> I've found SMLs to be almost completely innefective vs Banzai
Oh, definitely not. Otherwise there'd be banzai jammers attached to every
single ship and no one would carry SMR's.
> One possibility is that at launch, the firer declares all of the SMLs
Why not allow this choice for every salvo (aside from complexity)? I agree
with the basic idea but I'm not quite happy with the implementation. Let me
think about it...
(SFX: grinding gears, sputtering engine, oily smoke)
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
(snippage.)
> PSB justification: The targetting sensors of SMLs are already pretty
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
I've found SMLs to be almost completely innefective vs Banzai Jammers -
ie 28 pt craft which flock around the Big Boys to absorb the 5-6 SMLs
that otherwise home in on it.
Now this may be a good thing. Or not. In any event, assuming we want a
mechanic that would _reduce_ this "perfect defence" how would we go
about it?
One possibility is that at launch, the firer declares all of the SMLs fired
this turn as being either "normal" or "reduced gain".
If "reduced gain" is used, then the player rolls 1 die (only). Not one per
SML, but one, regardless of the number of SMLs launched.
Subtract 1, and Multiply the result by 15 (or don't subtract anything, but
multiply by 10 or some other combo to be determined by playtesting). Any ship
smaller in size than this figure is not a valid target, and will be ignored by
all SMLs that turn. Too bad if you wanted to shoot up a CL and rolled a 6. Too
bad if the only enemy within range is smaller than the minimum, cos they won't
home.
OTOH.... Capital ships are no longer effectively immune to SMLs when
accompanied by swarms of flies. But the effectiveness of SMLs vs other targets
is reduced, possibly to zero, as a penalty.
PSB justification: The targetting sensors of SMLs are already pretty
primitive - they can't even discriminate between targets, they just go
for the nearest one. Therefore, in order to seek out only the worthwhile ones,
they must 'reduce gain' on their sensors. This means that small targets won't
be detected. The die roll represents the opposing fleets' ECM vs ECCM
situation, which will vary from turn to turn.
> Laserlight wrote:
> >Now this may be a good thing. Or not.
It's no accident that FSE fleets, despite looking very good, aren't popular
round this neck of the woods. Last CANCON was a mix of mainly NSL, almost as
many NAC, an ESU, but no, none, zero, nada, zip FSE.
> >One possibility is that at launch, the firer declares all of the SMLs
Complexity is virtually the only reason why. The only other reason is Play
Balance to some degree. This rule negates the usual defence tactic, and will
mean more ADAF and PD are required for a lessened chance of
defence. No longer will the FSE be a push-over. But this should be
balanced by a price - do I "shoot the lot" at the capitals, or are there
many smaller juicy targets on the other side of the board that need
hitting as well? Anything that presents more trade-offs and tactical
judgements is, IMHO a Goo Thing in a game, and makes it more enjoyable.
What makes it _less_ enjoyable is over-complexity. And having an
additionalmn die-roll per SML, and keeping track of which die referred
to what SML, is a game-slower-upper that IMHO is unacceptable.
> I agree with the basic idea but I'm not quite happy with the
Good Idea Oh Lord. I see 3 possibilities:
1. State the filter value for each SML (on paper) at launch. Pro: No die
rolling Con:
Book-keeping
May be too effective, no "down side"
2. Roll for each SML Pro:
Feels better
Con: 1 Die Roll per SML = many extra rolls Keeping track of which die referred
to what SML slows things down
3. Roll for fleet Pro: 1 Die Roll total, no significant change to the game
Con: Requires PSB to justify Creates tactical difficulties (this may be Pro)
for SML users
By the KISS principle, IMHO 3 is best. But I'd be interested to hear from
others, hence the post. Frankly, I think the Banzai Jammer tactic
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Or you could allow players to purchase "smarter" SMLs (at an increased
Good idea, but this leads to more questions:
At what cost? How to represent on an SSD? Play balance (no downside)?
> From the archives - this was discussed in Volume: 25 Issue: 13-15
Another house rule way that might be interesting; SMLs will attack EVERY ship
within the detonation radius. Roll to see the number of missiles that actually
find targets, and then 'allocate' the missiles to targets in the area, either
randomly, equally, by size, or by however you feel like doing it.
(Jerry Han)
Why not just give them the same sort of AI as MT missiles?
i.e. let them hit whichever target the firing player wants them to.
You could even allow a player to split the missiles between ships, but I'd be
against this because it'd slow the game down.
Alun.
[Using Drones to Soak Up SMLs munched]
A house rule we used at FTGZG-ECC (and in other FT3 games using SMLs),
was that you could 'set' your SMLs to attack a certain mass range, avoiding
the drone problem.
I think it's a rather simple and logical rule to put into place, as previously
discussed on the list. (Jerry Han)
---
My fave fix would be to set the mass range low/med/high and use fuzzy
logic for the size range bands (this means you dont have hard breaks in the
target mass bands)
This would occur then I allocate the FCS for the SML and justifies actually
using the FCS to discriminate the target clutter (PSB). As for
book-keeping just
laser/jet some SML markers with size mnemonics on them (easy).
> Good idea, but this leads to more questions:
None, rationale SML targeting mechanics assume a normal fleet squadron with
some escorts but not swarms of low MASS drones or banzai jammers. Switching to
mass discrimination mode is a fix for the latter so why should it cost more.
> How to represent on an SSD?
None, rationale all SML's have a coarse mass discrimination capability when
playing with these rules.
> Play balance (no downside)?
None, rationale this is how SML missiles were broadly designed to work.
Only switch to mass discrimination mode SML's if required, if the fleet has a
'normal' escort arrangement then turn it off.
This mass discrimination mode could be very coarse, just set an -
'ignore
ships less then this MASS limit' - higher than the banzai jammers then
the SML's will behave as designed against normal sized escorts.
You don't have to write it down as you know what the MASS of the jammers are.
> Or you could allow players to purchase "smarter" SMLs (at an
> Good idea, but this leads to more questions:
> At what cost?
How about: Cost and Mass of Smart SMLs equals that of ER SMLs
> How to represent on an SSD?
Hollow SML arrow with a bar across the middle, or a little S inside.
> Play balance (no downside)?
Balance lies in Mass discrimination scheme: Logarithmic scale (Mass
1/10/100)? "Class" scale (loosely by corvette/frigate/destroyer mass
divisions)? Ship Emissions (Thrust rating times mass)? something else?
Smart SM rounds come with preset discriminators (written down before scenario
begins) All rounds in a given magazine or rack are set the same way. Settings
can be changed but it requires a turn, during which the rack cannot fire (this
would have little effect at the start of a game, but may be important later.).
On the flipside, true jammers/weasels should be able to broadcast false
signatures of ships greater than their mass. One PSB way: Since sublight
drives are gravitic, A thrust N wesel ship can use half its thrust to modify
its apparent mass by a factor of N/2. This ability increases mass and
cost
of engines by 25-50%.
2 Quatloos
Here are some ways to "fix" SM's. Many have side effects. Each solution is
independent and should not be combined with the other solutions listed.
1) Reduce the mass of Salvos (but not the launcher) to 1 for Std and 2 for ER.
This doubles the number of Std salvos that a ship carries (1.5 x for ER). This
may make Banzai Jammers too expensive to use (as you would need more of them).
Side effect: Ship designs with SMR's would need to be redesigned (or state
that SMR's fire 2 salvos at the same time).
2) Move the Launch Salvo Missiles phase to after the Move Ships phase. This
would allow the SM player to put the missiles on the target (if in range), and
negate the Banzai Jammer defense. Side Effect: This would increase the
PDS/ADFC that designs would need. However, since this is on the rise due
to the power of Fighters, it may not be that large of a side effect. I would
also suggest allowing PDS to attack any missile/fighter in range if this
option is taken.
3) Allow a FCS to be dedicated to missile control. The target would need to be
within sensor range (52tu). All SM's fired by the ship that turn would target
the ship designated by the FCS. The FCS would need to designate the target
before the SM's are launched. If the FCS is lost, SM's act in the standard
fashion. The FCS cannot be used for other functions that round. Only one
target may be designated from any one ship. Note: This leaves room
for ECM/Sensor rules.
4) For extra cost (not mass) allow SM's for a SHIP, to be of the "dispersal"
type. Each salvo of this type will not pick the same target as any other
salvo. Effect: Multiple salvos in an area will pick different targets, so
Banzai Jamming does not work. However, if there is less targets in range than
salvos, the "extra" salvos do not acquire a target. All salvos on a ship would
need to be of the standard or dispersal types (for ease of play). Dispersal
salvos from different ships do not interact (so dispersal missiles from
multiple ships do NOT gain this benefit).
6) Change the targeting rule from "attacks nearest ship" to "divide the damage
among all ships in range". Again, you would need to allow PDS to attack any
missile in range if you use this option.
7) Allow SM's to be set for a Mass range. You may want to use the 3-99,
100-199, 200-299 mass ranges. Side Effect: again, this would push
designs to
have more PDS/ADFC. If this option is used, I would also suggest that a
chance that the missile misidentifies the mass of the target be included. When
you roll for damage, ignore any rolls of 6 (as the target failed to acquire
the target).
I'm sure that there are other options.
> 1) Reduce the mass of Salvos
Play balance nightmare?
> 2) Move the Launch Salvo Missiles phase to after the Move
too rad weapon mechanic re-design
> 3) Allow a FCS to be dedicated to missile control.
This is the best IMO. Adding the can't be used for other weapons should offset
the slight imbalance from the original rules that allow the FCS to be usd for
other weapons but pick the nearest target.
> 4) For extra cost (not mass) allow SM's for a SHIP, to be of the
More types, more SSD/design changes.
> 6) Change the targeting rule from "attacks nearest ship" to "divide the
As suggested before, not bad as you say complicates PDS.
> 7) Allow SM's to be set for a Mass range.
need fuzzy limits on the bands +/- 10 MASS? Need different SML counters
for bands.
Replies marked by [Bri]
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] I don't think so. It just doubles the nubmer of "shots" tha the
launcher has, not the number that can be placed on the target in one round. As
SM's are now they are good for one or two rounds. This would extend the
use to 2-3 rounds. Not that big of a difference, but would remove the
pesky Banzai Jammers the first round. As SM's are not that long ranged (same
as
Class-3), By the 2nd round of use your are being hit by thier heavy
weapons as well.
> >2) Move the Launch Salvo Missiles phase to after the Move
[Bri] I did not explain this one very well. I meant to use the same
mechanic as Pulse Torpedos. Use of the FCS for SM dedication precludes the use
of it for other purposes this turn. Sorry that I was not clear. This was
suggested by someone else, I believe, as well.
> >
[Bri] I think that fuzzy bands adds an extra roll to the game. Missiles
already have a lot of dice rolling associated with them (PDS and damage),
adding another one is unappealing. I would prefer to incoporate it into the
damage phase. Either by subtracting 1 from each die rolled for damage, or
ignoring 6's. No extra rolling, but alows for the "fuzzy" feel as some
missiles misjudge the mass. I would allow the range to be set on the fly to
one of the range bands rather than create new symbols. However, I would also
require that all salvos launched in a turn from a given ship be set to the
same range band.
> -= tim jones =-
> >Good idea, but this leads to more questions:
Currently SMs ignore fighters so some mass discrimiation must be built in. I
don't see much of a problem stating that it can be set to ignore anything
smaller than a frigate's mass.
> [Bri] I think that fuzzy bands adds an extra roll to the game.
No fuzzy just means no 'hard' breaks in the MASS bands, it DOESNT mean more
die rolls which are the spawn of satan. Either the MASS bands are set in the
rule or the FCS designates them at detonation time (see later point). For the
former there should be some tolerance in the bands so that you don't get
unatural breaks.
For the latter it doesn't matter the FCS sets them and they should hard breaks
(assuming you know the MASS of the target and screening drones) FWIW why
bother why not just designate the target as you could set the MASS band to be
exactly that of the target ship.
Missiles
> already have a lot of dice rolling associated with them (PDS
Exactly, spawn of satan.
I would prefer to
> incoporate it into the
Extra modifiers and exceptions are also the spawn of satan.
> I would allow the range to be set on the fly to
what is on the fly - missile launch phase or missile detonation
phase - to exclude type markers it would have to be the latter.
> However, I would also require that all salvos launched
Seems plausible, call it a MASS band, range bands are something else.
> Missiles
I've been reviewing all of the ideas that people have come up with on
the list so far regarding messing about with ^H^H^H Fine-tuning the SML
rules. And the comment above seems to me to be very germane here.
Now again, this is very much IMHO but I really like simplicity. Some of the
suggestions would make SMLs into quite different beasts, things more
like multi-warhead MT missiles.
Dean Gundberg:
> Currently SMs ignore fighters so some mass discrimiation must be built
Good point. A logical reason why there should be some mass discrimination.
Anyway, keep the suggestions, good, bad and ugly coming. Some hadn't ocurred
to me at all. Some I've thought about and discarded. But getting someone
else's view is always a good thing, and I have been known to change my mind
when comfronted with irrefutable logic....
Some things to ponder: a) What's the minimum change that would remove Banzai
Jamming as being a 100% defence vs SMLs <note: making it a 50% defence is OK>
b) What's the minimum amount of extra work for the player, so speed up the
game. Work includes die rolls, sorting through counters,
book-keeping, but not decision-making.
From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
> Some things to ponder:
The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No new rules
needed at all. Banzai Jammers only really shred the tactic of unloading all
salvoes against the big targets as soon as possible. The Granaatscherven force
the SM player to sweep them using beams or (heaven forbid) a few early SM
rounds. Jammers may be close to 100% proof vs.the hail mary dump
everything and run attack, but that kind of IMO cheesy attack _should_
be stoppable in its tracks. Force the SM player to think.
I will continue to argue that if you want/make smarter SM's, I want/will
make smarter Jammers.
> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> > a) What's the minimum change that would remove Banzai Jamming as
> The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No new
...but combined with just a few escort cruisers, you can't sweep them without
unloading 95% of your SMLs. The other 5% are lost along with your missile
carriers by the 5:1 beam superiority of the other side.
As for Granaatscherven, it's the use of 25-30pt corvettes (which anyone
can use) rather than purpose-built banzai jammers that worry me.
Just try a battle where one side has the FSE but no SMLs in the mags, the
other side has only 75% of the points values (to simulate the loss of
virtually the complete corvette force that was doing the jamming).
That's 5 corvettes for _each_ BB. Darn few FSE ships have enough for 5
rounds of fire, assuming none are shot down and all hit!
> Jammers may be close to 100% proof vs.the hail mary dump
Think about what?
Without wishing to descend to a despicable "StrawMan" argument, IMHO The same
argument taken to its logical conclusion would be "Grade 4 Shields may be
close to 100% proof vs attritive beam attacks, but that kind of attack should
be stoppable in its tracks. Force the Beam User to think."
But I freely admit that you may have a superior intellect to my own (wouldn't
be hard), and there's something obvious I'm missing. Please elucidate on the
FSE's tactics now that 50% of their weaponry is gone (hey, I might actually
learn something if it penetrates my poor thick skull).
> I will continue to argue that if you want/make smarter SM's, I
Fair enough, providing they're play-balanced. An Unmanned 5-mass ship
with a very expensive and very effective blip enhancer and no armament
for the same cost as a super-destroyer would be reasonable, as it would
be worth little more than its cost vs the FSE, but be a complete waste vs
anyone else. Or make it cost less, but be rare.
Personally, I think that a flock of unmanned drones that act as SML
soaker-eppers could be best simulated by lots of variant (cheaper) PDS
systems that can't be used against fighters. But I digress.
It's too bad we're not physically located anywhere near each other, as I'd
like to demonstrate my points via a game or two. I'm sure you could teach me
something, but I think I'd convince you.
Maybe some experienced players out there can help us out. One side takes
an FSE fleet, the other an NSL fleet with 3-4 Corvettes operating within
> The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No
That turns out not to be the case. In our NI/IF battle, I couldn't
have swept your missile-sponges in a reasonable time frame because I'd
have had to kill at least two per capital target to have any chance of hitting
the capitals (other than lucking out and dropping one squarely on target). In
order to do that, I need to drop 1 missile on round 1, 1 on round 2, assume
that both are in the right place, and both do enough to kill the sponge after
PDS and fighter attrition. Even after that, you'd have still had plenty of
sponges left and I would really not have had as high as 50% chance of hitting
a "real" target. While
I'm doing that, the rest of my payload is useless--while your payload
is doing damage every turn. This makes SMRs pointless unless you happen to
leave something unescorted (which I bet you don't, after the first time), and
SML's even more so. I don't wat SMR's to be The Perfect Attack, but they're
hard enough to use as is, even in vector, unless you are squaring off against
NSL heavies or some other slowpokes.
> Laserlight wrote:
> >Banzai Jammers only really shred the tactic of unloading all
> That turns out not to be the case. In our NI/IF battle, I couldn't
In a previous post I asked for just such a playtest, and predicted the results
as given above.
But before I rest my case, how about a swap of sides? See if the esteemed Noam
could get through the Banzai Jammer defence? I
> (Cinematic movement and a 6x8 table with no disengagement)
++++++++++++++++
There you have part of the problem if the FSE could scoot and reload their SML
magazines this wouldn't be such an issue. They could
blat at max SML range then accelerate to re-arm from the tenders
which are keeping out of beam range.
Does anyone use SML reloads in battle? I very much doubt it. This reminds me
of playing tie fighter with the missile boat. Once the concussion missiles are
gone you are a dead duck until you can
re-arm from the supply ship.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No new
> That turns out not to be the case. In our NI/IF battle, I couldn't
Let's take that combat example. IF had 2 BCs and a cruiser with a total of 19
C2's, plus an escort with 2C3's. A wave attack with closure to just under 24"
would have been likely able to eliminate 9 or all 10 (depending on the number
of FC's) of the NI escort scouts, at the very least leaving gaping holes for
the SM's to take. The
attacking force would have taken a beating - likely concentrated on one
of the larger or the two smaller ships, (leaving the missile ships free to
close) or the NI would have tried to fire through to the missile ships
(leaving the beams to close to close range).
Or something else could have happened.
From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
> ...but combined with just a few escort cruisers, you can't sweep them
I guess I disagree. It depends how you go about it. Which would be scenario
specific. If you brought a couple class 3 or even class 4 potshooters along
and kept them at max range, you could slowly pick off the soaks before closing
distance. If you're SM equipped, chances are you're more maneuverable and
faster (like FSE) and can be the one to pick the time when the forces close.
> As for Granaatscherven, it's the use of 25-30pt corvettes (which
I rather use 18-21 point scouts.Cheaper and more infurating (yet more
vulnerable to sweeping).
> Just try a battle where one side has the FSE but no SMLs in the mags,
Such a battle would be no fun for the FSE, but I don't believe that that
situation is the necessary result of SML vs. Granaatscherven.
> Jammers may be close to 100% proof vs.the hail mary dump
> Think about what?
About alternate tactics. Wave attacks, Fighter/SM mixes, Beam support.
Make SM's a late punch system instead of a fast strike system. Losing the
ability to obliterate an enemy at 29" with saturation SM's while he plinks at
you with a few class 3's will only add challenge, terror, and enjoyment to
your game.
> Without wishing to descend to a despicable "StrawMan" argument, IMHO
Well, that is a straw man, since level 4 screens are not a real game system
(and even level 3 screens were eliminated with the FB). On the other hand,
class 2 screens do compromise a beam only fleet, and force the beam player to
think about different ways to maximize her effectiveness while minimizing her
risk.
> But I freely admit that you may have a superior intellect to my own
I have no wish to disparage anyone's intelligence. Chances are you could
showme a thing or two about SM's I freely admit my arguments come at least in
part from a personal dislike of SM's as a system. I have no desire to see them
become more powerful in any way. That's my prejudice, so you can take my
comments with the size grain of salt you deem appropriate.
> Personally, I think that a flock of unmanned drones that act as SML
That also sounds reasonable.
> It's too bad we're not physically located anywhere near each other, as
Possibly. My NI vs. IF game with Laserlight confirmed to me how much I dislike
SM's though. It's unfortunate that the nation I've chosen to develop
has such an SM-heavy primary adversary.
> "Izenberg, Noam" wrote:
> Let's take that combat example. IF had 2 BCs and a cruiser with a
The
> attacking force would have taken a beating - likely concentrated on
Yes, an opponent with a clue will close the distance and you will loose those
big fragile SML's heavily on threshold checks. SML's, the only system that
rolls twice for threshold checks.
> I guess I disagree. It depends how you go about it. Which would be
Doesn't really work that way, in order to keep distance you must run away from
your opponents. You don't hurt them much when you are waving your rear in
their faces.:)
> I guess I disagree. It depends how you go about it. Which would be
Unless you are the NI and all your weapons are to either your starboard or
port sides and then fly like Oerjan around the room, then you pull a circular
type situation in which you maintain a high speed vs the enemy and keep them
in either your port or starboard quarter. Noam can prolly
explain this better than I (since he's used it before - remember that
night, Noam? :-P ;-). Now, yes, you are effectively running away, but
if your opponent gives chase, they eat whatever you dish.
Of course the NI's little Stealth Tech helps maintain the distance. ;-)
Mk
> Roger Books wrote:
> Yes, an opponent with a clue will close the distance and you will
Good luck closing the range on the SM ships before they want the range to
close... the only way to make sure of that is to play on a small table with
fixed edges.
> > If you brought a couple class 3 or even class 4 potshooters along
Doesn't matter at all in Vector - you can rotate to engage in one turn
when you're ready to fire anyway. In Cinematic it only matters to those ships
which concentrate all their SMs in the forward 180 arcs instead of having the
offset.
> You don't hurt them much when you are waving your rear in their
As long as you wiggle your behind a little and have weapons covering the AP
and AS arcs, you're quite able to hurt any pursuers.
Regards,
> Let's take that combat example. IF had 2 BCs and a cruiser with a
(snip)
> Or something else could have happened.
There's a reason why IF ships have SMR's not SML's.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Good luck closing the range on the SM ships before they want the range
> > Doesn't really work that way, in order to keep distance you must run
> > You don't hurt them much when you are waving your rear in their
...just not hurt them _much_. Let's see, you get to fire maybe 4 SMs in
a turn from a 3000 pt fleet, and I have 20 PDs and ADAFs. Feel free to empty
your mags in this way.
And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
retreat. As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become completely
useless, as they have a 24" range, so even if fired at maximum range from a
point coincident with the enemy ship, it bursts behind you.
Getting back to the Great Debate, here's my central thesis:
a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined with some ADAFs
and PDs b) This is a Bad Thing c) SMs are too powerful if Banzai Jamming is
completely removed, All other things being equal.
Conclusion: I want a mechanism that causes minimal change, and reduces but
doesn't eliminate BJ.
I've had some comments that a) isn't true. I remain convinced it is, as it
appears do the majority of contributors. What I would like is for anyone who
disagrees to demonstrate via a game how, with an FSE fleet, they would defeat
this tactic.
I've had some comments that b) isn't true, that without such a defence the NSL
(slow, unmanouverable) is disadvantaged. My reply to that is,
that a) Rocks-Paper-Scissors: perhaps the NSL ought to be disadvantaged
vs the FSE, as it certainly seems advantaged over everyone else! b)
Since the NSL has probably the most cost-effective SM launcher in
anyone's fleet, the Waldberg-M, I think the problem's exaggerated. I'm
on a bit of shaky ground on this point though, because I play exclusively with
cinematic movement, a large but fixed table, and Fleet Book 1 designs, all of
which can cause Your Mileage To Vary.
I've had no comments about c) being untrue (AFAIK). Certainly I've found that
although SMs require a lot od skill to use, you get better than a
> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> I guess I disagree. It depends how you go about it. Which would be
If you're using FB1, and FSE, you have very few 3Beams. As regards manouvers,
YMMV depending on cinematic vs vector, fixed vs floating table etc.
> > As for Granaatscherven, it's the use of 25-30pt corvettes (which
Right. Not everyone has such cheapies, though. A Stoschen-S is about
right, as those that survive get to shoot back quite effectively.
> > Just try a battle where one side has the FSE but no SMLs in the
> Such a battle would be no fun for the FSE, but I don't believe that
Hmmm.... I can see you are made of sterner stuff...Cardinal Fang, bring
out.... the Comfy Chair! But seriously, I guess the only way of convincing you
is for you to try using an FSE fleet vs a competent opponent who uses the
above tactic. If despite your best efforts you lose in exactly the way
described above, you should be convinced. And if perchance you should win, or
even make it close to an even fight, please tell me and the list how the
farnarckle you did it!
> About alternate tactics. Wave attacks, Fighter/SM mixes, Beam support.
For FSE, Fighter/SM mixes are reasonable. I've tried them with some
success. Got enough of the small stuff to have a decent chance of the SMs
getting through. Then found out that my heavily damaged carrier (sans
fighters, who had died in droves) was the only ship I had left due
to being out-beamed 5:1. And faced a cherry Battledreadnaught with 2
heavy cruisers.
> Make SM's a late punch system instead of a fast strike system.
"Late" is right. As in "The Late Arthur Dent". It's very much a case of "use
'em or lose 'em"
> Losing the ability
If the opponent manouvres, you have enough of the CTE factor in aiming the
darn things anyway.
> Well, that is a straw man, since level 4 screens are not a real game
But if a 100% beam defence _did_ exist, would it not be neccessary to
fix them? Because a 100% SM defence _does_ exist.
> I have no wish to disparage anyone's intelligence.
No need, I can do that for myself <g>.
> Chances are you could show me a thing or two about SM's
And vice-versa I'm sure. That's self-evident from your posts.
> I freely admit my arguments come at least
> That's my prejudice, so you can take
IOW a matter of personal preference, fair enough. What's unusual is that you
not only recognise it but admit it publically. I just wish I could
recognise my own prejudices - they undoubtedly exist - and deal with
them the same way.
It's times like these that I'm really _glad_ to be on this mailing list,
discussing things with people who are "after my own heart" even though we
disagree radically on certain issues. Reminds me of when I was team leading
some Israelis working on an IDF submarine combat system. "2 Israelis, 3
Opinions" as they say. But that's another story.
> >It's too bad we're not physically located anywhere near each other,
Well, that's up to you. By that, I mean that you could always have the NI
deciding to refit their ships for lesser logistical burden. Or have
less SM-equipped variants. See the history of the French Navy at the end
of the 19th century when they switched from the "Jeune Ecole" of
Commerce raiding and torpedo-boats to a more conventional style. During
WW1 they still had some of the more radical ships in service. e.g. the
"Foudre" was originally a gunboat-carrier, which supplied pressurised
steam to small short-range torpedoboats without boilers. In WW1 she was
converted to a seaplane carrier.
On other matters, more GZGpedia related, some work needs doing on OU-NI
relations. Possibly the OU has a secret agreement to provide planets to the NI
in case things turn to custard again. In any event, given the number of Red
Sea Pedestrians in Oz, there'd be a strong tendency to give such a guarantee.
We also have a large number of other peoples from the middle east, but somehow
when people get to Oz they tend to lose a lot of their mutual hatreds. I've
personally known Poles who married Russians, and Greeks who married Turks
here. And a former member of the SS Polizei division whose neighbours on both
sides were not just Jewish,
> Possibly. My NI vs. IF game with Laserlight confirmed to me how
Note that word "opponent." Noam's complaining about the IF being
missile-heads. The NI has the banzai jammers.
> Laserlight wrote:
> Note that word "opponent." Noam's complaining about the IF being
Right, I missed the word "adversary".
> Alan wrote:
> > Good luck closing the range on the SM ships before they want the
4 SMs a turn through rear arcs? I can do better than that, even with an FB FSE
fleet. With an IF fleet, I could hit you with each and every SMR in the fleet
in one single salvo even if I'm running away from you.
However, I wasn't talking about firing *SMs* behind me. If you recall the
previous posts, the reason you're chasing me at all is that you want to nail
my SM ships before I've removed enough of your
granaatscherven with long-range beam fire; the reason I run is to
prevent you from doing that. I don't *need* to hurt your granaatscherven very
much in order to kill them, and I'm definitely not going sweep them with SMs.
> And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
Um... Alan, if the pursuers *retreat* they are no longer pursuers, and unless
I've been careless enough to let them slip in between me and any
fixed or slow-moving objectives I need to protect, I'm quite happy to
see them off without a fight. I believe this is called something like
"winning on walk-over" <g>
> As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become
Do you really want to bet on that? :-) Not that I'd even try to fire
SMs at targets flying at those speeds - I know how good I am at dodging
the things when flying that fast <g>
> a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined
...unless countered by long-range beam fire or other tactics to sweep
the jammers. The arms race isn't quite as fast in the official GZGverse as it
is among us, though, so the FSE hasn't yet deployed very
efficient scherven-sweepers.
> b) This is a Bad Thing
> I've had some comments that b) isn't true, that without such a
Powerful but unmaneuverable. Around here they tend to lose to the ESU,
though - and the rock-paper-scissors effect only applies as long as you
don't design your own ships.
> b) Since the NSL has probably the most cost-effective SM launcher in
Please spell the name correctly. On this list, and on the web (including the
ship registry), I've seen it misspelled in at least three different ways...
but only very rarely (10% of the time, maybe?) correctly.
The Waldburg/M is cost effective only if you use several of them - as
you noted, small numbers of SM salvoes aren't very dangerous even if
you remove the jammers - and don't have them shot at to early... them
little buggers are *brittle*. I consider the Jerez the best overall SM unit in
FB1: tough enough to deliver all of its payload, well enough armed to do
something once the magazine is empty (or defend itself
against enemy light units) - and fast enough to get away if its
secondary armament turned out to be insufficient :-/ The Waldburg is
cheaper per launcher than the Jerez, but not fast enough to get away, nor
sturdy enough to ensure that both salvoes actually get away, nor
armed with back-up weapons.
> I've had no comments about c) being untrue (AFAIK).
On large enough tables in Cinematic, it is. When the ships fly at 20+,
an entire battlegroup can dodge even a large SM salvo - unless they are
thrust-3 or less, but my ships rarely are that slow... However, most
people don't use large enough tables and not everyone plays Cinematic, and any
fix must work in both movement systems.
Regards,
> 4 SMs a turn through rear arcs? I can do better than that, even with
That was part of the design criteria
> > > Good luck closing the range on the SM ships
-->8--
> However, I wasn't talking about firing *SMs* behind me.
Assuming an FSE fleet running from an NSL fleet (to make it easier), that
means you get to plink away (say) 2 damage points worth of enemy
ship per turn. Of course the NSL is doing 20+ pts to you at the same
time, at the very least. It has many more type 3s than you do. You should run
out of launchers about the time he runs out of jammers.
Been there, done that. It was done to me in a competition too, most
embarressing.
> > And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
I can see I wasn't very clear here. My reaction to "I'll retreat and plink
him" was "two can play at that game". If there's an objective to be taken or
held (or a table edge not to go off), then retreat isn't an option for very
long.
> > As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become
> Do you really want to bet on that? :-)
I'm not a betting man, but in this case, yes. Cinematic movement of course.
> > a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined
Which would be what? 200 mass ships armed with nothing but MT missiles? Or
possibly 200 3 mass ships armed with nothing but Scatterpacks? Or
just copies of NI designs? Or ships with hordes of Beam-4s firing
sideways?
Or just have a few special-purpose wave-guns?
Each of the 4 major powers has its own flavour:
NSL - no shields, Slow, but cockroach-tough and a sh*tload of beams
FSE - fragile, fast, and missile-equipped
ESU - mediocre at everything, and none of this fancy technology
NAC - high-tech ESU.
Now if one of the major weapons systems of the above has a major flaw
with it, then one of the Fleets gets to play whipping-boy. You could fix
this by fixing the flaw, or by changing the flavour.
For obvious reasons, I say fix the flaw.
> > b) Since the NSL has probably the most cost-effective SM launcher
Ta for the correction. Is it Waldburg/M or will Waldburg-M be OK? Maybe
a trivial point, but if it irks you I'll try to conform.
> The Waldburg/M is cost effective only if you use several of them
Well, yes. As are any SML ships in a fleet action.
> I consider the Jerez the best overall SM
Good points, and I agree to some extent. I don;t have the figures to
hand, but I think you can get 5 Waldburg/Ms for the price of 4 Jerez. So
even if you lose one to enemy plinking, the SML strength is the same.
> The Waldburg is
It's sturdier than you think, but again, I agree to a great degree.
> Alan wrote:
> > However, I wasn't talking about firing *SMs* behind me.
A bit of an understatement <g> Depends quite a bit on the exact make-up
of the fleets of course, but don't expect the NSL to have a greater advantage
than about 4:1 in effective beam firepower during the fencing
stage - and that is if *all* of the FSE ships are running (instead of
detatching their screening elements for flank attacks on the NSL). Those odds
can still be scary of course, but not nearly as scary as the
10:1 odds you're suggesting :-/
> > > And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers
> > and any fixed or slow-moving objectives I need to protect, I'm
IME, the FSE fleet usually doesn't need to fall back for more than 2-3
turns - ie, until enough enemy scherven have been suitably dealt with -
and unless they were sitting at or behind the objective they were supposed to
screen when the enemy comes into range of it (ie, unless they were caught with
their pants down), they have the space they need to do that.
How long does the enemy fleet need to fall back to avoid FSE missiles?
How long does it take them to even reach "safe" velocities -
particularly assuming they're NSL?
> > > As soon as you get to 30 speed or so, your SMs become
You lost the bet. Not all my SMs have a range of 24"...
> > > a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined
MT missiles don't sweep granaatscherven. They *ignore*
granaat-scherven, and attack the main targets directly.
> Or possibly 200 3 mass ships armed with nothing but Scatterpacks?
Kra'Vak technology? Not necessary IMO.
By a strange coincidence however, what you describe here sounds
suspiciously similar to the sub-pack version of the FSE Mistral-class
(though you may want to replace the second C1 battery as well). Indeed, the
FSE might already have started adapting to NSL use of Falke and Stroschen
BJs... particularly since they have lost a considerably larger fraction of
their Mistrals in combat than any of the other
fleets have of their respective scout classes :-/ Too bad the Mistrals
won't survive the battle, but then your Stroschens or Falkes are supposed to
die to protect their betters as well <shrug>
Ibizas and San Miguels work OK as scherven-sweepers as well IME.
> Or just copies of NI designs?
No, copies of *IF* designs. NI =|= IF, like :-/
> Or ships with hordes of Beam-4s firing sideways?
Those two work pretty OK too against scherven on unlimited boards, yes (though
the C4 designs tend to be vulnerable to more conventional fleet mixes). None
of the official FB designs have such weapon mounts, of course.
> Each of the 4 major powers has its own flavour:
ESU - Sturdy if somewhat unimaginative sluggers, well capable to hold
their own against all comers.
NAC - High-tech pansies who get beaten by just about anyone...
particularly if they bring carriers or Vandenburgs <g>
> Now if one of the major weapons systems of the above has a major flaw
As long as you don't just replace it with another flawed mechanic, I agree.
Unfortunately I'm not at all sure you're not doing just that.
> > > b) Since the NSL has probably the most cost-effective SM
As long as you call it "Waldburg" instead of "Waldberg", "Weldburg",
"Waldbarg" or some other as yet unencountered mutation of the class name, I
promise not to complain about your choice of slashes or hyphens
for the version tag <g> The "official" version is Waldburg/M, though -
slash rather than hyphen.
You've only used the "Waldberg" version AFAIK, but I've seen the other two
versions perpetrated by others on the list and the web during the past two
months. For some reason this poor ship seems to get its name
misspelled about as often as all the other FB ones taken together :-/
> > The Waldburg/M is cost effective only if you use several of them
Certainly. In most other cases you get a small amount of self-defence
ability along with the launchers though; the Waldburg/Ms needs escorts
if they are to survive. NSL battleline ships make decent escorts, but
tend to limit the maneuverability of the DDs somewhat :-/
> > I consider the Jerez the best overall SM
You can get almost 6 Waldburg/M-mounted SM launchers for the cost of 4
Jerez-mounted SM launchers - each Jerez has two launchers but costs
almost three times as much as a Waldburg/M. However, IMO the Jerezes'
higher thrust alone is worth the "loss" of almost two launchers in Cinematic;
the higher toughness and better secondary batteries are pure
freebies. The Waldburg/M closes in if you play Vector since the turning
ability isn't nearly as much of an issue there, but the Jerezes' other
advantages still put them a couple steps ahead.
> > The Waldburg is
They have been considerably *less* sturdy than I thought the times I've
met (read: swatted) them in battle :-/
Regards,