Oops and Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

@:) >In the real world, the missile has a choice (in @:) > any given turn) of
five points to move to.
@:)
@:) Actually, it has *infinite* points, as it can move UP TO 18" and @:) turn
UP TO 60 degrees. Even if you only allow full inches and full @:) clock
facings, that comes out as 91 places to be. But this is a @:) minor point.

Probably it's just you and me still reading this thread but I have a general
question. Do many people allow ships to move on headings other than those
which are integer multiples of 30 degrees? I think the rules actually prohibit
this but it's an obvious option that I wouldn't be surprised to see people
using. We don't use it. As for the minor point, at any given speed the missile
can move to up to five new positions by making a zero, 1 or 2 point turn in
either direction.

@:) > the attack range of the missile is only 6" so it's actually possible @:)
> for a missile moving at speed 18 to completely miss a stationary @:) >
target. Of course that would never happen, right? Why? Because the @:) >
player driving the missile would correctly predict where the target @:) >
would end up and put the missile there.
@:)
@:) You're contradicting yourself. Stationary, by definition, does not
@:) move.

True. A missile could miss a stationary target if the driver tried real hard.
A missile could hit a moving target if the driver predicted where it would be.
Better?

Here's the oops part:

@:) >   Really?  That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9).
@:)
@:) Nope. 6" RADIUS gives 12" DIAMETER. 54/12=4.5 or 5 to be on the
@:) safe side.

Oops.

@:) > Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a ship like this
@:) > would be completely unable to withstand _any_ fleet that managed
@:) > to escape the missile volley.
@:)
@:) It's not supposed to. It's supposed to fire off its missile and @:) exit
table. Zero risk. The REST of my fleet is there to kill off @:) the cripples.

This rest of the fleet is a major element that I didn't realize you were
assuming. It makes the missile boats much more useful. It also makes them
fewer in number, however (since you had to spend points on other ships).

@:) > A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS. I am still @:) >
convinced that the hit rate of missiles is pretty low.
@:)
@:) Maybe I'll do a simulation if I feel like it, but you're ofcourse @:) free
to believe what you will.

Well in any event as long as the hit chance is less than 100%, the missile
averages less than 7 damage. I would guess the damage to be
in the 1-3 range.

@:) > your "bathtub launcher" is a mass 3 thrust 8 cost 21 escort with @:) >
FTL and 1 missile. Sound right?
@:)
@:) No, since that's an illegal design. Odd masses are not allowed, @:) and in
any case, a missile weighs in at 2 mass. But you got close
@:) ;-)

Is this true? I don't think odd masses are not allowed but I'd love to be
contradicted on this since they are in almost all ways identical
to even-massed ships with one greater mass.  But they're cheaper.

@:) > This is true. This tactic is remarkably similar to the
@:) > ever-popular Kaufmann Retrograde.  There is no defense against
@:) > it, and it is completely useless for almost all real situations.
@:)
@:) No it's not. It's a completely legit tactic based on the game @:) reality.

As is the retrograde. Again I was assuming ONLY missile boats, and no "rest of
the fleet" in which case the only place this action can be used is in
(infinitely) deep space. If you ever have to defend a planet or convoy or stop
for any reason, the bad guys (who have been 54" behind you for the last six
months) catch up and destroy you. Having a real fleet improves this situation
greatly.

@:) Take a real-world comparison: A 30-knot BB outranges a 30-knot
@:) CA. The best possible tactic for the BB is to stay out of the CA's @:)
range and pound the little sucker.

This is correct. In fact, this occurred in a battle during WWI in which the
Germans, with their better optics and top armor, pounded the crap out of
several British ships before the British realized that they weren't catching
up.

@:) Yes, this is pretty boring. Yes, it will result in a number of @:)
inconclusive battles. But it IS realistic.

  True.  Now imagine the BB _does_ run out of ammo.  Imagine, for
example, that it only has, say, four shells. It fires them and they don't kill
the CA. If they have infinite fuel, the CA can follow the BB right back into
port and engage it there.

@:) Realism doesn't always make a fun game.

Tell me about it.

@:) To make this crystal clear: I never said I'd build an entire fleet @:) of
bathtub launchers.

Again I'm glad you clarified this because for some reason it sounded like that
was exactly what you were saying. Your clarified policy makes a lot more sense
and actually resembles, to a certain extent, some fleets I've used myself. I
actually like to send the missile boats into the action after but whatever.

@:) We were talking about resupply in a campaign. What does it cost to
@:) replace a spent missile (or any other one-shot weapon)? Not
@:) specified anywhere. I'm speculating it must be less than building @:) the
system completely anew.

My group has had arguments about this. Is the missile in a launcher of some
kind? Who knows. I wouldn't mind seeing this clarified in some upcoming
campaign rules from GZG.

@:) Eh? Do you think the americans were goobers because they bombed @:) the
japanese into submission rather than launch a manly amphibious @:) assault? In
real warfare, if you have a tactic the other guy @:) can't defend against, you
use it.

Too true. And in real warfare the goal is to win at all costs. In war games
the goal is to have fun first and then to win. When was the last time you
shelled out $50 for a wargame based on the US bombing of Hiroshima? That's be
a lot of fun. Interestingly, Germany vs the
Soviets seems quite popular, wargame-wise - because the sides are
fairly evenly matched. I'm generally the last guy to blame someone for
capitalizing on flaws in a game system but that doesn't mean I like such
flaws.

@:) Four? I was thinking more on the lines of 10 missiles per capital @:) size
target. A vanilla BC costs 381 pts. That's 14 missiles from
@:) bathtub launchers. An average of 3 of them need to hit -- which
@:) could leave 11 missiles to wreak havoc among the escorts.

The fact that a missile does not have a predetermined target allows it to
attack the ship you were aiming it at or, if it misses, any ship near it. This
is a handy trait indeed.

@:) The almost linear ship costs mean they are more cost effective @:) against
larger ships, which have paid more points for the same @:) evasion ability
(i.e. thrust). And you're less likely to "waste @:) damage" if your target's
big enough. Actually, they're LEAST @:) effective against Mass 2 couriers,
because those cost less than @:) the launching platform.

Hm. You're right about mass 2 of course, but there's still the question of
crippling vs killing. Missiles have a much better chance of killing a small
target than a large one (assuming they hit both) so you have to compare the
costs to repair the large target with the costs of building the small one.

@:) > pleased to see that other people have opposing (and wrong, of @:) >
course) [ views]
@:)
@:) Thank you. How flattering.

  No problem - sensitivity is my middle name.

Now I'm going to have to wait for other responses on this. I guess people
really are considering using many more missiles than I would have considered
sufficient. But then I'm used to the idea of missiles missing and it seems
that you are more into using them to cause actual damage. If you are correct
about all this missile stuff, I think some repairs might be in order (ala A
batteries). How much of an effect would allowing fighters to shoot them down
have?

> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> Probably it's just you and me still reading this thread but I have a

Well, I'd allow it IF you write it in your orders. Otherwise it's too easy to
cheat: "Yes, I was really going to turn just 1 degree..."

> the minor point, at any given speed the missile can move to up to five

And it can choose any speed from 0" to 18".

> True. A missile could miss a stationary target if the driver tried

Yeah, but I was thinking of stationary as a space station or similar "does not
and will not move".

> Is this true? I don't think odd masses are not allowed but I'd love

Check out the FAQ at http://www.geohex.com/faq1.htm

> If you ever have to defend a

Guerilla tactics can drive a conventional foe nuts, but they aren't suited to
holding territory... that's a drawback.

> True. Now imagine the BB _does_ run out of ammo. Imagine, for

You're ignoring shore defenses. And if they really have unlimited endurance,
the BB can sail around the seven seas forever... Or maybe FTL

jump is not followable.

Realistically, such a stalemate would probably be decided by who can get

reinforcements there first. The guy going home has the advantage there.

> Too true. And in real warfare the goal is to win at all costs. In

Some people don't always get this. And some of us either play with them or
don't play.

> When was the

Well, I do think all PTO strategic games are either unrealistic (no nukes,
articifical time limits or victory conditions) or very boring (just wait for
the bomb and then nuke the yellow dogs (no offense)).

> That's be a lot of fun. Interestingly, Germany vs the

Only if you play a limited timeline. The Germans can never reach Ural before
'42 winter, and after that the only victory they can achieve is to slow down
the red horde. Moscow or any other big city *might* fall, but it's pure
speculation to say that would collapse the Soviet war effort. And the reds can
and did afford 10:1 manpower losses.

> The fact that a missile does not have a predetermined target allows

Yes. Designated targets would be another choice, but that increases
bookkeeping, and to be fair the tracking abilities should be improved.

> Hm. You're right about mass 2 of course, but there's still the

Point defence is not a major issue. It takes 6 PD's to reliably stop 1 missile
(one might say it's next to useless). With linear point costs, you can afford
to fire twice as many missiles against a twice as big target, and on average
you should get twice as many hits and twice as much damage.

> think some repairs might be in order (ala A batteries). How much of

I have carrier-heavy games, so I was going to try that. I'm going to
allow fighters to attack missiles (interceptor get the bonus), because
otherwise the big&slow CVs are sitting ducks. The ridiculously low fighter
endurance means they can't even sit back beyond range if they care about
retrieving
the fighters some day -- like real carriers would.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:)
@:) > Do many people allow ships to move on headings other than those @:) >
which are integer multiples of 30 degrees?
@:)
@:) Well, I'd allow it IF you write it in your orders. Otherwise it's @:) too
easy to cheat: "Yes, I was really going to turn just 1
@:) degree..."

My group has never come up with a good answer for this. Some of us
line our ships up with the carpet-grain and some of us just let them
point whichever way they point. Note that the random facing problem gets much
worse on a carpet (compared to a table).

@:) > I don't think odd masses are not allowed....
@:)
@:) Check out the FAQ at http://www.geohex.com/faq1.htm

That's a strage FAQ, especially since Jon himself seems to think differently
on this question. Weird.

@:) > Too true. And in real warfare the goal is to win at all @:) > costs. In
war games the goal is to have fun first and then to
@:) > win.
@:)
@:) Some people don't always get this. And some of us either play with @:)
them or don't play.

I've heard this a lot lately. It's really too bad. I guess I'm pretty lucky to
have stayed in contact with people from college who "play well with others". I
do go out of my way to avoid conventions and game stores because of the horror
stories I hear from other gamers.

@:) > think some repairs might be in order (ala A batteries). How @:) > much
of an effect would allowing fighters to shoot them down
@:) > have?
@:)
@:) I have carrier-heavy games, so I was going to try that. I'm going
@:) to allow fighters to attack missiles (interceptor get the bonus), @:)
because otherwise the big&slow CVs are sitting ducks. The @:) ridiculously low
fighter endurance means they can't even sit back @:) beyond range if they care
about retrieving the fighters some day
@:) -- like real carriers would.

Sounds good. The last campaign we played used the "Buck Rogers Battle for the
25th Century(tm)" board game map, which is a schematic diagram of the solar
system, with each orbit having a number of spaces connected to nearby spaces
in the same and other orbits. We allowed fighters to attack from neighboring
spaces. That meant you could send in a fleet but leave your carrier one space
behind. Unfortunately, the campaign ended for other reasons exactly one turn
before I did
just this and finally destroyed my arch-rival and nemesis.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

Inherently, the rules assume 30 degree (1 point) turn increments, because
much of the game hinges on the written movement orders - so they need to
be as clear as possible. Of course, there is nothing to stop you modifying it
to write, say, "20 degree turn", "45 degree turn" instead if you want to, but
it will change the game somewhat. In the (proposed) vector rules, of course,
ships will usually NOT be moving exactly on one of the 12 courses, though for
ease of play we have stated that they must FACE one of the 12 points.
> @:) > I don't think odd masses are not allowed....