[GZG] [FT] Re missile threads

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi all,

I have found the missile discussions of late most interesting and I have an
idea to throw into the melting pot. Probably not an overly good idea for
reason's my tiny little mind won't detect until they are pointed out, but what
the hey!

Personally my (and my groups) chief problem with missiles (by which I am
referring to SM's, HM's, and AMT's) is getting them any where near a possible
target. This is not so much that we are bad shots, it's just the result of
playing the game whereby 1 mu is 1 cm, and the average speed of a thrust 4
vessel is 24, and a thrust 6 vessel is 36, or there abouts.

If we get the darn things on target we are all happy with the interaction
between them and defensive fire as per Beta Test Rules discussed else where.

However we would like them to be a little more "guided".

Now, given my groups particular problem here is a possible approach to
take...perhaps.

1) Missile launch phase: Upon missile launch the missile is moved directly
forward from the launching vessel along the bearing said vessel is facing, a
distance equal to the launching vessels velocity at the end of the previous
turn.

2) After vessel movement, but before fighter secondary movement: All missiles
may move 0 to full allowed movement distance in any direction. They are of
course moving from the position they occupied following their initial launch
move.

Missile attacks etc are then resolved as normal.

In a very simplistic manner this approximates vector style movement (though to
confuse matters further it is intended for cinematic games). The launching
platforms own velocity restricts somewhat the engagement envelope of the
missile, whilst at the same time increasing throw distance. A fast ship, say
moving at 30, could lob a salvo effectively out to a range of 54, however the
section of "Guided" movement, the secondary move of 24 mu, is insufficient for
the missile to turn and engage a target which following vessel movement ended
up behind the missiles launch position. Or in other words, fast ships get to
launch their missiles further but sacrificing agility, slow moving vessels get
more flexibility as to where their missiles end up, but sacrifice range.

Hope that all made sense...if not ignore the above paragraph and just
re-read steps 1) and 2)...if it still doesn't make sense, then worry
not, it probably doesn't.

Salvo missiles still retain their 6mu lock on zone. However a 3 arc launcher
would be redundant, as the missiles can only be launched directly forwards.
Knocking the launch tubes down to 1 arc and 2 mass should resolve this
easily...I hope.

AMT's still get the 6 mu follow up move immediately after moving in step
2,
though, of course, they still home in on the nearest vessel which may or may
not be the preferred target.

HM's will require record keeping, their base velocity for step 1 of subsequent
turns being equal to the distance between their launch point in step one, and
the end point of their move at the end of step 2. This will of course require
numerous chits and measurements which will of course slow the game down, thus
a simpler solution may well be preferable. In fact I think it would be...

So, to conclude, this idea works best for SM's and AMT's. It can potentially
boost the missiles range, give the firing player more control, whilst still
giving the flavour of the placed marker system, that of the firing player
having to guess, via the launch step, only transferring the onus onto the
launching vessel to maneuver to the right spot, and at the correct velocity,
to achieve an accurate volley. Without the need for additional paper work.
Except in the case of HM's. Ignore the latter for now. Please.

Note the lack of PSB. As pointed out in earlier discussions PSB/Real
life examples can be argued back and forth. Therefore consider all PSB to have
been mutually annihilated.

Any hoo, there it is,

Cheers,