Missile Balance [for Jon]

Hi Jon,

I just wanted to ask you straight up if you felt the missiles from More Thrust
were unbalanced (as I feel and I think a lot of other people do) and what you
thought about doing something about it.

Thanks,

        James

> Hi Jon,

The current (extensive) thread about missiles seems to be coming up with some
interesting conclusions, which bear out what I've heard people say about FT
missiles before; those who use a large play area and move at high velocities
find missiles next to useless, while those who move slower in smaller areas
find them lethal. It is a case of the strength and usefulness of the system
being entirely relative to how it is used and what it is used against. I think
the discussions are showing that missiles are not too unbalanced PER SE, but I
do think they need some tweaks for FTIII (not sure what yet).

8< (snip snip) >8
> The current (extensive) thread about missiles seems to be coming up
I think there ok too.Fleet stratagists should change their plans, if your
opponent uses high thrust lurk your fleet with its missile boats near a table
edge(either he comes at you slower or he looses his fleet to the 'off table
void') Slower fleets who get hammered use missiles back!

My ammendment for missiles and fighters against 'screened ships':-0

If at the end of their movement a missile or fighter grp has moved passed a
'screening ship' towards its target,and said ship is now in the missile
/fighters effective rear arc then any PDF or ADF from the ship gets an
additional attack.(C bat also if still permitted) against the missile/
fighters before they do (chance for destruction increased!)

What do you all say?
Jon(t.c.)

> [quoted text omitted]
SDL

Before anyone passes judgement on the missiles too harshly, I would
recomment\d that they examine the thread on big ships versus little
ships. I truly belive that missiles are the great equalizers in this regards.
Perhaps some of the balance can be done by allowing certain fighters to engage
missiles, etc. Phil P.

> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> about FT missiles before; those who use a large play area and move at

Big area is not major factor, since nothing outranges missiles. Even if your
table's a mile wide, you can close till 50" with impunity before
unleashing the missiles -- usually closer. Big tables allow higher
velocities, but even they are limited -- it gets hard to shoot anything
once your speed is higher than your weapon range.

> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

Yes, it is. Big area means higher speeds, and higher speeds means much higher
chances to avoid missiles.

> Even if

Not in my experience. It means that each fire pass is shorter - or,
rather, it _may_ mean that. For light torpedo- or submunition-armed
ships,
speeds have to be pretty high - certainly higher than 24, anyway.

Of course, I usually don't use speeds over 36 (for A-armed, low-thrust
capitals) - that's limited to playing on the floor; but you don't need
to fly that fast to be able to run past the missiles (and missiles turn very
slowly...). You need to fly at (at most) speed 25 for that, which is a normal
speed for my heavy cruisers and lighter (ie, thrust 4) capitals.

Mikko, do you measure in cm or inches? My average speeds (and my tactics)
changed drastically when I started measuring in cm - and that included
my opinion of fighters, which are much more maneuvrable than fighters: they

suddendly weren't able to catch anything!

Later,

> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:

@:) My ammendment for missiles and fighters against 'screened ships':-0
@:)
@:) If at the end of their movement a missile or fighter grp has moved @:)
passed a 'screening ship' towards its target,and said ship is now
@:) in the missile /fighters effective rear arc then any PDF or ADF
@:) from the ship gets an additional attack.(C bat also if still
@:) permitted) against the missile/ fighters before they do (chance
@:) for destruction increased!)

Watch out with rules like this. My group played around with increasing the
effectiveness of *DAF and the results were that fighters got massacred. These
days I think I lean more towards just equipping my ships with adequate *DAF
and providing adequate escort for big ships. If every cruiser in your fleet
has an ADAF, you can do some serious damage to incoming fighters and missiles.
If every escort in your fleet has one, things get really ugly. In the
interests of optimization, most of the people in my group used to use no *DAF
whatsoever (we also thought fighters were annoying to play with) but I think
we've all been converted now, after getting helpless fleets ripped to shreds.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

@:) Big tables allow higher velocities, but even they are limited --
@:) it gets hard to shoot anything once your speed is higher than your @:)
weapon range.

Although one of the guys I play with is convinced that he will immediately die
if he moves at less than 36". He tends to go for smallish ships with
submunitions and it usually works because you only get one shot at them (with
A batteries) on the way in.

> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Not in my experience. It means that each fire pass is shorter - or,

Hmmm... two ships doing 25" start 40" apart, head-to-head. They go in
for the kill. Oops, they fly past each other, no one gets to shoot.

As speeds increase over weapon ranges, the game starts to resemble fighter
combat more than naval actions.

> fly that fast to be able to run past the missiles (and missiles turn

Only about as slow as Thrust 4 ships.

> normal speed for my heavy cruisers and lighter (ie, thrust 4)
capitals.

But the big expensive, slow capitals are most endangered and the juiciest
targets. They're the problem. Their price buys enough missiles to last half a
season of Macross, yet only a few hits kill even them. And the shower intended
for the big plodder will catch some escorts as collateral damage.

I'm still not convinced there's good way for Thrust 2 capitals to avoid a
concentrated missile attack of roughly the same points (launching ships
included).

E.g. even if you're going 1000", a thrust 2 ship has essentially 3 places to
go: Straight, left or right. If I place missiles at each of these
points, it WILL BE HIT. Ok, so it can accel/decel by 1" or even 2", but
that won't take it out of the 6" strike zone.

Once you get to Thrust 4, you can actually actually accel/decel out of
the strike zone AND have more choices for turning, greatly increasing the
number of missiles needed for saturation, which increases survivability.

> Mikko, do you measure in cm or inches? My average speeds (and my

Inches. I like to be in range before my models touch each other:)

> opinion of fighters, which are much more maneuvrable than fighters:
they
> suddendly weren't able to catch anything!

Oops?

> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> Although one of the guys I play with is convinced that he will

Tell me: How does he avoid overshooting targets? Especially if he aims for the
juicy 6" range. Do you allow him to premeasure distances?

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:)
@:) > [ guy always flies 36"+ ]
@:)
@:) Tell me: How does he avoid overshooting targets? Especially if he @:) aims
for the juicy 6" range. Do you allow him to premeasure

Generally yes. He doesn't always avoid overshooting but he does a pretty good
job. Enough to make him dangerous.

> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

That's no problem- In your example, the ships are just barrelling
towards each other with no apparent thought for tactics, and apparently flown
by
captains who can't count! :-).  High thrust ships would decellerate or
turn, low thrust ships just turn. If both ships make a 2 point turn in the
same direction (ie one turns to port, the other starboard) they end up less
than 12" apart, and in arc. If you guess incorrectly, well, that's life (3
feet apart and out of arc!). If you both want a slugfest, "signal a challenge"
about your turn direction.

SNIP cheers,

> At 09:23 02/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
8< SNIP >8

> Watch out with rules like this. My group played around with
8< SNIP >8

> -joachim
But that was why I suggested the re-squading of the single returning
fighter
[re separate email on fighters]
You are limited to the number of fighter groups on the table at any one time
but the carrier continues to play a big part in the battle (as it should) Also
this was designed to help escorts 'screen their capital but it doesn't
stop them been ripped appart by fighters / destroyers first.
Try a sim (or two) if you can with the fighters going for the kill in one and
taking on the escort first in the other. Im interested in any reply #:~) (I
can do one too!,like the snips!!) Jon (top cat) SDL

> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:

@:) > Watch out with rules like this. My group played around with @:)
>increasing the effectiveness of *DAF and the results were that @:) >fighters
got massacred.
@:)
@:) But that was why I suggested the re-squading of the single
@:) returning fighter [re separate email on fighters]

I read that message but did not understand it. If you were suggesting that a
single fighter should somehow turn into six, that's obviously nonsensical. If
you were suggesting that a single fighter can operate as a squadron, well,
that's already the case (a weak squadron to be sure, but they can still do
squadly things). If you were suggesting that reduced squadrons can be combined
into more complete squadrons, I don't think that's explicitly stated in the
rules but it makes sense. It doesn't convey a great advantage for fighters.

In short I couldn't make heads or tails of that message and that's
probably why I don't understand this one.  Please re-explain.

> At 08:50 04/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
Sorry about the delay but in short _yes I am !_I take it that (and am
happy to be corrected by our.mil friends) that carriers have more fighter
groups
in storage/in parts/un-flightworthy that can't be worked on in the bays
due to the flights currently occuping the decks. Once the lone fighter,
although I would return when down to 3, returns crews knowing the losses will
be
working in the bay getting flightworthy the losses for a re-crewed
flight So in effect a carrier can only 'run' a set number of fighters but can
replace losses back up to that set number. Hope this helps explain the message
(I did write it in the small hours!)

Jon (top cat) SDL

> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:
@:)
@:) > I read that message but did not understand it. If you were @:)
>suggesting that a single fighter should somehow turn into six, @:) >that's
obviously nonsensical.
@:)
@:) Sorry about the delay but in short [yes.] I take it that @:)... carriers
have more fighter groups in storage... that can't be @:) worked on in the bays
due to the flights currently occuping the @:) decks. Once the lone fighter...
returns crews... will be @:) working in the bay getting [ more fighters]
flightworthy.... So @:) in effect a carrier can only 'run' a set number of
fighters but @:) can replace losses back up to that set number.

Hmmm... I don't know. It certainly works with the FT simplicity theme, but
there are several problems. For one, it extends the capability of the carriers
to a very large extent (bear in mind, gentle readers, that this was proposed
as an antidote to an increase in effectiveness for *DAF) by giving them a
nearly unlimited supply of expendable fighters. For two, it will cause
problems in campaign
games since the extra fighters have to be accounted for and paid for -
how do you do this when you can generate infinite amounts of fighters? Keeping
track of the number of extra fighters could work but adds complexity again.
For three, this is pretty unrealistic. Sure carriers carry parts around and
it's not unimaginable that they might carry an entire spare set of fighters
but if they can press them into service so quickly, one would imagine that
they would just launch the first set of fighters, then (now that the hangar is
empty) ready the second set of fighters and launch them. Again we have the
infinite fighter problem.

@:) Hope this helps explain the message

Yes, thank you. But now that I understand your meaning, I am thinking it
brings in too many problems for the benefits it provides. There are probably
simpler ways of approaching the nasty fighters issue.

@:) (I did write it in the small hours!)

Oh is that it? I thought it was in standard Welsh!:)