What would you do in vector? We already use the suggested 3" radius for
vector. Would you propose dropping it to 2" (still -1")?
As I see it, there is a trade-off needed.
Problem #1: Salvo Missiles (SM's) are too effective against PDS.
The average SM carries 2.5 missiles per launcher. So add 3.6 pts (9/2.5)
to the cost of a SM salvo to get 9.6 pts. You can buy 3 PDS FOR 9 pts. On
average, 3 PDS will kill .53 missiles each (not counting re-rolls). So,
on average 4 missiles of a salvo will hit (assumes correct placement of the
salvo to hit the target). Each missile does an average of 3.5 damage. This can
really hurt.
Problem #2: Banzai Jamming. The use of small, disposible ships to negate SM
attacks. How does this work? Since SM's attack the nearest ship, place
inexpensive ships arround your large ships. The smallest, FTL jammer (mass 3)
costs 9 pts. This makes the SM salvo cost more than the Jammer. But wait, you
say, 9 pts vs 9.6 pts is not much of a difference. True, but that does not
count the cost of engines, FTL, and hull of the ship carring the SM's. When
you do this the cost is closer to 14.22 (hull etc. multiplies cost by an
average of 2.1xmass). Which
makes the jammers about 2/3rd's the cost of a SM salvo.
What is needed, IMHO, is a way to make PDS more effective agianst SM's, but
reduce the effectiveness of B-Jamming.
I prefer a method that would not require re-design of the existing ships
or a change in thier cost.
Here are the 3 propsals that I like so far:
1. SM's must attack the largest target in range. Simple, no redesign, and the
largest ships are the most likely to have ADFC equiped escorts.
2. Allow SM's to attack a specific mass range set at launch of the SM's. I
would suggest range brackets of 50 or 100. If this is allowed, I would also
suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighters/missiles in range. Side
Effect, gives a reason to use the scanning rules, improved sensors, and ecm.
3. Allow FCS of the firing ship to designate a target for the SM's. The FCS
cannot be used for other purposes that turn. If more than one ship in range is
designated, the SM's attack the closest designated ship. Again, I would
suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighter/missile in range. Side
effect:
opens the doors for sensor/ecm rules in the future.
As you can tell by the above statements, I believe that the PDS needs to be
allowed to attack any fighters/missiles in range. I maintain that both
SM's and Fighters are too powerful when compaired to other weapons (on a mas
to mass or cost to cost basis). This is a bias that I have long held (since my
2nd FT game). So, you may weight my statements as appropriate.
Note: My math is suspect, as I am doing intuitive approximations. If someone
wants to run the math, be my guest.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> > 2. allow a ship to use reduced radius missiles that can be set to
[snip]
> Summary: I now see 2 solutions which I really like more than the
Oops. I made a mistake (big suprise). Under problem #1 it should read that on
average 2 missiles will hit the target out of each salvo (3.5 missiles per
salvo, 1.5 missiles shot down by 3 PDS).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
OK, here's a solution I haven't seen suggested.
Let the SM player state on launch wether we go for largest or smallest
(instead of nearest). This deals with the Banzai Jammers.
Increase the capability of PDS's, maybe they get a +1 versus
SM's (but only reroll on a natural 6).
> On 10-Dec-99 at 10:15, Roger Books (books@mail.state.fl.us) wrote:
Almost the same thing in the post I used as my reply. Sorry, should have read
through it first.
Bell, Brian K wrpte_
> As I see it, there is a trade-off needed.
Against a single SM salvo, yes. With re-rolls, still against a single
SM salvo, it's about 0.6 missiles each (0.71 for the first, 0.59 for the
second, don't have the figure for the third handy now but it's just
below 0.5 - on average close to 0.6 for all three PDS).
> So, on average 4 missiles of a salvo will hit (assumes correct
You already corrected this :-/
> What is needed, IMHO, is a way to make PDS more effective agianst
Yes.
> Here are the 3 propsals that I like so far:
Ouch. I know how often I'd hit the enemy premium target in this case.
It'd make me avoid SMs just to avoid feeling like a Brie :-(
> 2. Allow SM's to attack a specific mass range set at launch of the
Probable side effect: Makes sensor/ECM rules pretty much compulsory if
you or your opponent likes SMs :-(
> 3. Allow FCS of the firing ship to designate a target for the SM's.
The
> FCS cannot be used for other purposes that turn. If more than one
Why would you designate more than one ship to be attacked? When do you
do the designation - when you fire the SMs (ie, before movement), or
when they attack (after movement)? If the former, what happens if none of the
ships you designate is within attack range of the missiles after movement?
> Again, I would suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighter/missile in
In which case you must reduce the PDS firepower drastically, or see the
fighters and missiles removed from the game. ADFC is a very powerful check on
fighter power already; your suggestion far surpasses the ADFC.
> Side effect:opens the doors for sensor/ecm rules in the future.
Only if you can use ECM to deny the PDSs their long-range capability.
You don't need to know how big a fighter is to shoot it down, unless
you use SMs to do it under the abvoe options:-/
> As you can tell by the above statements, I believe that the PDS needs
Can't say I agree with that. Not since MT introduced Interceptors, and
definitely not since FB1 brought the ADFC and raised the Mass of a fighter
bay... the fighter morale rules merely provide the last nail in the proverbial
coffin.
> Note: My math is suspect,
Yep :-/ But so are several other people's <g>
Regards,
> 1. SM's must attack the largest target in range. Simple, no redesign,
I like this. Simple, easy, logical. You could put Weasel gear on your boats to
generate a false Mass reading, with the countermeasure being better sensors or
using FCS to guide in your missiles.
> 3. Allow FCS of the firing ship to designate a target for the SM's.
The FCS
> cannot be used for other purposes that turn. If more than one ship in
In a message dated 12/10/99 9:09:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil writes:
> What would you do in vector? We already use the suggested 3" radius
Well, yes. But I suggest that you may want to playtest first--I have
yet to play a game using vector movement...
> As I see it, there is a trade-off needed.
On
> average, 3 PDS will kill .53 missiles each (not counting re-rolls).
So, on
> average 4 missiles of a salvo will hit (assumes correct placement of
This
> can really hurt.
If you're talking custom designs, which you must be as there is no FB design
like the little tikes you described below...
Why not work it out this way--a salvo launcher and three reloads uses up
9
spaces and costs 27 points. With engines, etc. that runs to 9/0.4=22.5
(for a thrust 4 ship, average hull, but we'll round down to 22 assuming you've
designed the ship with the right break points) and 66 points. Divide by
three (so we get a per salvo cost) gives us 22 points per salvo. For the
same cost, you can mount about three PDS--9 points (wpn cost) +
(3/0.5--we're
talking cap ships after all) x3 = 24 points. Close enough for government work,
anyway.
A salvo gets on average 3.5 hits and a hit does, on average 3.5 points
damage. But wait--the three PDS have a kill rate of about .60 (amount
you can kill for each probability on a d6 divided by the number of different
outcomes--4/6 = .666, but I'll round down since there are only 3.5
targets anyway). So, the 3.5 hits gets reduced to 1.5 missile hits which
yields 5.25 pips of damage.
After taking all three salvos, the target should have absorbed almost 16 hull
hits in damage. Of course, the firing ship now has 66 points (cost) of useless
systems and support.
And we can throw all of these calculations out the window in a FLEET
engagement. Since firers will be concentrating their fire and only
ADFC-equippped ships will be able to add to the defenses of the targets.
> Problem #2: Banzai Jamming.
Which
> makes the jammers about 2/3rd's the cost of a SM salvo.
Unless you are forced to use Fleet Book designs...in which case you are
talking about 21 points or thereabouts--very close to the 22 for a
salvo.
> [quoted text omitted]
snip
> Here are the 3 propsals that I like so far:
Not bad, in my opinion, since it does not require any extra die rolls, major
rule rewrites, or any extra book keeping.
Just to add a personal note--I have NEVER won playing the FSE, even
against wimps like the NAC. But I just picked up a couple of San Miguels the
other day so maybe next time...
> [quoted text omitted]
big snip
> Note: My math is suspect, as I am doing intuitive approximations. If
Or not--I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible.
> > By
These could be set at moment of launch--basically you could lay out one
kind of chit for normal 6 MU detection and another for those set at 3 (or 4)
MU detection.
> >