This last weekend a group of us were talking about FT salvo missiles. It was
generally agreed that, although we liked the idea of SMs, none of us liked
either the placed marker idea or the way SMs lock onto their target. We kicked
around some ideas (some of our own, some from various places on the the web)
and have settled on something that we are going to use.
(As a sidebar, we have taken O.O.'s advice and have switched from 1 MU = 1" to
1 MU = 0.5")
We started by deciding that the mass and cost should stay the same. Also the
damage resolution would be unchanged.
We decided on the following method for launching and flight: Standard salvo
missiles have three endurance factors. When launched, the player can specify
how many EFs will be used per turn, from 1 to 3. The salvo persists from turn
to turn until all EFs are expended. I.e. at acceleration 1, the missiles last
three turns, at Accel. 3 they last 1 turn, and at accel 2 they last 2 turns
(using 2 EF 1st turn and 1 EF 2nd turn).
The missiles are launched after orders are written but before ships are moved.
All of the missiles launched from a single ship against a single target ship
count as a single volley and are represented on the board by a single counter,
even if it contains missiles from several launchers on the same ship. On a
piece of paper record each volley's
ID, target, EF/turn and speed.
Launch speed depends upon the geometry of the launch.
Missiles launched into the F arc have initial velocity [V(i)] equal to
launching ship's velocity [V(s)] plus 3 MU. Thus V(i) = V(s) + 3
Missiles launched into the FS or FP arcs have V(i) = 1/2xV(s) + 3
Missiles launched into the AS or AF arcs have V(i) = 3 - 1/2xV(s)
Missiles launched into the aft arc have V(i) = 3 - V(s)
Arc is determined by a LOS from launch ship to target at time of launch.
After all ships move, missiles move. They may apply the acceleration from
their EFs to their movement. Each EF is worth 9, 10 or 12 thrust (we haven't
decided yet). 1 thrust accelerates the missile 1 unit. Turns may be made at
the beginning, middle, or end of movement at the player's (seeker AI's)
discretion, in any combination. Turns at the beginning of movement cost 3
thrust per facing change, turns in the middle cost 2 per facing change and
turns at the end of movement cost 1 per facing change.
If the missiles reach their target before the end of their movement, the
movement stops and the the missile's attack will be resolved at the normal
point in the turn.
Anti-missile fire happens as per Fleet Book rules.
In order to attack the target ship, the missiles must be within 3 MU (they
moved after the ships, remember?). Each missile rolls one die to hit. The
number required depends on the distance between the missile
and the target. Measure the range in 1/2 MUs and multiply by 2. The
roll must equal or exceed this number.
0 to 1/2 MU: 1+
1/2 to 1 MU: 2+
1 to 1.5 MU: 3+
1.5 to 2 MU: 4+
2 to 2.5 MU: 5+
2.5 to 3 MU: 6+
Attacks against the rear 30 degree arc of a target ship that used
Thrust to accelerate this turn get a +1 to their roll.
We use an integrated system of Stealth Hull, ECM, Sensor and FCS
levels. It is a 5 level spectrum of None/Civilian/Inferior/Antiquated,
Basic/Obsolescent, Standard, Enhanced and Superior for each system.
We assume standard FB military designs have Standard Level systems in all 4
areas, auxiliaries have Basic systems and Civilian ships have
None/Civilian. For each level of Stealth or ECM above Standard, the
missile suffers a cumulative -1 to its roll. For each level of Stealth
or ECM below standard, the missile gets a cumulative +1.
Damage is resolved as normal.
What is left unresolved is the combination of thrust per EF and the number of
missiles per salvo.
So my question is this (for those with experience at evaluating FT systems):
Given that the cost and mass will remain the same from FB1 (launcher 3 mass,
salvo 2 mass, 3 NPV per mass each),
How much should each EF be worth? 9, 10 or 12? More? (15, etc)
How many missiles should be in the (mass 2, 6 NPV) salvo? 3, 4,5, 6 or more?
If we add the option for varying Guidance systems on the missiles
(assuming FB1 values are for Standard guidance) and give a +1 or -1 to
hit for each level above/below standard, how much NPV is that worth per
salvo?
Just to be absolutely, positively clear; this is for our own use only, I am
not... NOT NOT NOT... looking to get flamed for suggesting a change to SMLs.
For our own, personal, use only.
J
> In order to attack the target ship, the missiles must be within 3 MU
Er, you said they moved after orders were written but before the ships moved.
Actually, it sounds as if you're combining SM with More Thrust Missiles (aka
MTM). Take a look at Noam's weapons archive
http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Missiles.htm#MTM-update
G'day,
Sorry haven't the time to help you out with you main questions, the only
question I do have is
> Launch speed depends upon the geometry of the launch.
How are you getting around the problem of ships coming in at speed 72 and
hitting their opponent before the opponent has a chance to get beams in range
to do damage back? That's what's always killed vector missiles for us.
Cheers
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
No, I said that they were *launched* after orders but before ships move. As in
launch declared, missiles placed on the board in position and direction,
target and speed noted on missile record sheet.
After I describe initial speed calculation, the first sentence in the
paragraph about moving the missiles is that they are moved after ships move.
> Actually, it sounds as if you're combining SM with More Thrust
Kinda, sorta.
We looked at this, as well as the "Solving Missile Speed" section. We wanted
missiles with only 1d6 damage (like SMs), but liked the EF idea.
We did not like the FB-fighterlike secondary move concept for
missiles, so had them move after ships and traded off to require them to get
closer.
The variable-speed drive came from some popular fiction :)
We did not like the closing speed concept from the "Solving Missile Speed"
section, so we took a different approach. We wanted the likelyhood of missiles
successfully engaging the target to be related to the proximity to the target
and the target's "signature". We toyed
with tying the to-hit number to the incident angle between the
missile's heading and the target (i.e. "target is in missile's F 30
degrees, X to hit, target in F 60 degrees X+1 to hit", etc.), but
dropped it after some discussion.
Another thing that we could not settle on was what to do with missiles that
"lost lock" and didn't engage the target. Options were to allow them to circle
for another try or to allow them to attempt to "acquire" other ships in
successive order of proximity. In the end we decided it was too complicated
for what we wanted and dropped both ideas in favor of PSBing "proximity soft
kill fratricide" from the missiles that did engage the target, so the rest of
the volley just disappears.
J
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Just to make sure I am answering the correct question, we use cinematic
movement for ships and so will the missiles (in terms of how acceleration,
turns and V calculations work), but they will carry a velocity from turn to
turn like a ship. I assume this is what you mean by "vector missiles".
We haven't tried the (new) system yet, though your concern was discussed. The
solution was more complicated, but if it becomes a problem we will try
switching systems.
We figure the primary abuse would be to fire at a target ahead (F arc), then
turn away sharply to keep the range open. (acts kind of like mongol light
cavalry in space)
The alternate solution we have waiting is to have the launch take place after
ships are moved. The missile is then placed 3 MU from the launch vessel and
performs its movement as if it had V(i)=0. If the missile does not engage the
target on the first turn, then on the missile status sheet, the missile's V is
recorded adding the V(i) calculation from my original post. Essentially, the
missile loses its first turn of extra velocity and the launching ship is
forced to maneuver for a launch position based on launching at the end of its
movement rather than at the beginning.
Another thing that we discussed was, if the value of an EF is high,
like 10 or 12, then make the turning cost 4/3/2 instead of 3/2/1. This
would make the missiles les maneuverable and, at high speeds allow the tactic
of trying to cut inside the missile's turning arc if the geometry is right.
J
How is this an abuse? Sounds like a perfecty good tactic to me, as long as
you've got the
delta-v
to pull it off.
The Mongols used their high delta-v horsies to pull it off for a good
many years.
If the defender isn't prepared with anti-missiles, jinking ability or a
nice way to reach out and touch someone, then hey! Welcome to the real world,
sucker!
'Course, it would be a pity if the defender expected to run into an enemy with
missiles and came loaded to defend against them only to discover that the
other guy came with beams instead... Sorta like the real world.
> on 03.12.18 8:38 AM, Jared Hilal at jlhilal@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- Edward Lipsett <translation@intercomltd.com> wrote:
Maybe "abuse" is the wrong term, but I understood what Beth meant in her
question to be:
"stretching the rules to their maximum extent to gain most advantage with the
side effect of draining the fun and enjoyment (of others) from the game"
As this is supposed to be a fun way to spend an evening with friends over beer
and pizza rather than a cutthroat competition, I would count such antics as
abuse. Kinda like penny poker night. If I wanted cutthroat competion, I would
play for big stakes and definately not with my friends. <shrug>
J
Well, they might be a bit miffed when you blew them all away the first night,
but I imagine the second night you would be facing the results of an
intensive 1-day arms race... We sort of enjoy that type of action, as
long
as the baselines are firmly defined - and enforced.
The whole point of gaming is, of course, each to his (or her: sorry, Beth)
own, so have fun anyway you do it!
> "stretching the rules to their maximum extent to gain most advantage
from
> the game"
> Edward Lipsett wrote:
> Well, they might be a bit miffed when you blew them all away the first
Not if you play a campaign (narrative or otherwise), because then what you
blew away on the first night wasn't their *ships* - it was their
*shipyards*, so they have no way to build new any ships for the next battle.
This is the real problem with "vector-moving" missiles. They're not that
much of a problem in deep-space battles, because it usually takes so
long
to build up the attack vector that a mobile would-be target has time to
move away from the danger area (especially in Cinematic); in one-off
deep-space battles this translates into a rather extreme sensitivity to
the
exact set-up conditions used.
Most military SF backgrounds I've seen either ignore the hypervelocity
missile strike tactic completely or ban it by referring to politics -
eg.,
in the Honor Harrington books you normally don't do hypervelocity strikes
against orbital installations because the Solarian League will annihilate you
in case you hit the planet by accident... even so it pops up in at least two
of the HH books (Flag in Exile and... Ashes of Victory IIRC).
Regards,
> At 6:38 PM +0100 12/18/03, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
That's why I dislike the broken method of meeting engagements in most Space
battles. I've run a few scenarios with the map automatically scrolling at
start or with both forces having nearly common vectors vs opposing vectors.
I'd very much like to do a Fleet Thrust system where you move task groups
around a map that yields you a set up for your actual space battle.
Unfortunately, my work, Military
Vehicle/re-enacting hobbies and home ownership tasks have all but
totally occluded my Gaming hobby.
Speaking of which, does anyone on the list have any experience with 800 Series
5 ton trucks? I might be buying that as my next MV. It'l be useful as a home
truck and I'd so be able to crush all the other pickups in the neighborhood.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> to politics - eg., in the Honor Harrington books you normally don't
Assuming that we have an eye to playing campaign style deep-space
battles (i.e. planets & infrastructure change hands but are not subject to
attack), my questions still stand:
Given the description of the mechanics of movement and target acquisition that
I gave and that the cost and mass are to remain the same as FB1 (launcher 3
mass, salvo 2 mass, 3 NPV per mass each);
How much should each EF be worth? 9, 10 or 12? More? (15, etc)
How many missiles should be in the (mass 2, 6 NPV) salvo? 3, 4,5, 6 or more?
Plus a new question:
What are the primary set-up factors influencing the "extreme
sensetivity" that you mention?
J
> How much should each EF be worth?
12mu, just to keep everythng in multiples of 6mu
> How many missiles should be in the (mass 2, 6 NPV) salvo?
No suggestion on that one
> Plus a new question:
Are the missileers far enough away to get their shots off with impunity? Are
the initial velocities high enough (cinematic) for the targets to be able to
dodge? Are you allowing a floating map?
> A long time ago (before the holidays began), Jared Hilal wrote:
> >This is the real problem with "vector-moving" missiles. They're not
Which still begs the counter-question *why* the infractructure can't be
attacked :-/
> Given the description of the mechanics of movement and target
Very difficult to answer any of these without playtesting. The key to the
missile balance is the missiles' probability of getting within their own
attack range of the target (in your case 3 mu or less), and playtesting is the
only way to get a feeling for how this has changed; once that is known,
it'll be relatively easy to adjust the number of missiles (and/or the
PD/missile interactions) in each salvo to bring the missiles back to
their FB1 power.
Part of my difficulties is that I'm not entirely sure of exactly how you
calculate your missile speeds or determine their initial
courses/facings.
Eg., does the "Missiles launched into the aft arc have V(i) = 3 - V(s)"
mean that the missile flies backwards relative to its own facing (ie., that it
gets a velocity in the same direction as the launching ship, only a bit
slower), or that it gets a V(s) - 3 speed in the *opposite* direction to
the ship's course?
Similarly, what course does the missiles start on? If it is launched into the
(F) arc, does it have to copy the ship's course exactly (like the MT
missiles do) or can it choose any initial course which falls within the
(F)
arc? If it is launched against a target which is in the FP arc at the time of
launch (ie., prior to movement) but which ends its movement where the
launching ship's FS are was at the time of launch, does the missile start
moving into the FP arc and have to spend most of its thrust rating doing a
U-turn? Ships always have to move at one of the 12 clock facings; would
it be OK for a missile to *not* move along the clock facings (even if all its
course changes are in 30-degree increments)?
> Plus a new question:
The speeds, courses and relative starting positions of the opposing fleets
are all about equally important. (For deep-space engagements, that's
pretty
much all the set-up factors there is... :-/ )
If the missile-user starts at a high enough speed (ie., high enough that
the missiles will reach clean across the table in a single turn) and on a
course directly towards the enemy, and said enemy starts at a *low* enough
speed to be unable to dodge the missiles, then the missile-user can wipe
the enemy out without suffering a single shot in return. This is of course
essentially the same situation as vector missiles vs. infrastructure; exactly
how slow "slow enough" is depends on how manoeuvrable the missiles are.
In other situations, particularly when the missile-users are being
chased
by the enemy, vector-moving missiles risk being unable to hit anything
at all due to being unable to brake quickly enough to catch their targets.
Of course both sides would try to do their best to create a favourable
set-up during their pre-battle manoeuvres. Specifically, if the
non-missile
force knew that the missile-users were coming they would try to build up
enough speeds to have a decent chance of dodging any missiles launched
:-/
Later,
> Which still begs the counter-question *why* the infractructure can't be
No it doesn't; plenty easy PS(ocialogical)B has been offered. You don't have
to accept, but it's already been posted.
The_Beast
OO said:
> Which still begs the counter-question *why* the infractructure can't be
The Beast said:
> No it doesn't; plenty easy PS(ocialogical)B has been offered. You don't
Given that the PSB offered thus far does not cover pirates, terrorists,
aliens, rogue nations, or deniable operations, I wouldn't (and OO probably
wouldn't) have described it as "plenty easy". It pretty much only covers
backgrounds in which all parties are subject to a supranational government
with good investigative ability and sufficient military power to enforce its
dictates.
> From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
Do not forget infrastructure can have defenses. Local point defense ships do
not need to pay for hyper drive. Defense stations do not even need maneuver.
This can lead to a greater cost in missiles needed to overwhelm the defenses.
What you get is an arms race. However in a one off game you get cheese whiz (A
short one sided game good for a few laughs in retrospect). Andy
> Given that the PSB offered thus far does not cover pirates, terrorists,
Or little pink fairies...
Well, I DID already admit that Karl changed EVERYTHING as I saw it, so the
aliens comment was RIGHT OUT.
> It pretty much only covers backgrounds in which all parties are subject
Actually, I only said the United Nations was an example of a club that
allowed agreed-to national boundaries on actions to continue, not that
it was, in fact, the true and main enforcement there of.
The_Beast
> Do not forget infrastructure can have defenses. Local point defense
Well, if you extend FT rules, there's a tendency to suggest there's no
defense for stand-off weapons. I consider it whoo-ie, but likewise
consider it more YMMV.
The_Beast
PS Sorry I didn't couple the last two messages, but thought they were going in
different directions.
> --- on 21 Dec 2003 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Well, we have played several games with our variant.
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200312/msg00482.html
With the discussions about missiles and FB3 beta, I have some conclusions to
report.
Setup conditions:
We use a 4'x6' table, which we allow to scroll/float as needed.
All games with cinematic movement, as I have no oppenents interested in
playing vector.:(
We used 1 MU = 0.5" with starting speeds >25 and 1 MU = 0.5" with starting
speeds <15. Never started at greater than 35.
All setups were with forces in adjacent corners of the long table edge
initially on parallel courses, so either 65+ or 130+ MU apart ( 5'+ ),
broadside to broadside.
Smallest games were 4 medium or 4 capital ships on a side, largest was 2
squadrons of 4 capitals with 16 escorts each side, total: 16 capitals, 32
escorts in game.
In each game, both sides used SMs. Capitals were generally BBG or BG,
TMF 250-300; escorts evenly divided between large and medium sizes, TMF
80-120.
Capitals had 2-8 launchers each, escorts 2-4.
What we found was that the effect was about right for what we wanted,
but the multi-turn SMs slowed the game down a LOT. Perhaps as much as
2-3 times what it takes for a similar sized game. It might be OK for a
PBEM or computer supported game, but for gaming in person with miniatures it
ended up being too much.
Additionally, we agreed that it was too easy to get volleys within 3 MU of the
target.
So we made a few revisions:
Definitions:
Salvo - all of the missiles from a single launcher.
Volley - all of the salvo's from a single ship directed at a single
target.
The missiles are launched after orders are written but before ships are moved.
All of the missiles launched from a single ship against a single target ship
count as a single volley and are represented on the board by a single counter,
even if it contains salvos from several launchers on the same ship. Exception:
a ship may launch more than one volley at a single target if the launchers in
question can launch salvos at a given target but they cannot be placed
together on the table.
The volley counter is placed 6 MU from the launching ship, facing directly
away from the launching ship, anywhere within the launcher's firing arc as
long as the target ship is within the volley's front 120 degree arc, which
represents the "sensor basket". On a piece of paper record each volley's ID,
target, and speed.
Standard salvo missiles have a movement equal to 36 MU + part of the
launching ship's V. SMs last 1 turn only. If they do not reach their target by
the end of the turn, they are removed from the table.
Missiles launched into the F arc have Movement [M] equal to launching
ship's velocity [V] plus 36 MU. Thus M = V + 36
Missiles launched into the FS or FP arcs have M = 1/2(V) + 36
Missiles launched into the AS or AP arcs have M = 36 - 1/2(V)
Missiles launched into the aft arc have M = 36 - V
We have not used any ships with missiles bearing into the aft arc, but we see
some possible problems with this M formula for the A arc. UNTESTED OPTION for
missiles launched into aft arc: when it comes time to move the missile, move
it on the launching vessel's initial V & heading (as if coasting like vector
movement), then move from there at M = 36.
Missiles move after all ships have moved but before fighters move (FB fighter
secondary move). After each full 6 MU moved, the volley may alter course up to
15 degrees for no cost. Each such course change may be increased up to 15
degrees to a total of 30 degrees per course change for a cost of 2 MU of
movement per increased course change. Course changes may be made at the
player's (seeker AI's) discretion within these limits.
If the volley closes to within 6 MU of the target, it may make additional
attack course changes of up to 15 degrees each, 1 such course change per 1 MU
traveled, at a cost of 2 MU movement per course change. Volleys which come
within 1 MU of their target may expend any remaining movement on course
changes at a rate of 15 degrees per 3 MU remaining.
We use a turn gauge based on one from B5:FA which has 15 degree
increments marked around the outer edge and a 12-point cut-out for hex
bases.
Volleys within 1 MU of their target may attack their target during the
ordnance attack phase.
Anti-missile fire from ships and fighters happens as per normal rules.
ADFC and non-escorting fighter attacks happen before missile to-hit
rolls, while PD and escorting fighter attacks happen after.
In order to attack the target ship, the missile volley must be within 1 MU
(they moved after the ships, remember?). Each missile rolls one die to hit.
The number required depends on the position of the target relative to the
missile volley.
Target in front 2 degree arc: 1+
Target in front 30 degree arc: 2+
Target in front 60 degree arc: 3+
Target in front 90 degree arc: 4+
Target in front 120 degree arc: 5+
Target in front 150 degree arc: 6+
We use an integrated system of Stealth Hull, ECM, Sensor and FCS levels. We
assume standard FB military designs have Standard (Level 2) Stealth and ECM
systems, fleet auxiliaries have Basic (level 1) Stealth and ECM systems and
Civilian ships have no Stealth or ECM (level 0). We assume that the standard
FT rules for FB systems like beams,
p-torps, k-guns, etc. reflect targets that have Lvl 2 ECM and Stealth.
For each level of Stealth and/or ECM above Standard (Enhanced,
Superior), the missile suffers a cumulative -1 to its roll. For each
level of Stealth and/or ECM below Standard (Basic, None), the missile
gets a cumulative +1.
Damage is resolved as normal for SMs.
Options:
Standard missiles may be made Extended Range (+12 MU Movement) by
reducing the warhead to 1d3 (Light).
Standard missiles may be made Long Range (+24 MU Movement) by reducing
the warhead to 1 point (Mini).
Standard missiles may have Heavy warheads (+1d6 damage dice each) by
reducing base Movement from 36 to 24.
Standard missiles may have Extra Heavy warheads (+2d6 damage dice each)
by reducing base Movement from 36 to 12.
1-arc launchers are available (vertical launch tubes rather than a
turreted launcher) for 2 MASS & 6 pts.
5-arc launchers are available for 4 MASS & 12 points
UNTESTED OPTION: Allow the missiles to continue into additional game turns,
coasting in a straight line at constant speed. Attack any enemy ships which
come within range (1 MU) and sensor basket (120 degrees).
Missiles with dead drives attack at -1 to their to-hit roll.
UNTESTED OPTION for vector movement: the missile volley coasts on the launch
ship's initial velocity and heading, then maneuvers as described
above with its base Movement. Or coasts 1/2 V(s) on H(i), use 1/2
Movement, coast 2nd 1/2 V(s) on H(i), use 2nd 1/2 Movement. Vector
players would have to test this out.
We have tried this revision twice and it has worked really well so far.
J
PS: Beth, from your question, I get the impression that you set up with
opposing ships facing each other starting from opposite table edges. This
would probably give dramatically differing results from what we
got since we use converging-course engagements rather than
reciprocal-course or intercepting-course engagements.
G'day,
> PS: Beth, from your question, I get the impression that you set up
We usually set up on opposite table edges if playing 1-on-1, but its not
so clean in multiplayer games, where people can start all over the place.
Under vector and the simple "vector missile" version of add firing ship vector
you can still see "fire from range and break off" even when going in the same
direction (e.g. chasing an opponent), though it is most extremem when in a
"start from opposite sides" game. We'll have to try and give your stuff a go
in the near future though to see how it goes in vector.
Cheers
--- Beth.Fulton@cscsirouaurote:
> G'G'day
Keep in mind that the formulas are for Cinematic Movement, where Facing and
Direction of Travel are always the same. In Vector you should apply them based
on the Direction of Travel, not the ship's Facing. So a ship coasting on
course 12 with a facing of 9 would count fire from its F launchers as either
FPFPr AP for computing missile movement.
J
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
D'oh!
Should be 1 MU = 0.5" @ >25 and 1 MU = 1" @ <15
J
G'day,
> Keep in mind that the formulas are for Cinematic Movement, where
Ok
Thanks