MT missiles

Hi Weapon Analysts

How do you use MT missiles in vector movement?

G'day Tony,

> Hi Weapon Analysts

We treat them like fighters in that they don't go vectorish they just go where
you want (like fighters). We gave them 3 CEF and 18" movement per turn and 6"
attack radius. I know Oerjan treated them differently, doubled the distance
they can travel?? (sorry can't remember for sure).

Cheers

Beth

> Where is it written that FB1 PDS take out MT missiles on 4-6?

> Where is it written that FB1 PDS take out MT missiles on 4-6?

It isn't explicitly written. The logic is, one MT missile is one salvo. If you
roll a 6, you still only kill the one missile. This is not, perhaps, the ideal
solution; for an
alternative go to Brendan's Honor Harrington rules--I don't
recall the URL but you should be able to get there from the Full Thrust Web
Ring, or from one of his posts within the last month.

> Glen Bailey wrote:

> Where is it written that FB1 PDS take out MT missiles on 4-6?

Page 7, Point Defence Systems: "Each Point Defence System (PDS) on a
ship may fire once per turn, either as an anti-fighter or anti-missile
defence weapon. In either case roll 1 D6 per PDS: scores of 1-3 have no
effect, 4 and 5 kill ONE missile or fighter, while a 5 kills two and allows a
reroll)."

A bit earlier but still on page 7, Class-1 beam batteries as
point-defence: "...Class-1beam systems may act as secondary
point-defence systems against both fighters or missiles; in this role
they fire as for a PDS, but roolls of 1-4 are misses, while 5 or 6 each
kill ONE missile or fighter..."

In both cases, the use of "missile" (which includes both SMs and MTMs) instead
of "salvo missile" (ie, SMs only) is intentional. Indeed, the term "missile
salvo" (which is different from "Salvo Missile") *also* refers to both types,
since each MTMs are considered to a salvo in its own right (for PDS targetting
etc). The FB1 section of the FT FAQ mentions this in a question about fighter
screens and MTMs, BTW.

> I had to defend that ruling the other night without it being written

Look under "Playtesters" at the bottom of page 1 in FB1 :-/ I suspect
you'll recognize quite a few of the names there <g>

> Btw, how do you pronounce your name?

It's in the list archives somewhere, but to reiterate:

"Oe" as "E" in "Ernie" or "i" in "Bird" "r" is obvious "j" as "y" in "yes" "a"
as "u" in "cut" "n" is obvious

Or, if you happen to be North Welsh, almost identical to "Urien" :-/

Regards,

http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/honor.htm

I've just started running a new webgame using these rules as well.

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander

> -----Original Message-----

The problem comes in that the PDS rules in FB only address attacks against
Fighters and Salvo Missiles.

MT indicates that MT missiles can only be shot down on a roll of a of a
6.

If you need PBS to justify it, you can use that MT missiles have better AI and
maneuvering systems (MT states that they are more agile than fighters) than
the Salvo Missiles (which are pretty dumb: attacks nearest target).

In a PBeM game, I decided to split-the-difference. MT missiles were shot
down on 5-6, but each  MT missile had to be targeted independantly by
PDS (no rerolls on a 6, as the only target was shot down).

Bell, Brian K

> The problem comes in that the PDS rules in FB only address attacks

It most definitely does *not*. It addresses attacks against fighters and
*missiles*, and the latter term includes both SMs and MTMs.

Regards,

Then how do you justify going from 16.7% (1 in 6) chance of being shot down in
MT to 50% (3 in 6) chance in FB? How do you reconcile the two?

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net

> Bell, Brian K wrote:

> Then how do you justify going from 16.7% (1 in 6) chance of being shot

In the same way, and for the same reason, as the mass value of the FT2 A
battery (ie, Mass 3 regardless of the number of fire arcs) is
"reconciled" with the mass value of the FB1 Class-3 battery (Mass 4, +1
per extra arc).

In other words, the FB1 PDS and ADFC rules *replace* the PDAF and ADAF rules
in FT2 and MT, including the references to PDAF and ADAF on page 3 in MT.

Regards,

> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:

I believe St^3 Jon answered this way back, saying that MT missiles
acted as one-shot salvo missiles, and it should be buried somewhere
in the archives (along with instructions on how to use something like
Alta Vista to search for something specific - but since I can't remember
the exact syntax on how to DO that, kinda hard to search for said posts!
:)

Mk

> I believe St^3 Jon answered this way back, saying that MT missiles

Good memory!, It was in answer to this FAQ

Q Can a fighter screen intercept a More Thrust missile? A Yes, the rules state
*missile salvo* and these include MT missile salvoes.

> (along with instructions on how to use something like

The search instructions are on the FT Archive Home Page.

http://people.canoe.ca/jhan/ft/full-thrust.html

The search string syntax is:-

+url:http://people.canoe.ca/jhan/ft/Archive/ +<search term>

Rule research tip, I'd look in the FAQ first, then the archives.

FYI, In looking through the archives I can across this precursor for SLM pre
FB1 by Earl R Forsythe III under a Subject: A Different Missile System for
Full thrust

http://people.canoe.ca/jhan/ft/Archive/1997/aug1997/1503digest.html

Please, no, don't screw up the game again!

MT missiles (and level-3 screens, and "no sense to buy anything but
A-batts") was exactly the reason that turned me off FT back then...

If anyone is really serious about bringing them back, try this exercise:

- Make one normal fleet, say vanilla FB1 designs
- Make one fleet of equal value, composed entirely of "bathtub
launchers": MD8, one MTM, FTL, minimal hull, nothing else.
- Start the battle in the normal way. The launcher fleet enters at
maximum allowed velocity.
- On the first turn (assuming table depth about 60" or less), the
launcher
fleet launches all missiles and executes a hard turn away. (Cinematic --
tactics vary a bit in vector, but the essence stays the same)
- On the following turns they continue running and FTL away at first
opportunity.

Play that out a couple of times. No, don't just figure it out in your head,
*play* it out, one game per night, including breaking out and repacking all
the minis. Then play it out a couple times more. Then come back and tell just
how much fun you had, and how many bathtub launchers you managed to shoot
down. (My guess is none on both counts)

You're saying they didn't cause that much damage either? Well, I have news for
you: A kill ratio of something to nothing is *infinite*! It is exactly what
certain real armed forces today try (very hard) to achieve, yes, but IMHO it
makes for an incredibly boring game.

(Yes, I know they technically never went anywhere, but now that it is actually
cost effective to field PDS against them it's not quite the old ogre anymore)

I have a word of advice to all those who like to design new systems: When
it comes to testing, forget "reasonable". Try it all-out. See what
happens when go *really* overboard with it. Try to answer these two questions:
 - why would anyone use your system at all
 - why would anyone use anything but your system
If you can answer these *without* referring to "honor", you might be onto a
winner...

G'day Mikko,

> If anyone is really serious about bringing them back, try this exercise

I think Mikko and I are destined to disagree until the end of time, isn't the
mix of humanity wonderful?;)

> - Make one normal fleet, say vanilla FB1 designs

That's why we have scenarios, victory point ideas etc. Many of the weapons
(particularly the missiles and fighters) taken to the extreme can be a one off
killer, that's why you give them a reason not to bring them (hard to carry off
the prize Phalon cargo if you have to do it strapped to the back of a
missile).

> . Then play it out a couple times more. Then come

Derek's NSL fleet and my FSE fleet both actually have arsenal ships in them,
but they're not a game breaker you learn to adapt to the fact they might show
up. Admittedly they are the odd spice not the entire dish and there in lies
the difference I guess. Though during the arms race mentality
the dominated down here last year those of use to stubborn/lazy to
change designs with everybody else did eventually (hey this is Tasmania it
wasn't gonna happen immediately now was it;)) that much of FT is a
rock-paper-scissors effect and put to the test you can usually think
your way around many of these very lopsided approaches.

> I have a word of advice to all those who like to design new systems:
When
> it comes to testing, forget "reasonable". Try it all-out. See what

This is a VERY good point! And the reason why missiles should use a fighter
not a vector system (especially if they adopt the launcher's vector), Derek
and I tried the vector system once and it became blatantly obvious VERY fast
that it completely took away the FSE's risk of having to get within other's
beam range to use the SMs effectively. Don't do it, it breaks everything.
Fighter based movement, with CEFs etc seems to work just fine in our
experience (they've got a movement of 18", attack range of 6" and 3 CEF under
the method we use).

Cheers

> On 10-May-00 at 03:29, Mikko Kurki-Suonio (maxxon@swob.dna.fi) wrote:

> - Make one normal fleet, say vanilla FB1 designs

How about not vanilla FB1 designs, how about the heavy PDS/ADFC ships
that seem to be the norm for ships that go up against SMs.

> - Make one fleet of equal value, composed entirely of "bathtub

> Please, no, don't screw up the game again!
When
> it comes to testing, forget "reasonable". Try it all-out. See what

I would say the only answer to this, as it is with just about every space
combat game where one side has a range or speed advantage, is that scenarios
need to be generated to make it interesting.

Put the "Bathtub Launcher's" homeworld right behind their fleet on the map and
see if you get a different action.

In my opinion, endless "meeting engagement" scenarios become unbearably dull
after a while, no matter what weapon systems or rules sets you are using.

From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on FB3

On  9-May-00 at 10:55, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (s_schoon@pacbell.net)
wrote:
> >I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn

I've always thought they would be better with fighter style movement,
move after ships, no radius (must be in base-base contact).

Too powerful? With the levels of PDSs most people have evolved to I don't
think so.

> On 10-May-00 at 09:59, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:
wrote:
> > >I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn

From: "Mikko Kurki-Suonio" <maxxon@swob.dna.fi>

> Please, no, don't screw up the game again!

Your warning is timely.

> MT missiles (and level-3 screens, and "no sense to buy anything but

vs say a ship with nothing but Class 6-8 beams and Thrust 6, they'll get
creamed. It's easy to make an unbalanced design for any particular tactic.

> I have a word of advice to all those who like to design new systems:
When
> it comes to testing, forget "reasonable". Try it all-out. See what

Good point. Not sure it's possible though. All we can hope for is that you
can't do it twice in a row with the same fleet.

Summary so far:
* MT missiles should use Fighter/SM placement to ensure playability. I
think this is the concensus.
* Range/Speed shouldn't be so extreme that shoot n scoot vs Class 3-4
beams will

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Please, no, don't screw up the game again!

Oh ye of little faith...

We *)  fixed the "nothing but A-batts". We tried to fix the level-3
screens but found it impossible, so we banned them instead. Now we're trying
to fix the MTMs; if we can that's good, if we can't they'll get banned too.

Do you have a problem with that?

*) Jon T., the FB1 playtesters and everyone else whose input influenced FB1.

> If anyone is really serious about bringing them back, try this

I suggest that they may want an FC too. According to the FT FAQ they must have
one in order to launch their MTMs... TMF 8, NPV 28.

> - Start the battle in the normal way. The launcher fleet enters at

I've fought this battle quite a few times over the years, with both
FT2/MT and FB1 designs. I'd be quite happy to take any vanilla FB1
fleet as long as my slowest ships have thrust-4 or better engines (ie.,
no NSL heavies or ESU superheavies).

> From your rather bitter tone, I gather that your best idea of how to

This is what tends to happen in Cinematic on a floating or large table:

Regardless of what enemy I'm fighting I usually set up for an oblique approach
to allow more maneuvers before reaching weapons range, so my
ships start facing 60-90 degrees away from the direction the enemy (ie,
the missile boats) approach from. Against this particular foe my
initial velocity isn't very important - you'll see why in a moment.

When the missile boats launch, I turn *away* from them as hard as I can, and
start accellerating. Since the table edges are floating I have plenty of space
to fall back in.

Since the vanilla MTMs have a maximum range of 60mu from the point of launch
(incl. the attack radius of 6mu), the missile boats need to come into my
weapons range before they launch if they want *any* chance of
hitting - otherwise my ships simply outrun their missiles. For example,
ifmy thrust-4 ships move at speed 4 or more perpendicularly to the
vector from me to their launch position, the missiles must be launched at
range 35 or less to catch my ships (OK, mathematically they'll need to come to
range 34.94, but that's too fine a measurement even for me <g>). If my ships
move at speed 8 the missiles need to be launched at range 22mu or less, etc.

So I turn away from the missile boats, forcing them to enter my weapons range
before they can launch their missiles, and since they have all the hull
integrity of soap bubbles some of them will die. If I don't
think I can outrun or dodge the missile storm I'll go into hyper -
unless they close to point-blank range before they launch it'll take
the missiles at least two turns to reach attack range, and I only need
one-and-a-half turns to hyper to safety. If they *do* close to
point-blank range, I'll massacre them before they can launch.

End result: Some dead missile boats (or many, depending on how close they
dared to go before they launched) Surviving missile boats are unarmed No
damage to my fleet, unless I screw up real bad.

So, I've played this several times already. Time to answer your questions:

> Then come back and tell just how much fun you had, and how many

You're guess is off :-)

I had some fun, and quite a bit of suspense. My opponent probably didn't enjoy
it very much, being unable to hurt me but potentially
having his ships slaughtered - serves him right for using a boring
gimmick fleet IMO :-)

If he dared to go close enough to launch with any chance whatsoever of
hitting, I killed roughly one missile boat for every two AP-arc Class-2
batteries in my fleet. Add some kills for the odd AP-arc SML/R, P-torp
or Class-3 battery as well.

If he didn't dare to approach close enough to my ships to have a chance of
inflicting even one missile hit on them he also didn't take any
losses, but I won the battle on walk-over.

> You're saying they didn't cause that much damage either?

I'm saying that they didn't inflict *any* damage. None at all. I, OTOH, most
likely nailed a few of them.

> Well, I have news for you: A kill ratio of something to nothing is

<sigh> "News"? I seem to recall a saying about grandmothers and eggs
here...

I repeat: The missile boats inflicted no damage. However, the missiles they
expended cost just over 10% of their total fleet value to replace
(if you use the difference between SMR and magazine-loaded SMs as a
guideline for how much of the MTM mass is launch racks and how much is the
missile). The USAF can probably tell you a few things about replacing lots of
expensive munitions that have been expended without
inflicting any real damage ;-)

My fleet didn't use any expendable ordnance, so it doesn't need to spend any
resources to replace anything. It didn't suffer one single damage point.

It seems like my fleet inflicted your vaunted infinite kill rate (or at least
infinite economic loss rate) on the missile boats rather than the other way
around, don't you think?

***

Of course, this entire anti-MTM tactic depends on the fact that MTMs do
*not* use Vector movement. If they use Vector instead, their range becomes
virtually unlimited and Mikko's scenario plays out the way he
expects it to. Vector-moving MTMs, SMs, PBs, Nova Cannon or Wave Gun
shots or Energy Mines are seriously Bad Things (tm) for game balance -
been there, done that, worn the T-shirt out years ago... which is of
course why I was so negative to Andrew Apter's suggestion yesterday.

Vector-moving missiles and similar are of course very *realistic*, but
not a single one of the space combat games or novels I've seen have
ever come up with a playable solution to the problem of high-speed
missile strikes being very boring - that is, except for the the
draconian solution "it is not allowed". Weber's "Flag in Exile" discusses it
briefly, but circumvents it by fooling the enemy to come
and play instead of standing off and resort to the high-speed missile
strikes.

Regards,

. which is of course why I was so negative to Andrew Apter's suggestion
yesterday.

Vector-moving missiles and similar are of course very *realistic*, but
not a single one of the space combat games or novels I've seen have
ever come up with a playable solution to the problem of high-speed
missile strikes being very boring - that is, except for the the
draconian solution "it is not allowed". Weber's "Flag in Exile" discusses it
briefly, but circumvents it by fooling the enemy to come
and play instead of standing off and resort to the high-speed missile
strikes.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry

One more thing on speed limits as the missle goes faster the more limits there
should be on the arc. Speed 0 to 4 = 360 speed 5 to 24 = FX speed 25 to 30 =
FH Speed 31 to Max = FA

[quoted original message omitted]

Missiles appear to be one of those hard to balance items (similar to fighters
IMHO). Make them too strong and the game becomes a boring fire and leave game.
Make them a little weaker, and they become too weak.

Unlike Oerjan, I use vector (not for missiles or fighters), inch scale, and
usually fixed table edges (because of lack of room to do floating edges).

Someone (Mikko, I believe) said that when systems are tested, the extremes
should be tested. I agree with this. In FT as it now stands, a system would
need to be tested under the following systems/conditions:
1) Cinematic 2) Vector 3) vs. Std. Human ships (each nation and mixed) 4) vs.
Std. Alien ships (each species and mixed) 5) vs. Optimized Human ships (each
nation and mixed) 6) vs. Optimized Alien ships (each nation and mixed) 7) With
new system as one system of many 9) With new system as primary weapon 10)
Against fleets of small ships 11) Against fleets of large ships 12) Fixed
table 13) Floating table 14) One off game
15) Campaign (limited reloads/repair)
17) Games based on points 18) Games based on mass 19) Players who wrote the
rules 20) New players to make sure that the notes on the systems are easy to
understand.

There are probably others that I missed, but just the above leads to a LOT of
play testing to ensure balance. It may be that making it balanced for all of
the above is impossible <shrug>.

Oerjan, Jon, and other play testers, it would be interesting to see write ups
of the test games (fleets, results, and
analysis/observations/conclusions). If anyone has notes of this kind, I
would gladly provide web space (on xoom) to house it.

---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable
---

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> Brian Bell wrote:

Put them in a game where the parameters are not a space game but a smash up
derby and they are definately too strong. Put them in a game with maneuver and
they are fairly weak and only work when combined with other weapons.

> Unlike Oerjan, I use vector (not for missiles or fighters), inch

How does lack of room stop you from doing floating edges? The setup I am
hearing of large scale (inch) and floating edges leaves no room for maneuver.
In a stand slugfest where your biggest tactic is "which ship do I fire first"
I would expect there to be a much bigger problem with salvos than you could
ever have with MT missiles. I also don't see the game as being much fun
without maneuver, but hey, that's me.

> Someone (Mikko, I believe) said that when systems are tested, the

I don't really think it needs to be tested in all cases. Get the high speed
and low speed crowds fairly happy with it and that is enough testing. We don't
need to worry about the extremes. Such things as "We only play inches, no
floating table, and have an asteriod every 6 inches" is really artificially
limiting the game.

Anyway, my 3000 point fleet can handle your MT missile 3000 point fleet. 3000
points, 15% mass in PDS's and 2 ADFCs on each ship nicely removes the problem
in a low speed game, as long as my ships stay within ADFC range. 3000 points
is roughly what, 800 mass? That gives me 120 PDSs and still leaves me armed.

IMHO Arc limits shouldn't be necesessary, as the missle goes faster, it's
maneuverablity doesn't change...this means it must make larger and larger
turns as it goes faster. If it goes too fast, it will be near useless.

Maybe the firing player should be allowed in vector games to "program" the
missle's maximum speed, and then let it accelerate until it reaches this speed
or the limit of it's endurance.

(BTW, I never understood why a number of space games insist on letting missles
move one way -- during their own part of the turn.  And fighters move
another
way -- also during their own phase of the turn.  Neither of which is
related to the way ships move in those games. Seems to me that they are all in
space, so
they should all move/maneuver the same way.  Just MHO.)

As for the complaint about which choosing which ship to fire first, we play a
system we take cards to represent ships, one per ship and shuffle and draw
them randomly, so you have no choice about what to fire.

> Brian Bell wrote:

> Unlike Oerjan, I use vector (not for missiles or fighters), inch

Uh... "lack of room" is the *reason* for using floating table edges -
ie, the practise of relocating all models by the same vector whenever some of
them threaten to leave the table.

If you have enough room, you don't *need* to use floating edges...

> Oerjan, Jon, and other play testers, it would be interesting to see

The problem with playtest notes is that they're usually only organized into a
legible form towards the end of the test period. This legible form is usually
referred to as "the final product" or something like
that :-/

I have most of the FB2 playtest battle reports posted to the GZG playtest
list, but on reviewing them now I can't remember exactly which
version of the rules were used in each battle - not for the ones posted
by others, at least - and I no longer have all the old versions of the
rules :-(.

> Laserlight wrote:

[Vector movement is realistic but problematic]

> Area effect weapons (eg Phalon PBL, wave gun). or Lay down a

Area effect weapons would work in reality, assuming that you know the missiles
are coming. Mines, well... as long as they cover a large enough volume, yes,
they'd work too.

The problem in Weber's backgrounds is that the missiles come *really*
fast. "High-velocity" means that the missiles are coming in at 0.99c or
thereabouts. Do you have enough time to detect them and launch/trigger
your area effect weapons before it's too late?

To use an extreme FT example: my ships approach at speed 4000 (with
1000 km/mu and 7.5 minutes/turn, that's equivalent to 0.03c). Since you
are a fixed or orbital installation I know exactly where to find you so
I can launch my missiles at their maximum range - assuming three turns
of endurance, that's 12000mu. You can detect me launching those
missiles (ballistically - they don't need to use their own engines) at
range 54 or thereabouts. When do you fire your area effect weapons?

BTW, the only area effect weapon which could possibly work in the FT
mechanics is the Nova Cannon - none of the others have any effect
during the missile movement phase, so if the missiles move faster than the max
range of those weapons you'd need to place the area effect templates on top of
your base to kill the missiles. OK, it is true that some people wanted the
Phalons to use their Plasma Bolts in exactly that way as their only missile
defence weapon, but it's definitely not
to be recommended as a standard tactic :-/

> It isn't much good for a maneuvering fleet

It is no good at all for a maneuvering fleet, but you can't use missile
strikes against a maneuvering fleet anyway. You don't need to either -
their supply bases and main repair yards are stationary, and no fleet lasts
very long without supply and repair facilities.

> Roger Books wrote:

> Anyway, my 3000 point fleet can handle your MT missile 3000

3000 points of serious pure-MTM thrust-8 boats is somewhere around
150-160 MTMs; with average (ie, Average + some armour <g>) hull
integrities only about a quarter of them need to hit and penetrate your point
defences to wipe your fleet out. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to rely on
heavy PDS suites alone against this threat.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Whew, what a can of worms.

And I outlined the counter-tactic I developed under the old FT/MT rules
<g>

> I moved house about the time FB1 came out and after a few abortive

Sounds similar to my current gaming table - 80x120 cm <g>

> (Now I've moved again and have a game room with a ping-pong table >as

That is 108x60 mu. Approaches my gaming table in effective size <g>

> And actually, Örjan, I never play a space game with hard edges. I find

So because you find it a hassle, you frown on anyone drawing the logical
conclusion of your 1) finding fixed edges "patently absurd" and 2) playing on
too small a table or at least setting the fleets up too close together.

If any weapon (except SV stingers <g>) can shoot almost from the edge of one
deployment zone to the edge of the other, the fleets are definitely set up too
close together...

If you set the fleets in the missile horror scenario up on the short
edges of your ping-pong table (>100mu between the fleets) instead of on
the long edges (ca 60mu between the fleets), at the speeds you indicate
(max 10+thrust rating), you can use the anti-MTM tactics I described
without floating the table edges. You have enough space to advance, turn
around, and start falling back to force the MTM boats to come into your
weapons range. If they launched too early believing that you'd keep advancing,
all they achieved was to waste their missiles for
nothing and you won the battle on walk-over.

The only reason for me to fall back immediately (which would force me to float
the edge immediately) is if the MTM boats approach at very
high speeds - ie, able to close to "effective" MTM range on the first
turn of the game. Since you didn't state what initial speeds you were thinking
of, I wrote my reply to cover at least most of the possibilities.

> You would also notice that entry parameters make quite a lot of

I'm perfectly aware of that, and have been for the past six or seven years.
Unfortunately you didn't give any entry parameters in your
scenario set-up apart from "Start the battle in the normal way.", which
is about as unspecific as you can get.

> Interestingly enough, most of these games were in a campaign. The

As Roger pointed out, your resupply rules seem to have been extremely
generous.

If you set your campaign up in a way that the players are able to eg raid one
another's bases, supply freighters and similar, the target player is usually
unable to run away immediately if the attacker turns out to be too strong. If
the campaign rules makes your
politicians/financers become nervous if you give up populations without
a fight, you'll also see rather more battles against desperate odds.

> And btw: There are no hard rules for ammo resupply costs either.

Which is of course *exactly* why I specified what guidelines I used for
determining the MTM replacement cost in my example.

> (The

First you say that massed missiles are boring. Then you say that making the
missiles expensive, which is intended to limit the massed missile tactics to
more realistic levels, is boring. Please make up your mind, OK?

Regards,

> On 11-May-00 at 15:45, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:

I am counting on the fact that I can make at least a few miss, and, barring
that, force them to come in on two or more turns. If I can spread them out
over 3 turns that's a minimum of 2PDSs per missile. Some will get through, but
I can tear up missile boats in process.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Laserlight wrote:

In Weber's background--HH, that is, I read a Starfire novel or
two several years ago & don't recall specifics--you've got
instantaneous gravitic sensors, so yes, you can see them coming. You may need
to use a house rule "area effect weapons attack any
target which _passes through_ their danger zone" to account for
the granularity of the system.

> To use an extreme FT example: my ships approach at speed 4000
Since you
> are a fixed or orbital installation I know exactly where to

But the 54 mu sensor limit isn't "realistic" and the complaint
was that high-velocity missile strikes weren't handled
realistically.  Let me have a realistic detection range--say,
30AU, or about 4.5 million mu at 1000km/mu--and I can probably
spot your ships in time to do something about it.

[quoted original message omitted]

> Roger Books wrote:

> 3000 points of serious pure-MTM thrust-8 boats is somewhere around

If you can't make quite a lot of the missiles miss, you're going to take
massive damage and will need to kill even more massive numbers of missile
boats to pull off a victory. With 15% of your Mass used for PDSs you don't
have that many weapons available to kill the missile boats with.

If you are confident that you *can* make quite a lot of the missiles miss, you
can replace half or so of your point defences with weapons
which allow you to kill more evading missile boats faster .-)

Later,

> Brian Bell wrote:
[...]
> I have tried a floating table 3 times. All 3 times one of the forces
[...]
> Now someone will suggest using the floor. A fair alternative, but many

I was going to suggest using the floor (suggested it in the past, but not in
this current thread;), but I see your difficulties in this. We sometimes use
the floor here when we play. I think of all the times
we've used the floor, we only had to 'float' the floor (!) once - and
that was when Noam was having his NI fleet screaming around my NAC fleet in
that 'spiral of death' thing we did (see this mentioned by Noam and others in
the offset firearcs thread). Otherwise using the floor has been okay (although
I'm thinking that I'll start dragging
my caving kneepads out in the future  ;-)

> If I sound like I am griping or whining, please forgive me. That is

The times we've used a table we've only had to float it occassionally.
Everyone agreed that the edges shouldn't be 'hard', but then when we play I
think everyone does their best to maneuver their force so it stays on the
table. So far in most of the cases we've had to float it was due to a
miscalculation of someone skirting the edge and trying to swing back into the
thick of things; we've never (so far) had the situation where if we float
things to allow an errant ship or two to stay on the table that others would
drop off. Hmmm. And only once did I ever use an extra table to not float the
main table, but that was
during Jerry Han's "Berserker" scenario at GZG-ECC earlier this year.
The ships that made us dig up extra tables eventually got turned around and
back on the main table (but then again we had room to
add the extra tables, too ;-)

Mk

> Laserlight wrote:

> >The problem in Weber's backgrounds is that the missiles come

The HH gravitics basically can't detect anything which doesn't have an active
wedge. Missiles (and even ships) that just coast without using their drives
are extremely hard to detect even at short ranges, which is demonstrated in
quite a few episodes in the HH books...Even active missiles seem to be pretty
hard to detect if you're too far outside tactical ranges.

> You may need to use a house rule "area effect weapons attack any

Sure. It makes the area-effect weapons extremely powerful - I'd really
love to play a Phalon fleet with such a house rule, for example - but
it would stop the vector-moving missiles.

'Course, that house rule won't do anything to stop the vector-moving
Nova Cannon shots which are, unfortunately, the logical extension of
vector-moving missiles :-/

> But the 54 mu sensor limit isn't "realistic" and the complaint

Realistic ranges for detecting a stealthed missile at ambient
temperature with a shut-down drive? Maybe, maybe not.

Regards,

> At 08:41 AM 5/12/00 -0400, Indy wrote:

Indy is obviously forgetting the glorious NSL victory over the FSE where the
dogs' supercarrier tried to run away, but was chased down and destroyed.
Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and provide thier
lackeys in the UN with faked footage showing the FSE escorts as UN escorts,
resulting in the good officers of the NSL squadron being improperly taken to
trial for their actions....

<grin>

> The HH gravitics basically can't detect anything which doesn't

(snip) Sorry, I was thinking of detecting the ships at first, while they're
building up that 4000mu velocity. After that, you'd have a fair idea where to
look for the missiles.

Not that I would want to plan a defense system to deal with
high-v attacks--covering the volume might be a tad
expensive--but I think part of the difficulty you're seeing
comes from combining the game limits with the reality limits.

However....I'd better not argue too convincingly because I don't want the
bother of calculating missile vectors either.

> Aaron Teske wrote:

Did we use an extra table for that? I thought things were just floated as
'normal'.

> Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and

The UN was not happy about losing some of their ships.  ;-)

Mk

> At 09:28 AM 5/15/00 -0400, Indy wrote:
[Floating tables at GZG-ECC III]
> Indy is obviously forgetting the glorious NSL victory over the FSE

What, you don't remember grabbing a spare table from the cluster next to ours,
throwing a mat on it, and shifting it around as needed?

Yeesh... and you say you remember pterodactyls. You're prolly just making
it up! ^_-

> Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and

But those were FSE escorts, darn it! It wasn't our fault if our IFFs were
screwy!
^_-

> Aaron Teske wrote:

Oh yeah, that's right. My mind is fuzzy with about fifteen million
other things right now.  :-/  Some neural pathways have been
disconnected from the main 'net' due to overusage problems.

> Yeesh... and you say you remember pterodactyls. You're prolly just

I 'member 'em. It's just that little things, like moving tables, seem so
mundane these days compared to pterodactyls ungracefully swooping the skies
above...

> >> Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and

The ESU sent independent observers and salvage operators into the battle area
shortly after the unfortunate incident occured. Their findings concluded that
the ships involved were indeed NSL and UN. Holovid footage taken from the
wreckage of the UN heavy destroyer "Miserindino" showed the NSL fleet
dramatically blowing apart the *crippled* UN heavy cruiser 'Ingraham".

You NSLers didn't clean up the field as well as you thought you had...

Mk

> Indy wrote:

Indy, Damn! Did I miss something or did you name a ship after me? Of course,
it's off by one letter. That would explain why it was
wreckage! ;-)

> At 10:03 AM 5/16/00 -0400, Indy wrote:

Excuses, excuses. ^_-

> >> Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and

Oh, like I trust the *ESU*!!! Yeah, right.... <snort>

> Their findings

Did the ship surrender? Did it even *try* to surrender? I don't think so.

(Okay, so maybe it didn't get the chance, but still.... ^_- )

> You NSLers didn't clean up the field as well as you thought you had...

How the heck would you clean up anything like that, anyway?

> Aaron Teske wrote:
[...]
> >> What, you don't remember grabbing a spare table from the cluster

At my age, gotta keep 'em comin'!  ;-)

> >> >> Unfortunately, some of the FSE escorts managed to get away and

They would never have become such a major power bloc by lying, cheating,
and stealing their way there, now would they have?  ;-)

> >Their findings
showed
> >the NSL fleet dramatically blowing apart the *crippled* UN heavy

Holovid records indicate it was *heavily* damaged, streaming atmosphere from
hundreds of breaches in the hull. However, the NSL forces mercilessly
continued to fire on it, despite the fact that there was *no* return fire
coming from it. It was not given the chance to withdraw from the field, nor
surrender. It was, to put it bluntly, brutally butchered.

The NSL officers on trial got off lucky. There are still those who are calling
for their heads for war crimes (and during peacekeeping operations, too!).

> (Okay, so maybe it didn't get the chance, but still.... ^_- )

Should have thought of that before you entered the system trying to assault a
ship under protective custody of the UN.

Mk

> Mike Miserendino wrote:
showed
> > the NSL fleet dramatically blowing apart the *crippled* UN heavy

It's one of the (my) Tuffley-class super destroyers, one of two dozen
purchased from the NAC by the UN (but not one of the 'upgraded' ones with new
tech advancements, sorry:)

http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/un_roster.html

I still have to update the various corrections Oerjan and PsyWraith had
given me lo so many moons ago.  :-/

(I still have to deluge Oerjan with my latest FSE designs, too - no,
Oerjan,
I haven't forgotten! ;-) ;-)

The bulk of the ships you'll find on the NAC fleet roster page. But the
"Miserendino" is a UN vessel.

> Of course, it's off by one letter.

D'oh!!!!

> That would explain why it was

Uh, yeah, that's it, they had to get rid of that one to get the newly
commissioned one with the properly spellt name on it!

Mk

> Indy wrote:

Quite a list now!

> The bulk of the ships you'll find on the NAC fleet roster page. But

> Indy wrote:

> It's one of the (my) Tuffley-class super destroyers, one of two dozen

Last time I checked your web page it didn't describe the new tech
advancements anyway :-/

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Well, there is a blurb in there about how some hulls had been upgraded with
new hull technology (I was going to toy around with reflecting the 'higher
tech' hull construction at 2 hull per Mass, but up the cost by 50% or
something; never got any further than mulling it over in my brain, though)

> >(I still have to deluge Oerjan with my latest FSE designs, too - no,

I'm not saying....:)

> BTW, many of the links on your page seem to be broken :-(

Really?? Hmmm. Okay, thanks; I'll have a spin through them in a bit (the few I
hit this morning seemed okay)

Mk