In message <LOBBIEFGANBBAEDEPFENOEHJCFAA.apter@prodigy.net>
> "Andrew Apter" <apter@prodigy.net> wrote:
> The real trick is getting you opponent to chase your missile boat.
The you
> can use the things as mines <EG>
[snip]
I though of doing something similar with Phalon plasma bolts - give
anything chasing you a shock.
{don't miscalculate, though - it'd be embarassing :-).
On the subject, can phalons fire their plasma bolts at reduced power
(ie. a PBL-3 is fired as a PBL-1) ?
I have a solution for missiles and plasma bolts. If we take the vector
movement
system
everything has enercia. Well it should anyrate:) So why not add the LAST turn'
s velocity to the missiles? If you ship is traveling 18" then the missiles go
and extra 18" i n the direction of the velocity of the ship that's firing
them. Messure out hte velocity and then use that as the starting point of the
missile fire point.
> I have a solution for missiles and plasma bolts. If we take the
Why not? Well because it changes the balance of the whole game:)
With current rules, Salvo Missile armed ships have to close within 30"
(24"
range plus 6" attack radius) and survive a round of fire before they can fire
their missiles. Smaller ships may not survive to fire their SMs and larger
ships may loose their SMs to threshold checks.
With those proposed rules, the range of the SMs are increase by the ships
velocity so per your example, normal SMs can now hit targets up to 48" away,
so they can fire off their SMs before any damage is taken, and then plot
movement so as to get out of harms way.
As a result, Salvo Missiles are now very powerful first strike weapons and
fleets of small ships with high thrust and SMRs will rule the spacelanes. This
would throw the point system out of whack and require changes in the whole
game.
The fixed range from the ship's initial location is not the most realistic but
it works. If inertia is added to SMs, then we better add it to fighter
movement and fighter launches, and additional problems will then show up.
[quoted original message omitted]
> The fixed range from the ship's initial location is not the most
Ah, the age old problem of Game vs. Simulation. Clearly the rules are
unrealistic and at extremes give bad results. On the other hand, at low
speeds the game plays quickly and the results are not too badly skewed.
If I had my druthers I'd want to find a solution to the game balance problem
that allowed for inertia. Why have vector movement at all if you are going
to discriminate against non-ships?
The balance problem can be solved by observing the advanced rules concerning
sensors from FT. A pre-game system that determines where on the board
ships come in and at what speeds and who is acquired would help. I am
currently working on something that is fast and fun and it would help prevent
50 MU sector clearing sweeps with inertia using missiles. Well, at least cut
down on the problem.
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> On the subject, can phalons fire their plasma bolts at reduced power
The FB2 rules don't allow it, but feel free to try it out as a house
rule :-)
Later,
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> The fixed range from the ship's initial location is not the most
> unrealistic and at extremes give bad results.
Exactly.
> On the other hand, at low speeds the game plays quickly and the
IME; the speed (in Vector) where the results start getting noticably
skewed is about 6 mu/turn. That's not particularly fast even in
slow-flying gaming groups.
> The balance problem can be solved by observing the advanced rules
Not without some extra house rules added, no. There is nothing in those
rules which prevent you from shooting at unidentified bogies - you know
*where* they are, you just don't know *what* they are...
But the general idea is right; better sensor rules can reduce the problem a
fair bit. Can't remove them completely, though.
Regards,
> Jaime wrote:
> I have a solution for missiles and plasma bolts. If we take the vector
Because it has exactly the same problem as all other ways of coupling missile
range with the ship's speed: it gives missiles an effectively unlimited range
and ensures that they fire first...
Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] That was what I intended in my original post. Missile fire is
before ship movement, so you do not get to add in the ship's velocity changes
in the current turn to the missile.
> Why not? Well because it changes the balance of the whole game :)
[Bri]
Not necessarily true. Your statement is correct if the ships are
closing range at a rate of 1-6. Any faster and the ships could be out of
range of each other (i.e. start the turn at >36 the previous turn) on the
previous turn.
> With those proposed rules, the range of the SMs are increase by the
[Bri] As stated, above, this is already the case. Example: 2 ships are
closing going head to head. Ship S (with the SMLs) is moving at 48mu and ship
T (target) is moving at 6. The ships end the last turn at 37mu away from each
other (out of range). This turn Ship S fires its SRMs 24mu away and does a 3pt
turn to the port. Ship T increases velocity by 6, but does not turn. Ship T
moves with in 2mu of the missiles and are targeted by them. Ship S is now over
36mu away so still out of range.
> As a result, Salvo Missiles are now very powerful first strike weapons
[Bri] I don't think that it would be as much a problem as you think.
It will not be as bad as the problem with MT Missile Boats, because
salvo missiles are not multi-turn and cannot react to the movement
of opponent ships. But that option is already open (as demonstrated above) for
a force of small, fast SML Boats to approach at a closing
speed of 7-35 and drop missiles and escape out of range.
Some results of applying inertia to salvo missiles would be:
- Encourage faster, more agile ships and explain why the FSE use
faster ships.
- Encourage more ADFC/PDS. But, already the game is encouraging
more PDS and ADFC/PDS than the original designs carried, with the
the strength of fighter, PHC plasma, and SV pods.
- Encourage faster close rates.
- Encourage more attack wave type of combat rather than a
spiral of death or standing wall of guns.
- Encourage the use of more small ships.
> The fixed range from the ship's initial location is not the most
[Bri] It is true. Fighters face the same problem, but to a lesser degree
since they are multi-turn. It has already been proposed on the list that
fighters keep track of inertia and velocity. Orders would not have to be
written, but fighters would move in the direction they last moved, the
distance they last moved before applying their movement. I believe that this
option was generally rejected to keep the game simplified. But it remains an
option for house rules.
> Dean Gundberg
My comments above marked by [Bri]
After all of the above has been said, I understand that it is not a perfect
solution. The cure may be worse than the problem. I was just interested if
anyone else had run into this problem and if there was a good solution to it.
---
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
This is presuming the missiles do not have clever enough guidance systems to
compensate for the velocity of the launching vehicle. I can
see no good reason why they should have that restriction - especially if
they don't have a number of turns of flying to do like MT missiles. They could
do a massive deceleration burn as soon as they popped out of the tube, then
plot their given trajectory...
TTFN