Following all the talk about missiles, here are some (very rough) ideas
that we've been kicking around for FTIII - note these are not rules,
just
concepts at this stage - what I'd be interested in is opinions on the
ideas and whether you think they'd add or detract from the game. ( I do have
some draft rules for these, but I'm not going to post them quite yet).
FTIII Missile Ideas:
We DROP the existing multi-turn duration missiles from the game,
replacing them with one or both of the following ideas: SALVO MISSILE
BATTERIES: like oversized submunition packs, with a launcher system and one or
more "salvo" loads (expendable). Fires a group of hypervelocity missiles
(probably 6 missiles per salvo) with only one turn
duration, moderate range (24-36"??); fired after order writing, but
before ships moved, salvo target position indicated by marker. If salvo is
within attack range (6"?) of an enemy after movement, missiles will attack;
target must allocate and use defences (PDAFs etc.?) against missiles BEFORE
firer rolls to see how many of salvo are on target (so could waste several
defences shooting at 6 missiles when 5 of them are going to miss
anyway...); each missile in salvo that is on-target AND gets through
defences then rolls for damage (possibly high damage potential, as not that
many will get through?).
JUMP TORPEDOES: BIG, expensive missiles that either have their own (small,
one-shot) Jump engines OR are "fired" into jump by ship's FTL drives
(perhaps with suitable disadvantages for firing ship on turn of firing); range
is infinite in game terms (ie: anywhere on table), but deviation rolls are
applied when missile pops out of jump (firer places "aim" marker on intended
spot, then roll to see how accurate missile is). When it pops out (on same
turn as launched), missile goes off immediately with a big
(ish?) area effect - perhaps damage to all ships within 6", lessening
with actual distance?
This would be big and nasty, but countered by several disadvantages -
expensive, mass-heavy, unreliable (apart from deviation, may not come
out of jump at all, or (on really bad score) might even go off when
fired!?).
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES:
I LIKE IT!!!! Reminds me of the Anime Missile Swarm Ideas we've
kicked around last summer. In fact...I still haven't posted those rules
yet. I always thought that lots and lots of missiles were more believable than
just really heavy missile.
> JUMP TORPEDOES:
Sneaky....very sneaky.... Just keep `em balenced Jon. I just had a thought.
Why don't we come up with technology levels as an optional rule for all of you
guys who are into "Starfire" style campiagn games. Normal missile salvos would
be Tech 1 while jump torpedos could be tech level 2 or even 3.
> THESE ARE ONLY IDEAS (sorry to shout...), and may go no further, but
> Let me know!
I don't think that a that we should totally trash the normal missiles.
Instead, lets keep the current missiles as a seperate sytem and rename then
"Heavy Tropedo" or "Combat Drone" or somthing.
Later,
> Jon (the FT deity) wrote:
> who would miss the "old" FT missiles if we replaced them with
I would.
I like the idea of weapons that take multiple turns to take effect. It
adds an element of suspense to the game. Each side watches, turn by turn as
the missiles close. Will they all hit their target ship? Will the ship get
away? Single turn weapons are fired and gone, no suspense.
How they move can be modified but needs to be quick and simple. I had the
thought of having a pool of thrust points for each missle so it can have a
fast quick life or a slow long one.
A while ago I contributed to a discussion on the list on Plasma Torpedoes
which were basically a combination of torpedoes and the Wave Gun. Another
example of a multi-turn weapon that adds suspense.
Missile boats would not seem right if they let loose their weapons and the
result was determined right away.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> We DROP the existing multi-turn duration missiles from the game,
> SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES: like oversized submunition packs, with a
Simpler. I like it. But it has too many rolls... I really like one-roll
beam resolution.
How about simply handling the missiles as long-range submunition packs?
I.e. the missile flies where it flies, and shoots a single subpack from there.
I think you could even make it immune to PD to speed play.
I think the current point cost/mass works: A missile is equal to two
subpacks, so you basically have a choice of doing safe long-range
attacks, or doubling your firepower but risking your hide in the process.
Average damage from a close-range hit would drop to 2 points, but it
would be far easier to hit with small salvoes.
Needles would roll normally, but count only 6's as needle hits.
EMPs would cause 5,6/6/nothing at 6"/12"/18". (That might be too
powerful)
Maybe "must target closest ship" to avoid EMPing/needling special
targets to death from long away.
> JUMP TORPEDOES: BIG, expensive missiles that either have their own
Very nice idea. Just keep the cost high enough. High cost is justified,
because it can do something no other weapon system can.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Simpler. I like it. But it has too many rolls... I really like
How about we use *DAF as screens (you have to set them to screen
with your orders.) I don't know. Beams must be have a direct line of sight to
a target in order to work. Missiles are a little more flexiable. Jon's rules
recognize the fact that missiles are more manuverable than a stream
of sub-atomic particles.
> How about simply handling the missiles as long-range submunition
Immune to *DAFs? You mean no matter how hard I try to shoot
down an incoming missile I'm still missile bait? That doesn't make the current
situation better. It kinda puts us back at square one.
> I think the current point cost/mass works: A missile is equal to two
How about spend more mass and/or points cost to purchase extra
missile ammo?
> Average damage from a close-range hit would drop to 2 points, but it
Why? A warhead strength is usually "fixed" no matter how far away a target is.
Beam weapon damage potential is dependent on the range, how much energy to
pump into the weapon, and other factors.
> Needles would roll normally, but count only 6's as needle hits. > EMPs
ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH....I've always hated these specialty missiles. EMP
missiles I can buy, but neddle missiles?
> > JUMP TORPEDOES: BIG, expensive missiles that either have their own
No arguments here.
Later,
I think that the missile mindset might have to be readjusted a bit. FT
missiles work a lot more like torpedoes than an actual SSM. The Submunition
packs operate more like current SSMs than anything else in the game.
The only change I would make goes along with the sensor rules I posted
earlier, make it easier to Jam and decoy, using the ECM system.
or for those of you who are missile sadists: MIRV versions!
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I've never liked the way missile velocity has been handled, and increasing
the first-turn range of the missile to 24" - 36" won't make up for the
fact that the missile can't catch a ship that's travelling over 24" per turn.
It always seemed to me that the initial velocity of the missile should be:
(velocity of firing ship) + (initial missile velocity).
After all, missiles HAVE TO go straight from the nose of the firing ship on
their initial turn, so the initial velocity of the missile should preserve the
momentum of the ship that fired it.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, <Mark Andrew Siefert> wrote:
> I don't know. Beams must be have a direct line of sight to a
> rules recognize the fact that missiles are more manuverable than a
I really don't see what that had to do with the number of dice rolls.
> Immune to *DAFs?
They pretty much already are... and:
> You mean no matter how hard I try to shoot
Nope, that's why the damage is much less.
> How about spend more mass and/or points cost to purchase extra
You can just buy more missiles. Maybe launcher 3pts/1mass and each
missile 3/1... it would give missile ships more endurance without
endangering saturation attacks... but it would make submunition packs much
less worthwhile.
> Why? A warhead strength is usually "fixed" no matter how far
Why? Because high damage *is* the problem with missiles. IMHO, they need
to be put on a more equal level with submunition packs (which are
considered, I quote: "one-shot packs of short range, unguided 'scatter'
missiles" (FT, p.18)) and that's how subpacks already work. Why add mechanics
when existing ones work just fine?
And *DAF can't shoot subpacks down either.
> ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH....I've always hated these specialty
They already exist. You don't have to use them, though.
I like the ideas for missile packs, but what about reloads? If the current
mass of a missile (plus launcher) is 2 why not allow for multiple missiles at
1 mass each? The mass doesn't change (4 current
missiles vs. 2 launchers with 2 reloads each - both are 8M) but it
changes the tactical situation of missile boats.
Jon's question regarding missiles was if we'd miss the old rules. I will. I
still think that missiles are the equalizers for Destoyers to counter
capital ships and their long range/area effect weapons. Missiles and
Pulse Torpedo combinations are the only way that destroyer squadrons are able
to take on the big guys. Historically, Destoyers were created to prevent
smaller torpedo boats to engage capital ships and sink them. It will take me
some time to get the actual battle but the movie "In Harms Way" was based on a
historical battle where Destoyer squardrons, PT boats etc were able to turn
back cruisers and even the Yamamoto... Then there were the very effective
Japanese night torpedo attacks launched by their Destroyers, they did destroy
America and Dutch Cruisers... Phil P.
> THESE ARE ONLY IDEAS (sorry to shout...), and may go no further, but
How about the ACV (Autonomous Combat Vehicle) from Steve Gallacci's ALBEDO
comics (furry animals in hard-SF situations, but I digress...) - it is a
starship-launched AI-piloted hunter-killer drone....?
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> > I don't think that a that we should totally trash the normal
Perhaps the best way to describe them are sucide drones.
Later,
> At 09:53 PM 4/1/97 +0100, Jon wrote:
Vernor Vinge's were swarmer drones, but then his vehicles came in and out of
hyperspace as they moved along...
> SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES: like oversized submunition packs, with a
I like this, it allows anime style battles.
> JUMP TORPEDOES: BIG, expensive missiles that either have their own
This almost sounds like the C-Plus guns in the Bezerker series.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> Historically, Destoyers were created to prevent smaller torpedo
While that is true, the the danger of surface torpedo attack was grossly
overestimated in the early dreadnought years. I haven't found a SINGLE record
of a DD or smaller ships sinking a capital ship.
Some cruisers, yes, but no capital ships.
Their real function was that of deterrant: "If you close, you'll get us and
what we're guarding, but we'll torpedo you while you're at it."
> actual battle but the movie "In Harms Way" was based on a historical
Movie? Are you serious?
> where Destoyer squardrons, PT boats etc were able to turn back
Admiral Yamamoto might be turned back by a single MP with a baton (were he
still alive), but I guess you're talking about BB Yamato.
Ok, I'll bite. Yamato took part in very actions at all, and came to contact
range with surface ships in even fewer, so you must mean Battle off Samar
(October 25, 1944).
No PT boats were present. There was a heroic charge by some DDs and DEs.
It's called heroic because it was bloody suicidal. But even then, the
approximately 500 US combat aircraft present you conveniently chose to ignore
had much more to do with sinking the couple of already battered CAs that went
down.
Or maybe Hollywood really meant Yamato's sistership, the Musashi and
you're referring to the Battle of Surigao Strait (October 24-25, 1944)?
They had PT boats. That tells you how close to shore the action was.
(Note to non-naval types: Torpedo Boats and Motor Torpedo Boats (PT
boats)
are NOT the same thing. Torpedo Boats, such as the German T -class, were
essentially small destroyers with very little gun armament. PT boats were
shore patrol boats with a torpedo or two tacked on).
Except Musashi wasn't there. She was sunk earlier by US aircraft. Even then
you're ignoring the slight 3:1 battleship advantage the Americans held.
Nevermind the Americans had vastly superior fire control radars for the night
action.
Nevermind that the Japanese were trying to get through narrow straits and the
yanks were positioned to block them.
> Then there were the very effective Japanese night
The Dutch naval war effort in the Pacific was quickly sunk and so was the
idea of united fleets at Java Sea (February 27-March 1, 1942).
The two Dutch CLs were sunk by torpedoes -- from Japanese CAs. Japanese
DD torpedo attacks claimed only other DDs.
A little later the American CA Houston and Australian CL Perth were indeed
sunk by a combination of torpedoes and gunfire at the Sunda Strait (February
28, 1942), but they were screwed to begin with: Outnumbered 6:1, and
especially outgunned 3:1 in the 8" department (Houston's rear turret was not
operational).
And cruisers are not capital ships anyway.
Oh, and the WWII Kriegsmarine did quite splendidly with practically no
destroyer screen. In fact, the only account of enemy DDs attacking their
capital ships I can remember is that of Admiral Hipper pounding the living
daylights out of a British DD that even tried to ram the Hipper as a final act
of defience, the poor bastard.
Ok, enough of this. Let's look at things more abstractly:
Fact: More ships is more flexible. Especially in a campaign. Rough figures: A
BB might cost 500pts. A DD 100pts. Thus you get 5 DDs for the price of one BB
in FT. Consequently, for 500 points, the flotilla of DDs is more flexible.
Now, if that flotilla is also equal or better in battle vs. the BB, who would
ever bother with BBs?
The lessened combat effectiveness of the smaller ships is the price you pay
for the flexibility of a larger fleet.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) Or maybe Hollywood really meant Yamato's sistership, the Musashi @:) and
you're referring to the Battle of Surigao Strait (October
@:) 24-25, 1944)?
That's probably what he's thinking of.
@:) Except Musashi wasn't there. She was sunk earlier by US aircraft. @:) Even
then you're ignoring the slight 3:1 battleship advantage the @:) Americans
held.
In the strait itself, the battleships only got involved pretty late, after the
destroyers had pounded most of the Japanese ships into snot. I don't recall
exactly what ships the Japanese had at this point but some of them were fairly
heavy. Cruisers and the like.
[ warning: I have forgotten the names of all places, players and
ships involved in the following action]
At the same time as this battle was taking place, a second Japanese force was
trying to kill the American task force 54 (34? You know who I mean). They
expected them to be guarding the northern approach to the harbor just to the
north of the Surigao Strait (the strait is the Southern approach). Well they
weren't but a small force of escort carriers, light cruisers and destroyers
was and that force managed to fight off the Japanese force which contained at
least one battleship and a bunch of heavy cruisers, because the Japanese
admiral got spooked and didn't get his fleet in order. I don't think any
Japanese ships were sunk however.
I can look up the details if anyone's interested.
@:) Ok, enough of this. Let's look at things more abstractly:
@:)
@:) Fact: More ships is more flexible. Especially in a campaign. @:) Rough
figures: A BB might cost 500pts. A DD 100pts. Thus you get 5 @:) DDs for the
price of one BB in FT. Consequently, for 500 points, @:) the flotilla of DDs
is more flexible.
Yup. However they may or may not be as flexible as in the real world, where
DDs played an important role as scouts, communication vessels, fleet pickets,
ASW ships, AA defense, night attack boats, armored cargo carriers (!), rescue
ships etc, etc, etc. Most of these missions don't come into play in a typical
FT game (or campaign) so the DDs lose some value there. On the other hand, it
sure would be interesting to come up with a campaign in which these kinds of
actions were required.
> Ground Zero Games writes:
@:) FTIII Missile Ideas:
@:)
@:) We DROP the existing multi-turn duration missiles from the game,
@:) replacing them with one or both of the following ideas:
Ooh... bad.
@:) SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES
Sounds good. I think someone has already recommended having these
work like a sunmunition for simplicity - that is, the number of
missiles that hit is 1d6 (or the number left, whichever is smaller). *DAF
should kill one missile on a 6.
@:) JUMP TORPEDOES: [...] When it pops out (on same turn as launched),
@:) missile goes off immediately with a big (ish?) area effect -
@:) perhaps damage to all ships within 6", lessening with actual @:) distance?
This sounds... interesting. I would say have the blast be
directional, so that they have to pop out in front of the target -
then have the random displacement be equal to or greater than the smallest
range bracket so that the firer has to choose between guaranteed damage or
possible high damage with a possible total miss.
@:) THESE ARE ONLY IDEAS (sorry to shout...), and may go no further, @:) but
who would miss the "old" FT missiles if we replaced them with @:) something
like these? Let me know!
I think missiles as they currently exist are (mostly) fine. Keep them in.
Tweak them if necessary. Add new missiles if appropriate.
> Joachim Heck wrote:
I think this might have been me. I proposed the following a while back (with
some new additions):
TYPE: HE Missile Magazine Launcher MASS: 6 COST: 6 (Includes 6 HE missiles)
FIRE ARC: Can only be mounted to fire in one arc.
-HE Missiles:
DAMAGE: 1D6
MOVEMENT: 18" per turn with up to four points of turning, as per
ships, at beginning and midpoint of turn. Three turn duration.
ATTACK: Same as standard FT missiles.
RELOAD COST: 12
DESC: Missile magazine symbol resembles a lego brick(block with six circles)
on
ship diagram. The magazine contains up to 6 high-explosive warhead
missiles. The missiles are more maneuverable than standard FT missiles. Each
hollow circle represents one missile. When a missile is fired, a circle is
filled. One or more missiles may be launched per turn from a magazine
launcher. A magazine may be reloaded when docked with a supply ship, base,
etc. in three standard game turns.
Threshold Rolls:
-Magazine Hit: (optional system for HE missiles) Roll 1D6 for each
missile still in magazine and record as damage to carrying ship. If at least
one missile detonates in magazine(i.e. at least one missile exists), launcher
is considered damaged beyond normal DCP repair and out of action for remainder
of game. This is similar to damage from a needle weapon.
Here's a variation of the missile launcher using turrets:
TYPE: HE Missile Battery MASS: 7 COST: 8 (Includes 6 HE missiles) FIRE ARC:
Can fire in any one arc per turn. DESC: Similar to magazine launcher, but
allows greater control over initial launch. Symbol is same as magazine
launcher with addition of circle enclosing lego brick to symbolize it is
turreted.
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> In the strait itself, the battleships only got involved pretty late,
It seems the obsolete BB Fuso indeed did get torpedoed, along with one cruiser
and three DDs. Whether the gunfire had started by that point and how damaged
she was previously are somewhat unclear. I'll check this a bit further.
In any case, one must not discount the American superiority in numbers nor the
very favourable strategic position. The Japanese HAD to get through the
strait, and fast. That and the proximity of the shore are the things that let
the yanks get close enough.
It's a bit like this: Of all the people bitten by rattlesnakes, how many
saw the snake in advance AND had an option not get close to it?
> At the same time as this battle was taking place, a second Japanese
That's the "Battle off Samar" I mentioned earlier. The small force had about
20 CVEs and their about 500 planes. I'd say those planes had something to do
with Kurita's decision to withdraw.
> Yup. However they may or may not be as flexible as in the real
> armored cargo carriers (!),
DDs are not armored, but they *are* much faster than real cargo ships. Thus
the "Tokyo Express" use.
> rescue ships etc, etc, etc. Most of these
Yup.
> (or campaign) so
They *should* come up in campaigns.
To reach some sort of a conclusion: DDs are much more a "strategic" than a
"tactical" ship. Which value do we want the points cost to reflect?
If the points system was perfect, X pts of ships would always equal X pts of
ships. But that's impossible.
I think the current balance is pretty good. With subpacks and pulse torps
smaller ships have a fairly good chance of taking out bigger foes of equal
value.
Sure, they can't really win a gunnery duel, but they don't have to engage in
one either. Don't play the other guy's game.
But a big ship threatened with equal points in dedicated missile ships can
neither win nor escape. At best it can survive and force an inconclusive draw.
Having yammered this much about missiles, how about a slight change of
subject?
Does anyone else think mines are underpowered, especially wrt missiles?
> From the point/mass side of things, two mines equal one missile. Yet
Against shielded targets the difference is even greater.
Heck, dumping stationary missiles would probably much more of a deterrant.
How to make mines more usable? Some ideas:
1) More ammo for the price. Allow laying more mines per layer/turn.
2) More damage for mines. 1d6/no shields would bring them in line with
missiles, but I'm not 100% sure I want to see this. 3) Permanent minefields.
Minefields stay and damage all comers until cleared by a minesweeper or maybe
fighters.
Strategically speaking, it's currently impossible to lay anything like
usable minefields without a huge fleet of dedicated mine-layers.
Assume you want to protect one quadrant (90deg) of a space station, make
anyone coming within bombardment range (36") risk 5 pts of damage. That takes
about 39 mines, costs 130 pts and requires a total of 78 mass in
strictly mine-laying ships.
Lower cost for pre-laid minefields? What *does* it cost to refill the
mine rack?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:)
@:) In any case, one must not discount the American superiority in @:) numbers
nor the very favourable strategic position.
Especially the latter. The Japanese really screwed that one up and basically
walked into a trap.
@:) That's the "Battle off Samar" I mentioned earlier. The small force @:) had
about 20 CVEs and their about 500 planes. I'd say those planes @:) had
something to do with Kurita's decision to withdraw.
I'm not so sure... I don't recall that they even launched any planes. What I
am sure they did was lay down a lot of smoke and duck in and out of it. I
think Kurita assumed, by the way they were fighting, that he'd found the
(Nimitz's?) task force and he withdrew to organize his fleet. I will
definitely have to look it up now.
@:) To reach some sort of a conclusion: DDs are much more a @:) "strategic"
than a "tactical" ship. Which value do we want the @:) points cost to reflect?
It might be possible to have a seperate points system for battle value and
economic cost (or strategic value) but I don't know how to work this into a
ship construction system.
@:) Does anyone else think mines are underpowered, especially wrt @:)
missiles?
I guess I do, since I've never even considered dropping a mine.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
IIRC, the Japanese did indeed misidentify the CVEs and destroyers as CVs and
cruisers, confirmed by the vigour of the DDs in reduced visibility. The IJN
force was already disorganized, having ordered "general pursuit", and Kurita
withdrew as described. "Battleship at war" quotes one of the senior IJN
commanders' description of that action- I'll check it tonight. The ID
problem was common in times past; in "Cruiser at War" an RN officer describes
an encounter with some German DDs and a vessel "very like a Hipper class
cruiser, which turned out to be RN frigates and the battleship Rodney (which
looks less like a Hipper than almost any other ship in the
world!).
SNIP
> @:) Does anyone else think mines are underpowered, especially wrt
Absolutely! As they're expensive and fairly massive, I think hitting one
should be a serious matter for a capital, and disastrous for an escort. As is,
the mean damage is 1.33 points, with a maximum of 4 and a good chance (i.e. I
can't be fashed working it out!) of none. I think Phil Pournelle suggested 1d6
damage per mine, and that feels right to me.
Cheers,
> On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Especially the latter. The Japanese really screwed that one up and
They didn't screw up. They had no choice. It was a last-ditch suicide
mission and a gamble at that. Even if the Japanese task force had broken
off, they would have been hunted down by US aircraft next morning. And even if
they had survived that, they would have spent the rest of the war sitting in a
lagoon with no fuel. If you want to speculate, the Leyte operation failed
because Kurita chickened out on the suicide part.
> I'm not so sure... I don't recall that they even launched any
You are partly correct. Kurita did think he was up against the fleet carriers,
and the few hundred planes buzzing around him probably enforced that vision.
The CVEs did launch planes, they just didn't have much in
the way of anti-ship munitions (no AP bombs) -- but Kurita had no way of
knowing this.
> It might be possible to have a seperate points system for battle
Campaign construction system?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) They didn't screw up. ... It was a last-ditch suicide mission and
@:) a gamble at that.
If you ask me it's much the same thing. Of course they'd been losing the war
for quite a long time at this point and hadn't been able to convince
themselves to sue for peace. Frankly that's something I've never understood.
They must have known they were going to lose after Midway. If I had been them
I would have stopped training pilots and started training diplomats at that
point.
@:) If you want to speculate, the Leyte operation failed because @:) Kurita
chickened out on the suicide part.
I'll buy that.
@:) You are partly correct. Kurita did think he was up against the @:) fleet
carriers, and the few hundred planes buzzing around him @:) probably enforced
that vision. The CVEs did launch planes, they
@:) just didn't have much in the way of anti-ship munitions (no AP
@:) bombs) -- but Kurita had no way of knowing this.
Aha.
Might be an interesting situation to simulate in FT. You'd have to use sensors
and either give the "Americans" interceptors or unloaded attack fighters.
> At 15:10 01/04/97 +0100, you wrote:
target
> must allocate and use defences (PDAFs etc.?) against missiles BEFORE
marker
> on intended spot, then roll to see how accurate missile is). When it
Comments on the above -
FIRST: Please DONOT get rid of the present missiles, thay are a very good
leveler making the smaller ships dangerous, Thay also give a Human fleet a
more than evens chance agained a Kra'vak fleet. There is room for improvement.
1 : Move - Aggree with those people who have suggested that
the initial velocity should be: ( Velocity of
firing ship ) + ( initial missile volicity ).
2 : Life - At present 3 turns, if the idea in 1 as used the
'life' could be discribed in the amount of velocity
/ vector changes it could make.
3 : Mass - It has been suggested that the present mass of a
missile should be split in two, 1 point for the missile and 1 point for the
launcher. This would allow a ship to carry more missiles but be limited by the
amount of launchers it may fire a turn. Of course if a launcher is distroyed
no more missiles may be fired.
4 : Cost - About right.
5 : Damage - About right.
6 : Missile Types - Keep as present to keep it simple but as an
extra rules to allow you to design your own missiles could be added as follows
:
1 mass point = 10 missile cargo points.
Standard Warhead = 2 Cargo points, 2D6 Dammage, Light Warhead = 1 Cargo point,
1D6 Dammage, EMP Warhead = 2 Cargo points.
Standard Guidence = 2 Cargo points. Needle Guidence = 3 Cargo points.
Life ( volicity change of 18") = 2 cargo points per turn. Life ( volicity
change of 24") = 3 cargo points per turn.
Note: this would mean that a normal missile uses 10 cargo points, as the
present ones.
This would allow ( With addisions) a mix of types. How about a mass 2 missile
with needle guidence
(3 cp),
Standard warhead ( 2 cp) and a 5 turn life ( 15
cp )??
SECOND: SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES, a halfway house between rocket packs and
missiles? An execlent Idea with the provisions above. Could thay be launched
for the same launcher as standard missiles?
THIRD: JUMP TORPEDOES, Nasty, go very careful, one of these could change the
complection of a games so much, the cost and mass would have to be high, also
An execlent way to kill a space station.
FORTH: MISSILE DEFENCE, Any space navel, with any sense would produce an
effective anti missile defence as soon as they appear. As the rules stand your
only defences is 'C' beams, ADAF's and PDAF's, killing a missile on a roll of
a six. A dedicated missile defence would kill on ( Possibly) on a 4, 5 or 6.
If it hit it would be allowed a second go, killing on a 5 or
6.
Finally if this hit, a final chance would be allowed, Killing on a 6. You
could also allow it to cover against fighters, killing one on a roll of a 6.
The mass / Cost of the system would have to be defined with care. Also
can it cover the ship it is mounted on ( As PDAF's) or the ships around it (
As
ADAF's ). If this system is added, the cost and / or mass of the
missiles may need changing to balance the rules. Also a missile defence system
will provide some defence against Rocket Packs, properly by reducing the
amount of Damage done. They would never beadle to kill all the incoming
rockets.
FIFTH: E.C.M. AND MISSILES, A noticeable omission is the fact the ECM or Wild
Weasel Craft have no effect on missiles. I believe that they should. (
Remember that one of the major defences against missiles today is Jamming,
Chaff, or other Electronic soft kill systems). ECM could reduce the 'attack'
range of the missile, ( 1 Die, add 1 for each extra ECM system in active
range, 1 = no reduction in range, 2.. 3 = 1 inch reduction in range, 4.. 5 = 2
inch reduction in range, 6.. 7 = 3 inch reduction in range,
8 +
= 4 inch reduction in range). The wild weasel ship would work
differently -
any missile passing within 9 inches would be attracted to words a ship using a
wild weasel system. A die roll would be allowed to see if it is attracted
towards the ship, If it is normal attack procedures would apply. OK so it may
get hit, but the loss of the ship would be minimal compared with the effect on
a larger ship. Of course you could always fit the wild weasel ship with ECM as
well..draw the missile off an then jam it so it cannot hit you and just goes
flying pass.
SIXTH: FIGHTER SCREENS AGAINST MISSILES, If this is allowed I would want to
see 'Anti fighter missiles'
One last point: Keep it balanced, otherwise Missiles will become the weapons
of choise replacing rail guns.
> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> If you ask me it's much the same thing. Of course they'd been
Whoa there! Aren't we ignoring the American "only unconditional surrender
accepted" policy? The japanese tried negotiation to lift the oil embargo.
Guess who turned that down? Guess what options that left for the Japanese?
Aren't we forgetting which "Defenders of The Free (White) World" refused
to put a clause for *racial*equality* in the Versailles Peace Treaty after
WWI?
It's amazing how black & white *both* sides still see the issue after
50-60 years.
I'm curious: What does the average American high school history book have to
say about the political situation before Pearl?
I'm just catching up with a backlog of mail... but I'm far too weak a man not
to stick my oar into the, now aging, missile thread...
In message <199704021624.LAA10972@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> Joachim Heck
> - SunSoft writes:
Hmmm.... I agree that dropping multi-turn missiles is ungood, but
I'm not terribly keen on the ones at present. Somebody wrote that they liked
the suspense of watching missiles close in, and I agree.
The influence that even a single missile has on a game is just too
great, though. Any "new system" that would force a radical re-think
of what a basic fish-and-chips ship would be like is probably a bad
thing (for a game).
> @:) SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES
I don't really see why *DAF should be less effective against missiles (any
sort of missiles) than against fighters. Fighters,
being non-disposable and built to higher specs should be more agile
and generally less hittable, if anything.
A need for simplicity suggests that *DAF fire be the same against both. That
one rule tweak alone should do much to lessen the ungoodness of missiles.
Allowing fighters to interact with them also seems to follow.
> @:) JUMP TORPEDOES: [...] When it pops out (on same turn as launched),
I'll say. I, personally, really dislike "area effect" weapons. My
personal visualisation of FT involves a scale of one-inch-to-one-
really-really-big-distance, which may be a bit nebulous but
precludes area effects because the release of energy involved in
damaging every ship in even a square-inch of table is simply too
vast to contemplate. (No, I don't like nova and wave thingies).
However, FT already has rules for area-effect damage from ships
translating to FTL (...those rips in the fabric of space-time are
nasty beggars). So you could turn this idea arse-about-tit and have
a "normal" missile with a sort of "FTL drive" warhead that gets you 1d6 damage
in 6". This gives ships a shot at shooting it down, too.
> @:) THESE ARE ONLY IDEAS (sorry to shout...), and may go no further,
I vaguely agree with this sentiment, although I definately think tweaking
missiles should be on the cards.
What I really like to see are SF rules that mesh well together, to produce a
relatively consistant model. New missile and fighter movement rules should tie
in together (with missiles less agile), *DAF systems should engage fighters
and missiles in the same way, missile damage and mine damage should tie in
together... that sort of thing.
What I, personally, am not so keen on is tendancy in SF games (generally) to
just throw in every "cool" idea that pops into a gamer's head without any sort
of structure being imposed on it. Take, say, the Nove Cannon. No, sir, I don't
like 'em (no offence intended, Jon). If you can get a gun to throw out
something like that... why not have a missile with "an uncontrolled plasma
generator and a powerful gravitic system" for a warhead?
A missile that does 6d6 damage anyone? (...then 4, then 2...)
Was there any result to the polling on new fighter movement ideas? Any
possibility of tying in missile movement?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:)
@:) > [ Why didn't the Japanese give up earlier?]
@:)
@:) Whoa there! Aren't we ignoring the American "only unconditional @:)
surrender accepted" policy?
I wasn't _ignoring_ anything. The Japanese could have surrendered
if they wanted to. Later in the war, the Emperor DID want to. It was never
impossible.
@:) The japanese tried negotiation to lift the oil embargo. Guess who @:)
turned that down?
Ok, uh... was it the US?
@:) Guess what options that left for the Japanese?
Brunei, apparently.
@:) Aren't we forgetting which "Defenders of The Free (White) World" @:)
refused to put a clause for *racial*equality* in the Versailles @:) Peace
Treaty after WWI?
What that has to do with the Pacific war I have no idea. If we didn't respect
the Japanese rhetorically, we certainly respected them in battle. Inferior or
not they were perfectly capable of killing US soldiers. I'm sure the Japanese
wouldn't have been too thrilled with "racial equality" either. That would have
made it less politically correct to subjugate all of southeast asia.
@:) It's amazing how black & white *both* sides still see the issue
@:) after 50-60 years.
I don't know how the Japanese see the issue, frankly. I think in America the
war tends to be glorified somewhat, but I've never heard the war in the
Pacific called a "battle for democracy" or anything like that. It is usually
explained at the most abstract level as being simple revenge. They attacked us
without provocation and we decided to make sure it could never happen again.
As far as I can tell from my (admittedly cursory) readings on the subject, it
was actually a conflict between two expanding empires. We got Hawaii, which
pissed them off. They got China, which pissed us off. Something was bound to
happen eventually.
@:) I'm curious: What does the average American high school history @:) book
have to say about the political situation before Pearl?
I don't think it says much. I do not recall learning anything about that at
all. I don't really recall learning much, generally, about the Pacific war in
high school though. I think the war in Europe was covered in somewhat more
detail, and definitely the political situation in Europe was covered fairly
well.
I'm pretty curious to know what Finnish high school history books have to say
about the issue. You guys were pretty much uninvolved so you may have a less
biased view than we do. Probably not so re the European theater and the
Soviets.