Hello all,
Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet engagements tend to
get blown up too easily. Our group has. Maybe it's just the tactics we're
using but it seems to me that our small ships get blown to bits in the first
few turns.
We are going to try and tweak the FT rules a bit to see if we can improve the
survivability of small ships in our games. For any ship whose present thrust
rating is 8, all other ships target it with direct
fire weapons at -2 to hit. Ships with a 6 thrust rating are -1 to hit.
6's rolled are automatic hits (criticals). This gives ships with poor odds at
hitting at least some chance at hitting the target. A ship whose
engine has been damaged will no longer get the to-hit defense bonus
(ie. it's in a s**t load of trouble).
What we hope this mod does is encourage smaller ships to fly into the main
battle with the big boys. It also might encourage high thrust rating for some
of the smaller cruiser types as well. We're going to playtest it and see what
we come up with.
Has anyone else out there tried something similar with their FT games? I would
be interested in some info about how the rules worked out.
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 pcaron%nhqvax.dnet@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com wrote:
> Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet
It's pretty much the way things are. Small ships have fewer hit before taking
threshold checks and fewer systems. Plus the inability or expense of putting
shield on small craft makes them completely open to mass destruction. You
pretty much have to view small ships as very large fighters and expect most of
them not to return.
Targeting small ships makes sense since you can completely eliminate a ship
with a salvo or two, totally removing its weapons systems, whereas a large
capital ship may take two or three salvoes to get to the first threshold check
and even then you may only reduce, not eliminate its firepower. The usual
tactics for our group are to use smaller ships as a "living" shield, full
thrust into the enemy formation, do as much damage as possible and absorb some
salvoes that may have otherwise been targeted at the capitals.
> Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet
There is a way to solve this problem!
Use cm's rather than inches, it has the effect of increasing the size of the
paying area 5 fold. This means small ships can get up to really high speeds,
and use hit and run attacks to good effect without worrying about flying off
the edge of the table. We have used cm's in a few games and it really changes
the way the game plays. Try it and see.
Cheers
Date sent: 17-OCT-1996 08:37:06
> Hello all,
> Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet
Yes, but I don't see anything wrong with this. If you improve the
survivability of smaller ships, then 'swarm' tactics will become invincible. A
large cloud of small ships already has a reasonable chance against an equal
points large ship.
At present, I use two tactics for smaller ships (most of which are a minimum
of mass 12. Smaller simply isn't worth it). 1.) Relatively unmanouverable
ships (Thrust 4) hang out with the carriers and capitals, to add their ADAFs
and Cs. These have quite a low survivability. Secondly, I use destroyers and
other heavily armed 'escorts' as a kind of reserve force. They can usually
maintain a good distance from the enemy, and can be valuable as a threat if
the enemy fleet fails to cover itself correctly. (A difficult thing to do if
all the fleet is headed in the same direction.)
Peter Caron
makes a good point
--Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet
--engagements tend to get blown up too easily.
I too was thinking especially in a PBEM game where a small ship is all you
have that they seem to die too easily. In reality a destroyer in something
like 'Sink the Bismark' survived unless it go too close to the Bismark.
I like Peter's adaptation, which give a to hit penalty to simulate the small
ship jinking around. That is the advantage a small ship has it can manouever
radically enough to avoid being hit (helmsman evasive...).
Has anyone played deflection rules in FT - there were some good rules in
an ICE
starship game that had a deflection table - this could be modified
(simplified) to the FT paradigm. Basicaly crossing shots are more likely to
miss than
up-the-kilt or down-the-throat shots. If you've every played X-wing
againt a
Tie-Advanced you know what I mean.
I hope Peter reports back on the play test.
Tim
Date sent: 17-OCT-1996 09:20:24
> Peter Caron
> makes a good point
> --Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet
> I too was thinking especially in a PBEM game where a small ship is all
Lets not forget that the Bismark was basicly a rehashed WW1 design rather than
a WW2 Warship. It lacked the modern advances such as dual purpose
small guns (It had a complete array of AA-only guns, unlike all other
navies who were using Dual Angle). And the main Armament could never hope to
hit a Destroyer.
The only way to reflect this would be to reduce the effectiveness of A and B
against escorts.
It all depends on wether you want to recreate WW2 battles in space or not. And
if you do, I'd use fighters to fill the Destroyer role.
> Has anyone played deflection rules in FT - there were some good rules
Tried it. Too complex. I just assume all Firecons include a comprehensive
target tracking suite, able to deal with complex firing solutions.
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 pcaron%nhqvax.dnet@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com wrote:
> Hello all,
Depends on what they're fighting! If they go up against bigger ships at least
they seem to survive for longer than they would have in the other capital ship
space combat games (mainly Starfire and Leviathan) I've played...
It also depends very much on the measuring scale (or the playing area). I
measure in cm, which on my 120cm*80cm table allows thrust 8 ships to
manouver at speeds of 40+; in this way they can use hit and run tactics
and actually have a hope of survival. (Unless, of course, they end up in
front of the enemy heavies instead of behind them >:()
> Our group has. Maybe it's
> We are going to try and tweak the FT rules a bit to see if we
Ouch. This is, in effect, the same as giving all thrust 8 ships level 3
shields and all thrust 6 ships level 2 shields for free; plus the fact that
these modifiers protect very well against railguns and pulse torps. I've tried
something similar on my Eldar ships (who use holoflage fields instead of
normal shields; the protection from the holoflage depended both on the speed
of the unit and the direction from which it was fired upon);
and their small ships became utterly lethal - small missile boats with
the equivalent of level 3 shields. No fun at all after the first battle... I
still like the idea, but it has to have more drawbacks or cost a lot more than
my idea (currently the 'fields are mass 2, cost 75... and it is too
good IMO).
Later,
Hello all,
Has anyone out there noticed that the small ships in fleet engagements tend to
get blown up too easily. Our group has. Maybe it's just the tactics we're
using but it seems to me that our small ships get blown to bits in the first
few turns.
We are going to try and tweak the FT rules a bit to see if we can improve the
survivability of small ships in our games. For any ship whose present thrust
rating is 8, all other ships target it with direct
fire weapons at -2 to hit. Ships with a 6 thrust rating are -1 to
hit. 6's rolled are automatic hits (criticals). This gives ships with poor
odds at hitting at least some chance at hitting the target. A ship whose
engine has been damaged will no longer get the to-hit defense bonus
(ie. it's in a s**t load of trouble).
I have had a similar idea, but unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to
playtest it. Basically the idea was this:
1] Any ship can pay 2 thrust points and use "erratic maneuvers" for the turn.
The intention to use erratic maneuvers is written in the movement plot and its
affects last all turn.
2] Any ship using erratic maneuvers has Armour +1
3] If a ship using erratic maneuvers fires an A-bat or a rail gun the
target gets the advantage of Armour +1 for that attack.
This has 3 effects
Small ships (which generally have higher thrust) are made more
surviviable
There's a reason to use B bats.
The Krava'k(sp) become less nasty.
> On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Niall Gilsenan wrote:
> counterparts. Being able to turn faster is a big advantage in this
It's a HUGE advantage -- has anyone else tried to use thrust-8 cruisers
against a more conventional (i.e. from-the-books) looking force?
You can run rings around them! The ability to make a 4-point turn makes
you much less predictable, which makes your opponent unable to position
their missiles/pulse torps/submunitions packs in a firing position!
Smaller ships are usually better as some sort of specialist, such as an anti
fighter ship. If you pack a destroyer or light cruiser full of submunition
packs it can also be quite a shock if someone gets too near it.
A smaller ship has the advantage of maneuverability against its larger
counterparts. Being able to turn faster is a big advantage in this game. The
large ships are larger in order to pack more guns, and survive long
enough to use them, not just to provide target practice.
Excerpts from FT: 17-Oct-96 Re: FT Thrust question... by Oerjan
Ohlson@nada.kth.s
> I've tried something similar on my Eldar ships (who use holoflage
I
> still like the idea, but it has to have more drawbacks or cost a lot
I'd institute more of a "% total mass of ship" rather than a
straight-up mass number, even though it would play hell with the
numbers. And keep in mind that the small stuff (ie, your missile boats) are
not all that likely to have the holofields in the first place. IMO,the
Wraithship should have holofields, and the Shadowhunter is nearing the
smallest size ship to put the things on.
Either that, or make the effectiveness based on *change* in
velocity/speed, not the speed itself. Ie, if a ship just coasts, the
'fields flicker in a more predicatable pattern... maybe lvl-1 shields
equivalent, but no more. Keep the EPIC Titan fields in mind: if a Titan isn't
moving, the fields don't do much, where is the Titan charges they help a lot.
Think of this in terms of the Titan's change in velocity,
and you've got a good conversion to FT. IMO. ^_^
Incidentally, where'd the "holoflage fields" come from? I've never seen the
"flage" bit....
> On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Aaron P Teske wrote:
> Excerpts from FT: 17-Oct-96 Re: FT Thrust question... by Oerjan
Not necessarily - or rather, not at all, as long as you round all
fractions up. A basic 5% of mass (FRU) fits well - escort system is mass
1, cruiser (and mass 40 Battlecruisers) are mass 2, and larger are... more.
> And keep in mind that the small stuff (ie, your missile boats)
Remember the Revenant - it is even smaller than a starship! (...in my
DSII conversion it is a size 5 Walker, which should fit nicely even into a
mass 4 starship (aka a Windjammer:)) I use the Shadowhunters as heavy
cruisers...
I like the idea of small, shielded strike ships - but putting the
holoflage system on it should be prohibitively expensive (...with the model I
used, a holoflage system alone costs more than the rest of the
ship... and for a strike ship with one or two mass left for sub-packs or
missiles, 75 C.U. _is_ prohibitively expensive! It allowed them to close
for their one shot, though...).
> Either that, or make the effectiveness based on *change* in
Ouch. Not the level of protection, but figuring out the level of protection
depending on the orders of the ship.
> Keep the EPIC Titan fields in mind: if a Titan
Ah, no - even if the Titan charges flat out in a straight line all the
time, the protection is constant (2+)!
I tried two ideas with the holofields; one where the protection level varied
depending on the relative velocity between shooter and target
(which was horrible - I've nothing against vector analysis, but not in
the middle of a game) and one where it depended on which aspect (front, side,
rear) the target showed to the firing unit (easier). The 'level 3' protection
would only apply if the target moved at speed 8 or more, and
facing the shooter... which they won't do for very long - only 'til
they've fired once or twice; after that they've passed their target (and
usually get blasted to pieces or at least lose their sails).
Basing the protection on the total amount of speed and course change could
work, if there is an easy formula to use. I haven't had time to work one out
(at least not one which places pretty severe penalties on the Wraithships
(currently BBs)).
> Incidentally, where'd the "holoflage fields" come from? I've never
It is a PSB short-hand form... but I don't know if we've invented it
locally, or if I picked it up in some SF work somewhere. (I _think_ I've
seen it applied to ground combat holo-camouflage suits, but I'm not
sure.)
Later,
Excerpts from FT: 21-Oct-96 Re: FT Thrust question... by Oerjan
Ohlson@nada.kth.s
> > I'd institute more of a "% total mass of ship" rather than a
more.
Well, I had more in mind a number like 20% or more for the mass... I mean,
this is something that's generating light & radiation reflections &
distortions in a vacuum at a distance from the main ship. Pretty impressive
stuff, I'd say. (Standard ECM holofields ain't.)
> > And keep in mind that the small stuff (ie, your missile boats)
> cruisers...
Yes, but the Rev & Phantom/Warlocks already have an atmosphere to help
them. See above.
> > Either that, or make the effectiveness based on *change* in
Not so tough, IMO. A straight addition would be a little too simple,
IMO, so you should probably do something with squares... maybe ((dS)^2 +
(dH)^2)^(1/3) or something, where dS is change in speed and dH is change
in heading. The cube root is pretty arbitrary; it might be easier to just take
the square root and then apply it to a table of modifiers. <shrug>
> > Keep the EPIC Titan fields in mind: if a Titan
Yes, but movement of a two-legged walker (or runner ^_- ) will be quite
different from the movement of a spaceship. The walker will be constantly
shifting the line over which it's center of mass lies, especially if it's
being shot at, and this is something that is quite easy to do on a planet's
surface where things like gravity & friction help you out. For a spaceship to
do a similar movement pattern would cost it a lot in terms of fuel.
> I tried two ideas with the holofields; one where the protection level
Ouch.
> and one where it depended on which aspect (front, side,
This is actually something I kinda like from GDW's "Star Cruiser" game, but it
means you have to spend a *lot* of time designing your starships. But aspect
modifiers certainly add a bit more realism to the game... and your facing to
the enemy becomes *very* important all of a sudden.
^_^
> The 'level 3'
Doesn't sound too bad....
> Basing the protection on the total amount of speed and course change
> the Wraithships (currently BBs)).
Well, I had that Pythagorean Theorm variant above... as long as you have a
calculator handy, it should work out pretty well. As for converting to actual
modifiers... I dunno, I'd have to think on that a bit more.