One of my nephews/admirals has started reading the Honor Harrington
novels, and developed a commendable ambition to launch salvos of heavy
missiles at the OPFOR. Since I'll have to umpire, I've been browsing MT and
trying to integrate the missile rules with FB2. Heavy missiles seem a bit of
an orphan system (no FB design seems to use them for example), and I have a
few questions:
1. Interaction with FB2 armour. Should the effect of armour on heavy missiles
be the same as that for salvo missiles? My feeling is that it should, if only
to keep things simple.
2. Firing/moving heavy missiles. In the fighter movement phase? The
way MT missiles move seems more like fighter movement than the way salvo
missiles shoot. If the missiles move in the fighter phase, should they
alternate with the fighter groups to give the fighters a chance to intercept?
In vector, I think the acquisition range should be cut to 3mu as for salvo
missiles.
3. Fire control. MT is pretty explicit about this:
"One ship may launch any number of missiles in one turn, subject only to the
number it is carrying; each missile may have a different target, as they are
guided by their onboard AIs and their own fire controls."
That seems reasonable enough. I can't imagine missiles engaging over
ranges up to 60mu (60,000km?) using command guidance, beam-riding,
semi-active homing or any other form of launch-platform-dependent
guidance. If each missile has an on-board AI, sensors, IFF etc., they
should be pretty autonomous. On the other hand, I can't really accept that the
launch vessel would require *no* fire control at all. So... Maybe one FCS per
launch?
4. Point Defence. Hmmm. This is a thorny one, since PDS vs. fighters or salvo
missiles involves engaging a group of targets, whereas MT has one PDS engaging
each heavy missile and only knocking it out on a roll of 6. Now each heavy
missile *is* more costly in mass and points than a standard fighter despite
it's shorter endurance, so I imagine it as being pretty smart, tough and
equipped with its own ECM etc. but... I don't know. I guess we'll go with the
MT rule and see how it turns out.
Any thoughts, or URLs where someone's already done this? I'm not
looking for a full-on Honorverse adaptation BTW, just ways of
bringing heavy missiles into our FT 2.5 games.
> From: Robert N Bryett
see if the heavy missile rules listed at the bottom of
Been too long since I played FB-style (hell, too long for any
fleets-burning-noiselessly-in-the-Aether); is your design more
appropriate to 2.5 or beta 3?
The_Beast
Chris wrote on 06/08/2006 09:08:07 AM:
> >From: Robert N Bryett
> Been too long since I played FB-style (hell, too long for any
If you're not playing, why does it matter? <GRIN>
Can be used for either. The big differences with FT3 are likely to be how
ships fire on the missiles. If you've got, say, 10 missiles attacking a target
simultaneously, it'll make a difference; if you only have a couple of missiles
attacking at a time, it won't.
Thanks for the interesting responses.
> is your design more appropriate to 2.5 or beta 3?<<<<
As I said in my original note, we're working with 2.5, and I'm just trying to
resolve the issues arising from the collective amnesia about heavy missiles
that apparently afflicted FT between MT and FB1:)
> I predict, though, that you'll find the HMs feel more like
that Weber is enamoured of.<<<<
Heh... I think David Weber puts an extra zero or two on the end of every
number, whether it's vessel length, fleet size, missile salvos or whatever. We
have no intention of trying to simulate the "HH Hailstorm (TM)" of missiles;
it's just the idea of long range heavy missiles that seems to have fired my
young captains' imagination.
> see if the heavy missile rules listed at the bottom of http://
They are definitely helpful. If this is the likely FT3 direction, I think
that's what we'll go with, but on first reading:
1. The movement system makes sense, giving the missile the "element of
surprise" in its launch move, but allowing fighter interception thereafter.
2. The EMP warhead version seems pointless. With only one endurance point, it
presumably has a range of 18mu, while costing 2 mass and 6 points. A Class 2
EMP Beam battery apparently costs the same, has a
longer range, has higher damage potential with re-rolls, AND can fire
more than once per game. Or am I missing something?
It also seems a pity that the "EMP Beam mechanism" makes PDS immune from
damage. I was toying with the idea of using EMP warheads as ARMs to push back
a target's point defence, but that is obviously
precluded. We haven't played with EMP weapons yet, but making anti-
ship weapon FCS vulnerable to EMP while the FCS built into PDS is immune seems
a bit arbitrary and "gamey".
3. We haven't played any of the alien races yet, so maybe I'm missing
something, but I'm not generally keen on one-shot guaranteed-kill
weapons such as the Kra'Vak Scattergun PDS appears to be against an
incoming missile. On the other hand, those Scatterguns *are* single-
shot weapons, so it might be tactically interesting to burn them off with
salvos of missiles before attacking with fighters. I'm not sure how easy it
would be actually to hit a KV ship in the first place
though....
4. The Misericorde version could ruin your whole day:)
There's so many rules you could use for this topic, but first, I would define
the term heavy missile is it. A heavy missile in it's load capabilities,eg TNT
factor, or is it a ship
killer?etc etc would you give it a mass and thrust factor, does it have a
fighterCEF, how many points is it worth?
You need the rules for this to be simple, fun, realistic in it's approach to
the Fullthrust universe and more importantly the Fullthrust rules, otherwise
it turns into harpoon, or worse starfleet battles, oh look a drone.lol
james my crew can breath in space, can your's? mitchell
[quoted original message omitted]