John:
I know every captain my fleet would be screaming for me to put an IFF on the
SMs so they don't target friendlies. That's seems obvious to me.
In many other games, if I get a 'roulette' weapon (big damage on the foe
sometimes, little damage to the foe other times, and possibly small or large
damage to me), I try to trade it off for a smaller, more preditable damage
dealing system.
Damage self is not a mechanic I'm fond of in a weapon system. Well, unless you
count throwing molotovs at my own feet when surrounded by zombies in Left 4
Dead, but that's a special case.
I like the guessing game for missiles, I'm just not fond of the fact it
doesn't scale somewhat more mildly with speed and thrust increases. I don't
mind having some choices about marker placement in a game, but it seems to me
if ships can do all these crazy manouvers, missiles ought to be able to keep
up.
Of course, if your placement were after the move, you'd be able to engage at
any speed assuming you could bear. But then you could focus the missile strike
very specifically, which isn't what is desired in an SM for flavour reasons.
Maybe: Place markers after move. D6 for how many SMs acquire targets. Missiles
randomly attack a ship in the target zone. (IFF protects friendlies) PDS etc.
then apply.
This would make SMs still subject to some BJs, it would still make
them not gauranteed punch-outs for your key ships, but still a threat.
Doing random allocation between the SDN and its 30 BJs in a near cluster may
well be not administerable with D6s however.
Or:
Place markers after move. All salvos produce 6 missiles. Firer rolls D6.
That's how many missiles he gets to allocate to targets of HIS choice. The
remainder are allocated by defender to targets in range of DEFENDER's choice.
(Alt mechanic: Roll D6 per missile. On 4+, FIRER allocates, on 3-
DEFENDER allocates).
PDS/etc. then apply.
This makes SMs have a predictable damage curve overall (or more predictable),
jammers have some point (they will tend to soak up 2.5 of 6 missiles if in the
area), but BJs aren't the be all end all and neither is speed.
> TomB wrote:
I have to ask, where does this salvo missiles hitting friendlies come from?
The salvo missile rules in Fleet Book 1 are quite clear: (p. 9, 1st
paragraph): "if at the END of movement there is an enemy ship within 6" of the
marker (in any direction) then the missiles will attack it."
cheers,
Agree with IFF, if it is not possible to avoid a friendly unit this is a
weapon that would not be fielded. Or if it as would have extreme use
requirements (see Visual Identification requirements for Air to Air missiles)
that it should never be used in vcty of friendly ships.
I was going to then talk about how current missiles can either tail chase or
plot intercepts but I think that real-world already done algorithms seem
to have no place in GZG.
Bob Makowsky
Happy Holidays!
----- Original Message ----
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 5:15:12 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] what's the latest news on Full Thrust (John Lerchey)
John:
I know every captain my fleet would be screaming for me to put an IFF on the
SMs so they don't target friendlies. That's seems obvious to me.
In many other games, if I get a 'roulette' weapon (big damage on the foe
sometimes, little damage to the foe other times, and possibly small or large
damage to me), I try to trade it off for a smaller, more preditable damage
dealing system.
Damage self is not a mechanic I'm fond of in a weapon system. Well, unless you
count throwing molotovs at my own feet when surrounded by zombies in Left 4
Dead, but that's a special case.
I like the guessing game for missiles, I'm just not fond of the fact it
doesn't scale somewhat more mildly with speed and thrust increases. I don't
mind having some choices about marker placement in a game, but it seems to me
if ships can do all these crazy manouvers, missiles ought to be able to keep
up.
Of course, if your placement were after the move, you'd be able to engage at
any speed assuming you could bear. But then you could focus the missile strike
very specifically, which isn't what is desired in an SM for flavour reasons.
Maybe: Place markers after move. D6 for how many SMs acquire targets. Missiles
randomly attack a ship in the target zone. (IFF protects friendlies) PDS etc.
then apply.
This would make SMs still subject to some BJs, it would still make
them not gauranteed punch-outs for your key ships, but still a threat.
Doing random allocation between the SDN and its 30 BJs in a near cluster may
well be not administerable with D6s however.
Or:
Place markers after move. All salvos produce 6 missiles. Firer rolls D6.
That's how many missiles he gets to allocate to targets of HIS choice. The
remainder are allocated by defender to targets in range of DEFENDER's choice.
(Alt mechanic: Roll D6 per missile. On 4+, FIRER allocates, on 3-
DEFENDER allocates).
PDS/etc. then apply.
This makes SMs have a predictable damage curve overall (or more predictable),
jammers have some point (they will tend to soak up 2.5 of 6 missiles if in the
area), but BJs aren't the be all end all and neither is speed.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> I have to ask, where does this salvo missiles hitting friendlies
It's not from the rules as written.
It's from John's proposal for changing the missile rules, which he
mentioned in his December 15 e-mail.
> From John:
"There is a factor of entertainment loss in that you can't fly into your own
salvo, but really, space ships running into their own fired missiles targeting
envelope and the missiles are too stupid to NOT attack the friendly ship??
That's always stretched it a good ways for me anyway."
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Dec 21,
2010 at 12:13 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>wrote:
> > I have to ask, where does this salvo missiles hitting friendlies
> It's not from the rules as written.
> It's from John's proposal for changing the missile rules, which he
> >From John:
> "There is a factor of entertainment loss in that you can't fly into
See, the problem with 'hitting your own ships' is that it doesn't make sense
in space.
Space is big. Really big. You may think it's a long way down the lane to the
chemist, but that's just PEANUTS compared to space....
I digress.
Even if fleets are traveling in a wedge or cluster, they aren't all on the
same horizontal plane in space. Because of this, having the risk of missiles
hit your own fellows makes about as much sense as using direct-fire
rockets in space.
No sense of scale.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Dec 21,
> 2010 at 12:21 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Allan Goodall
I completely agree with you. I never subscribed to the SMs targeting one's own
fleet for a number of reasons (one of which was the dumb missile argument).
However, I think Jon was going for a cinematic feel to the salvo missile
optional suggestion (ala Starblazers or whatever other anime style series used
clouds of 'dumb' missiles). And though it was a suggestion, a number of groups
adopted it as rule.
That all said, and in light of some of the other optional solutions to
'fix'
the SM problem (esp at Oerjan speeds) noted earlier in the parallel main
thread, the FT3 playtest team has been working with a restructured turn order,
which would put SM fire after movement. Not everyone would like it, but then
whenever anything is changed in something that is already fundamentally in
use, not everyone likes the change (some people *like* the SM guessing game,
even if it is a broken concept).
In any event, the above is not written in stone. Just something the playtest
team has been working with.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I don't see why revamping the missile rules would eliminate the role of the
escort from performing missile soak. I would think that an
easy option would be that if it's within ADS/PDS range of the target
ship, or if the path between the firer (or salvo path for things that
fly multiple turns) passes within ADS/PDS range, it gets to fire and
bleed of what it can.
J
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> I do kind of like the SM guessing game, and I like the idea of decoy
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Dec 21,
> 2010 at 2:25 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> [...]
No, it doesn't. But then you don't know all the changes and permutations
that the FT3 team has been working on/through/under. We're trying to
*fix*
the systems as best as possible, not introduce more breaks or obsolete any
ship classes.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l