 Human drives: Speed 21 (it's the 90-degree turn, full thrust
move that's hardest to catch)
Thrust 4 Human drives: Speed 26 (pretty fast for such a low-thrust
ship!) Thrust 2 Human drives. Speed 72 (*extremely* fast, even for me <g>)
> > There's *very* little chance at all to dodge the missiles - if you
OK, I
> > usually fly faster than that, but Human drives allow much less
Derek specified a secondary movement of 12 mu, so that's what I used in the
analysis <shrug>
Not that it matters very much, of course - the "dodge speeds" listed
above drop by 3-5 pts except for the Thrust-2 which drops by 12 (to a
mere 60 <g>).
> As far as your "fly fast" speeds go, I've yet to play a game in which
I'm known for flying fast, though. As a rule of thumb, I fly my ships at
between 4 and 6 times their Thrust rating in Cinematic - and I don't
build Thrust-2 ships, and dislike Thrust-4 :-/
> Mostly, we're moving in the 9 to 16
That means that you will get 100% accuracy with these missiles except
against Thrust-8 ships, even with the reduced secondary move. SMs, on
the other hand, shouldn't hit anything more than about 50% of the time unless
you know your opponent far too well :-/ Or he flies Thrust-2 ships, of
course...
[snip]
> Considering the games
80% success ratio? You *do* know your opponent far too well (or he is too
predictable or too low-thrust)!
> If you use 3 turns endurance with 18" missile movement rules and *no*
Much better IMO.
> The attack success ratio will then be quite a bit lower than SMs, IMO,
> because even with the increased number of turns allowed, their lower
Unlikely at the low speeds you fly at. If you regularly flew at 20+,
I'd've agreed with you.
> and more subject to multiple turn interception by fighter groups.
Since the fighters burn 1 endurance point to kill a single missile, I
think that's a pretty good deal for the MT missile :-/
> Also, point defense against small numbers of MT missiles is more
> least *some* missiles on target.
We've already discussed that :-/
I only calculated the real average damages of SMs and MTs up to 3 PDS per SMR
salvo or 2 MT missiles, and the difference there is less than 15%. It'd rises
when you add more PDS, of course. The MT missile ability to ignore closer
targets for a juicier one more than compensates for this difference IMO.
> Personally, I would feel comfortable using the 18" movement, three
missile.
> Furthermore, I'd feel comfortable playing *against* them with those
Same here. With secondary movement, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all (pretty
much regardless of their Mass, and definitely regardless of which
side I'm on :-/ )
> I'm not sure that I like either the Needle or EMP missiles of any sort
I don't like the Needle missiles, for a number of reasons - both PSB and
game balance.
EMP missiles aren't bad (thanks to their inability to kill DCPs), and your
proposal with a single combined roll makes them even better balanced
IMO. If the highest they can go in a single turn is 50% knock-out and no
secondary movement is allowed, I'd be quite comfortable with them at Mass 2
each.
> As far as the FiCon goes, use the same rules as SMs - a ship needs a
Definitely.
Later,
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[snip]
> > NAC standard SDN defenses: 4x PDS
True, but you then also have to add another 25.2 points of damage to the SM
side, which brings that total up to 96.25 points. This actually lessens the
damage difference between the two missile types (+23.9% more damage with
fighters defending, vs +10% without :).
[snip]
> > Considering the games
More of a playing style difference, I think. None of us regularly use missile
systems, and we almost always employ different custom ship designs every game.
Since we don't tell each other what those designs are before the game starts,
anyone who *does* bring missiles usually gets a fairly free first shot with a
high on-target accuracy. We also tend to like fighting in
knife-fighting
range.:)
[snip]
> > Personally, I would feel comfortable using the 18" movement, three
This is the change we're adopting - 3 turns endurance, 18" movement with
no secondary, standard warheads only, 1 FiCon to launch any number of
missiles, launch, movement, and attack occurs during the regular missile
phase.
So, basically, an MT missile acts just like an SM, except it stays on the
board for up to 3 turns, and it has a shorter movement range. PDS and
anti-misile fire and interception is resolved just as against SM's,
except
that each individual MT missile counts as an entire "salvo" - so 6's and
rerolls have no effect.
[snip]
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
for
> missile launch purposes?
They pick their target at the end, so they have terminal guidance systems.
However, they have to be pointed in approximately the right direction to begin
with. So I'd say their target, for missile launch purposes, would be a
location on the table (say, a 1" or 2" circle somewhere in their arc & range
of fire). Which would mean that their initial target could be a group of small
ships or one large ship, or just a marker placed for the purpose.
- Sam
G'day guys,
Well here's Derek's reply to your replies - I'm beginning to feel like
the ball in email tennis;)
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
> From: -MWS- <Hauptman@concentric.net>
I know I mentioned this before, but my MT missile rules don't deal with the
types of missiles, I left that subject alone for another day. So the standard,
EMP and needle missiles are as they appear in MT. I only included the missile
types for completeness, I don't know about you but I hate page flipping
backwards and forwards through multiple rulebooks and like to keep it down to
the minimum.
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com>
> It may be possible to rebalance by making the secondary
The movement allowance of the secondary move is half that of the standard move
(ie: 9", sorry I should have made that clear).
Also before I go any further perhaps I should define just what I think a MT
missile is, it's a small spacecraft, with a endurance of multiple turns, able
to change it's course quickly in order to close with it's target. So if a MT
missile has the abiltiy to change course with at least the same agility as a
fighter, being able to close to 'attack range' with a ship is something which
is fairly easy to achive (unless you are moving faster than the missile). It
is now up to the target's defenses to destroy the missile before it can damage
the target.
This brings me to another point, so far excluding fighter interceptions all
the anti fighter/missile defenses are 'point defense', it's effectively
an all or nothing effort at the last moment, there is no area defense (and
before anyone asks the ADFC doesn't count for this, the weapons employed still
fire at no further than six inches from the target ship). Against SMs this is
OK because they don't last more than one turn, they either manage to attack
you or they're removed from play. They move so fast that they are effectively
a 'direct fire' weapon. Fighter interceptions and the 'optional anti MT
missile Salvo Missile' rule do provide a area defense against MT missiles but
only if the defending target(s) maintain enough range to allow these 'systems'
to engage them successfully.
I see the MT missile being used in two different modes, first a long range
weapon system (with a straight line range of 54" over a period of three turns)
or a close range 'sprint' mode (hence one reason for the secondary
movement, sorry I've just finished re-reading the David Weber 'starfire'
series).
> To resolve this attack roll D6 1 for the number of missiles
> I don't understand this. I THINK it says roll 1d6-1 for each
Sorry should have made that clearer, I think the minus sign got lost <OK I
screwed up in the conversion from doc to email - Beth>. But it's roll
1D6-1
per salvo for the number of SMs on target, a roll of one is a miss
(1-1=0
missiles on target). A second D6 is rolled and the first dice score is added
to the result (more SMs on target, the easier it is to kill the MT missile),
if the total is 6 OR GREATER the MT missile is killed.
As for adding uncertainty I've never been one for a sure thing, even if there
are SMs on target they still have to manuever to score a hit. Assuming a
average number of 3 SMs on target, a roll of 3 is required on
the second dice to kill a MT missile (roll of 3 + DM of 3 SMs on target
=
6). And I don't think two dice qualifies as 'lots'.
> Please note that unlike a fighter a missile does not need
> Why not? I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but they
OK MT missiles may move the same as fighters but they're not fighters, when I
was writing this rule I considered using a CEF to attack but as I wasn't
redesigning the MT missiles themselves this would reduce the MT missiles
possible range from 54" to 36". Later when MT missiles themselves get looked
at, well maybe we'll just have to see.
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Actually of the games I've played using my missile rules I've only ever been
the missile using race once, every other time I was defending against MT
missiles and only one of these games involved Beth <I was busy rolling ones in
the other corner of the board;)>. There have been at least 6 games so far
since I got my OU taskforce painted, yes you guessed it the first batch of
designs for these minatures use MT missiles as the main battery. I always give
my opponents the choice of side and they almost always choose the ones with
the 'cool paint job that look like the ships from the 5th element movie'. The
opposing forces so far have consisted of either NSL or FSE up to now because
Beth and I are providing the miniatures, but that is changing as now some of
the people at the local wargaming club are in the process of buying their own
fleets.
> (Schoon guesstimated the increased hit probability of the Derek missile
Beth's reaction: GACK! A missile named after Derek?!
> vs the SM salvo to 2-3x better. It depends a bit on how fast
As I said above I think it should be fairly easy for the missile to close with
and attack a ship (provided of course that the ship is not moving at a speed
which is too fast for the missile to catch), sorry I don't see ships (maybe
not the larger ones anyway) jinking aside like modern day fighters to avoid
incoming missiles (perhaps I could choose a better analogy?).
> Without the secondary movement, Derek's missiles would
I'll have to try a few games without the secondary movement, just to see the
difference (like I said I'd just finished rereading Weber and White's
'Starfire' series) because I'm thinking that some of you are right. The 18"
movement allowance plus the 6" attack range gives a total range of 24", This
gives more than enough range for a missile to 'sprint in'. This leads me to
think that the secondary move was a 'red herring' of sorts and, yes, should be
dropped.
Which brings me to another question at what ranges do people normally expect
games of 'Full Thrust' to be fought out at? And what general concepts would
people use to acheive this 'optimal range'?
Derek Fulton
> I don't understand this. I THINK it says roll 1d6-1 for each
> As for adding uncertainty I've never been one for a sure thing, even if
IMO this is too many dice for the interaction. I suspect it could be
simplified. However, if that's the way you want to go at it...
> Which brings me to another question at what ranges do people normally
Consider that for most mere mortals, a 6x4 foot table is the biggest
available. Most use inches for MUs, meaning that the largest possible starting
distance is roughly 60 to 66" (assuming you don't get tricky and try the
diagonal). Most start somewhat closer, because the longest ranged "standard"
weapon is the Class 3 Beam at 36".
Most battles I've seen tend to have 3 phases: 1) Approach maneuvering 2)
Approach combat to passing combat
3) Turning combat and/or mopping up
The ranges tend to close until very small, and then reopen only as much as
turning limits.
Adding a weapon which is usable during "approach maneuvering" when no other
weapons systems have the range could be quite unbalancing if not looked at
very carefully.
G'day Schoon,
I know Derek asked the questions in the first place, but I thought it might
help if you got an idea of how it is at our place.
> Consider that for most mere mortals, a 6x4 foot table is the biggest
Luckily we have a 6x9 foot table.
> Most use inches for MUs
Us too.
> meaning that the largest possible starting distance is roughly 60 to
We do often start on the diagonal. However I think that accidently grew out of
the fact that even with 2 of those (terrific) geohex star mats side by side we
still end up with a strip of bare table on either end (which is
perfect for paper/dead ships/counters etc.).
> Most battles I've seen tend to have 3 phases:
I've seen a lot of those too - especially when the guys square off -
though
I prefer to stay out about 24-30" and use my SMs/speed with the odd
sprint straight through the middle at high speed (so my submunition packs can
have a go).
> Adding a weapon which is usable during "approach maneuvering" when no
I agree with you here, but as I use a reasonable number of ER SMs the
potential for imbalance is reduced in our case.
Cheers
Beth
Hi Beth,
> I agree with you here, but as I use a reasonable number of ER SMs the
Even SML-ERs only have a 36" reach.
Derek wrote via Beth:
> I see the MT missile being used in two different modes, first a long
You use the same words as Weber/White, but you give them a rather
different meaning. Putting my Starfire Design Studio hat on for a moment:
"Sprint" mode Starfire missiles are equivalent to Full Thrust
sub-munition packs - ie short range (and accuracy which drops off fast
with the range), but completely unstoppable by point defence. The
long-range Starfire missiles (Capital Missiles, Strategic Bombardment
Missiles and Heavy Bombardment Missiles, so far at least <g>) are all
incapable of sprint-mode fire; only the medium-ranged Standard Missile
is capable of both sprint-mode and regular fire.
Back to FT:
> As I said above I think it should be fairly easy for the missile to
*Fairly easy* are the key words here. As I understand them, they do not mean
*Automatically*.
Put it like this: If my enemy flies at speeds less than 18 (with the 9mu
secondary move) and I use these missiles, at least 90% of those missiles are
going to lock on to his capital ships... and not even a
Mass 200+ ship will survive a concentrated attack (9-12 missiles or so
after point defence; call it 18-24 missiles prior to point defence...
that's about 100-120 Mass of ships, and they can launch their missiles
long before the enemy can return fire).
I'd feel like an extreme powergamer if I used such a weapon.
OK, I usually fly faster than speed 18 myself (at least in Cinematic -
in Vector it is more of a median), but I know I'm in a rather small
minority...
Worried,
G'day Oerjan,
I'm going to answer for Derek here - which inevitably means you'll get
another email cotaining the complete opposite of everything said here from him
;)
> You use the same words as Weber/White, but you give them a rather
You're probably making a very sound point here (sorry never read the books),
but I do know he meant the way he imagines the book as we don't have the game.
> Put it like this: If my enemy flies at speeds less than 18 (with the
Which he's thinking of dropping anyway.
> Worried,
Don't be. I agree the thought of 12 MT missiles heading for me is terrifying,
but then so would 12 SMs (and as I've designed a series of arsenalships that's
something Derek may just have to face at some point). He really hasn't
invented a new terror weapon he's just made an existing weapon compatible with
FB. We had a few games over the weekend and as far as I can see they didn't
cause any imbalance. In fact in one game his HC coped 2 SMs as mine took 3 MT
missiles, after PDS fire I was holding 7 dice and he was holding 4. He was
gutted and I went almost untouched (and for those wondering where all my ones
went my SMs weren't doing too bad, but my
torpedo fighters more than made up for it - literally ALL ones for those
that actually made it in).
Anyways, thanks for all the feedback.
Cheers
Beth