Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

11 posts · Jun 9 2006 to Jun 14 2006

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:16:32 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> --- Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:

> One of my nephews/admirals ... and developed a commendable ambition to

I have been working with the group I game with to come up with a version of
salvo missiles that probably covers what you are looking for. Take a look and
see what you think:

REVISED MISSILE RULES PROPOSAL The goals of this rule proposal is to address
the problems of the existing Full Thrust rules for salvo missiles while
remaining within the parameters set through discussion on the GZG mail list.
The parameters set by the
GZG-list
are that a missile system is not to have a movement or V dependant on the V of
the launching ship.

The problems with the existing rules to be solved are: 1) The "place missile
marker, then it looks for targets" game mechanic is really the biggest
problem. The game effect of the placed marker system where missiles are used
as an area denial weapon like artillery is used in ground combat is the
biggest source of “suspension of disbelief” in the game.
 The
fact that the missiles are not targeted at a specific ship or squadron also
contributes to #3 below.

2) The close second is the inherently inaccurate missiles of the existing
"1d6 missiles lock-on" game mechanic.  SF/Sci-fi missiles are usually
portrayed as much smarter than this. The vast majority of misses should come
from
defensive fire or evasive/deceptive defenses such as Stealth Hull or
ECM.

3) The inherent stupidity of the missile seeker systems which blithely attack
the nearest target, rather than seeking a specific target.

4) The "1d6 lock" mechanic limits the launchers to salvos in multiples of 6.
A "roll to-hit per missile" mechanic would allow for future development
of a
range of SML/R’s with varying numbers of missiles.

5) There is a sharp break between the existing SM rules and the
MT/Heavy
Missile rules. A smooth spectrum of missiles is more desireable. The
beta-test AM-Missile could also be integrated as a variant warhead type.

While reading through these rules, keep in mind that the change to a "roll
to-hit per missile" game mechanic will allow the FB1 standard 3 MASS,
9PV SML to be balanced in the game by adjusting the number of missiles in the
salvo to find the balance point if so needed. I.e. if these rules are
acceptable but
they make SMs more powerful than their FB1 MASS/PV, the size of the
salvo can be adjusted to 5, 4, or 3 missiles per salvo to bring them into line
with their
MASS/PV.  The reverse also obviously works if these rules are found to
make SMs less powerful.

Definitions: A “Salvo” is all of the missiles from a single launcher. A
“Volley” is all of the salvos of a single type from a single ship directed
at a single target.

We represent a Volley with a SM marker with the number of missiles on the
marker represents the number of SALVOES in the Volley, and the die represents
the number of missiles in the last Salvo.

Using Salvo Missiles Standard salvo missiles have a 24MU Range. This
represents their powered attack envelope. They also have a terminal attack
range of decreasing effectiveness. They are targeted against a specific target
ship/station/facility/installation, not an area of space.

1) When writing ship orders, note whether the ship is tracking targets for
SMs.

2) After orders are written, but before ships move, announce which ships are
tracking targets for SMs, and which targets each ship is tracking. Each ship
may track a number of targets up to the total number of FCS that the ship has.
A FCS used to track a particular target for SMs are dedicated to that target
for the rest of the game turn. They MAY NOT be switched to a different target
during the Fire phase, but they MAY be used to direct other kinds of fire,
such
as beams, p-torps, or k-guns, at the SAME target as they were tracking
for SMs. Any FCS not declared as tracking targets for SMs is free to direct
any fire EXCEPT SMs at any target during the Fire phase as normal.

3) After ships have moved, any ship that has been tracking SM targets may
launch SMs at them. There is no requirement that a ship must launch at any
target that it is tracking. It may track several targets and choose to launch
at none, one, some, or all of the targets that it is tracking. A ship may not
launch against a target that it did not declare as being tracked in #2, above.
To avoid gamesmanship, all players write down their launches and reveal them
at the same time.

4) Place volley markers for launch. Each launch platform places one volley
marker for each target representing all of the salvoes fired at that target by
that launch platform. E.g. Ship A fires 3 salvoes at Target B and 1 salvo at
Target C.  Place a single 3-salvo Volley counter against Target B and a
single
1-salvo Volley against Target C.
If the Target is farther away than the SMs Range, place the Volley counter at
the end of its Range along a straight line from the launch platform to the
Target. If the Target is less than the missiles Range away, the place the
Volley counter directly against the target along a straight line from the
launch platform to the Target. For each full 6 MU less than the SMs maximum
range the missiles traveled, they may either (launching player's choice)
adjust the direction from which the missiles attack by up to 30 degrees OR
receive 1 "terminal attack point" for evasive maneuvers against PD fire. E.g.
if the range to the target was 12MU less than maximum range, then the Volley
can either a) adjust the direction of the attack by 60 degrees b) receive 2
Terminal Attck Points or c) adjust the direction of attack by 30 degrees and
receive 1 Terminal Attack Point

5)  Perform anti-missile and point defense fire as normal.  Note that in
some cases the direction of the attack will affect which PD or other weapon
systems can bear on a particular Volley. All PD and anti missile fire is
alloted against Volleys, not individual salvoes, so the amount of overkill may
be reduced compared to FB1 rules. For each "Terminal Attack Point" that the
Volley has, the effectiveness of PD
and ant-missile fire is reduced.  For weapons that score their PD/AM
rolls as beam dice, treat the number of TA Points as the level of screens that
the
Volley has.  For weapons that score their PD/AM rolls as straight die
scores, reduce the score by a number of points equal to the number of TA
Points that the Volley has.

6) When it comes time for the Volley to attack their target, roll one die for
each missile remaining in the Volley. This roll represets a combination of the
missile's guidance quality and all of the non-PD/AM tricks that the
target does to try and spoof, decoy, distract, or mislead the missile into
generating a miss. For Volleys attacking within their Range, each missile
successfully
attacks the target on a score of 2+.  For Volleys attacking outside
their
Range, add +1 to the To-Hit number for each full MU between the target
and the Volley. E.g. missiles in a volley placed at the limit of its Range
measures
0.5MU to its target will have to roll a 2+ To-Hit, while one measuring
2.5MU to
the target will need to roll a 4+ to successfully attack the target.

7) For each missile that hits, roll and apply damage as per FB1.

STEALTH, ECM, AND FCS So far, the description has assumed that the target and
missiles all have Standard ECM, Stealth, and FCS (missile guidance) as
described in my post of:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200509/msg00077.html
However, this SM proposal is perfectly capable of being used with differing
levels of Stealth, ECM, and Guidance as follows:
* For each level of Stealth Hull and/or ECM the target has above
Standard
(Level 3), increase the missile's to-hit target number by 1 (more
difficult to
hit).
* For each level of Stealth Hull and/or ECM the target has below
Standard
(Level 3), decrease the missile's to-hit target number by 1 (easier to
hit).
* For each level of Guidance the SMs have above Standard (Level 3), decrease
the missile's to-hit target number by 1 (easier to hit).
* For each level of Guidance the SMs have below Standard (Level 3), increase
the missile's to-hit target number by 1 (more difficult to hit).
* For each enemy ship within 1MU of the target and/or 1MU of the
missile's flight path with an active ECM system equal to or greater in Quality
to the
missile's Guidance, increase the To-Hit target number by 1 (more
difficult to
hit).

SALVO MISSILE SIZE, RANGE, AND WARHEAD CLASS The missiles so far described are
the same as the ones from FB1; 24mu range and a 1d6 warhead. This is a Size
Class 1 missile. Other sizes of missiles and warheads are available.

Warheads are rated by the number of dice of damage that they do. e.g. a class
2 warhead does 2d6, a class 4 warhead does 4d6, etc. Warheads larger than
class 1 are available in integer sizes (2, 3, 4, etc.). Warheads smaller than
class 1 are available in Light (1/2d6, or 1d3) and Mini (1d1, i.e. 1
point).

Missiles are available in the same sizes as Warheads.

A Standard Missile carries a Warhead equal to the missile's size with a range
of 24MU. E.g. a Standard SM1 does 1d6 with a range of 24MU, a Standard SM3
does 3d6 with a range of 24MU, etc.

A missile of a given size class can carry a smaller warhead in exchange for
extended range, at a rate of +12MU range for each size class reduction
of warhead. Below Size 1 is Light, then Mini. E.g. an Extended Range SM1 does
1d3 (Light Warhead) with a range of 36MU, and a Long Range SM1 does 1 point
(Mini Warhead) with a range of 48MU; an ER-SM2 does 1d6 (class 1
warhead) with
a range of 36MU, a LR-SM2 does 1d3 (Light Warhead) with a range of 48MU,
and an
ELR-SM2 does 1 point (Mini Warhead) with a range of 60MU, etc.

A missile of a given size class can carry a larger warhead in exchange for a
reduced range: +1 warhead size for a -33% range (16MU) or +2 warhead
sizes for
-50% range (12MU).

These various warhead/range combinations are interchangeable within a
given SM size class, however they are not changeable during the game. I.e. you
decide
before the game how many of your salvoes are SM1, ER-SM1, SM1+, etc.,
but you may not change them during the game.

SALVO MISSILE LAUNCHERS SM launchers are described by the class and number of
missiles that they launch. A launcher can only launch a single size missile.
E.g. a SM1 launcher cannot launch size 2 missiles nor can it launch Light
missiles.

The 3 MASS launcher from FB1 launches (subject to adjustment by the list) 6
class-1 missiles each time it fires.  This is described as a SM1L6 or
SML-1x6.

There is available a range of launchers all having the same MASS and cost as
this FB1 standard launcher. I am not sure how they balance, but the larger
missiles should probably have more total dice per salvo to compensate for
loosing several dice damage for each PD/AM hit, e.g. SML2x4, SML3x3,
SML5x2, or SML2x5, SML3x4, SML5x3, SML9x2, etc. (I realy am not sure how the
size/number
ratio should balance); while the smaller ones should probably be around
SML-Lx9
or x10 and SML-Mx12 or x15, this could all change if it is determined
that the SM1 launcher should fire salvoes of fewer or more missiles to balance
the new game mechanics. At the extreme end of this range will be a launcher
firing a
single very big SM, maybe SML-12x1.  It is a true capital ship killer,
but each
takes only 1 PD/AM hit to swat down.
Additionally, there can be larger and smaller launchers, e.g. a 2 MASS SML1x3,
and a 4 MASS SML2x6, SML3x5, etc.

SALVO MISSILE WARHEAD TYPE So far, we have only addressed normal type
warheads, like those in FB1. Once
the number/size of missiles per salvo is balance, we can address a range
of warhead types as follows:
* Standard Warhead - damage as per FB
* Beam Warhead - stand-off weapon that fires Beam Dice at target ship,
affected by screens, but lesser chance to shoot with PD/AD/AS
* Nova Warhead - Big Boom area affect weapons, lesser chance to shoot
with PD/AD/AS, replaces beta-test AM-Missile
* Hyperspace Warhead - no boom, warhead/missile transists/jumps to
FTL/hyperspace instead of detonating, damaging nearby ship(s)
* Interceptor Missiles - Mini warheads (and appropriate range)
specialized to attack fighters and missiles.

Would any of these ideas help with your nephew?

Any thoughts, comments, discussion from the List?

J

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@g...>

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:29:25 +1000

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

Wow! There's a lot of interesting ideas here. I'm not sure *I* fully
understand them, and I think they'd be a bit complicated for my admirals and
their opponents (oldest 14 years). Certainly this goes well beyond integrating
heavy missiles into FT2.5.

I may comment further once I've had a chance to analyse this.

Best regards, Robert Bryett rbryett@mail.com

> On 09/06/2006, at 12:16 PM, J L Hilal wrote:

> I have been working with the group I game with to come up with a

<SNIP>

> Would any of these ideas help with your nephew?

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:49:14 -0500 (CDT)

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> From: J L Hilal

Most of this seems workable. I'd suggest:

a) all missiles (salvo and HM) launch after ships move, and thus can attack
their intended targets if they're close enough. Perhaps have 6
endurance points, each of which is good for 6mu movement--not
necessarily all in the first turn. Unused END could be used for terminal
attack maneuvers, more or less as you suggest.

b) delete the FCS tracking stuff for simplicity's sake.

c) I also concur that we need some ECM/ECCM interaction instead of a
straight 1d6 lock on. You might still miss a 50 year old tramp freighter, but
you'd expect to do better againt that target than you would against a first
rate stealthed and ECM'd NAC cruiser.

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:47:44 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> --- laserlight@verizon.net wrote:

> >From: J L Hilal

Whether it is done as EF or the way I proposed are both fine with me.

However, I would not want multi-turn missiles as long as they are
prohibited from carring V from turn to turn; they will simply be left behind
in actions with a higher base V. The second thing to consider is the number of
EF.
 Your
suggestion of 6EFx6MU results in a powered envelope of 36MU, 50% larger than
either my proposal or the FB1 SMs. I suspect that that would further alter the
game balance of the 3 MASS system.

Finally, I would hope that the place of MTMs/beta-HMs would be taken by
the larger classes of SMs, resulting in a clean spectrum without a big break
in capabilities, powwer, or game mechanics

> b) delete the FCS tracking stuff for simplicity's sake.

Thats fine, but I'd want to keep the limit that FCS used for actual launches
are commited to that target for the rest of the turn.

J

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:05:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> --- Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:

> Wow! There's a lot of interesting ideas here. I'm not sure *I* fully

Simply the game mechanics of using it are pretty easy. The more complicated
part is the various combinations of warhead/range and the larger classes
of SM. If you just take the first part of the post, up to where it says:

"7) For each missile that hits, roll and apply damage as per FB1."

and maybe take LaserLights's suggestion to drop the pre-movement target
tracking, it should be real easy. If your nephew has been reading Weber's HH,
then the Stealth, ECM, FCS quality stuff should be easy to introduce.

The range/warhead stuff can be added a few games later, when you are
comfortable with the first part. This is just a wider spectrum of the existing
ER-SM concept from FB1.

The different size classes definately needs playtesting to find the right
balance, but flows naturally out of the range/warhead concept.

> I may comment further once I've had a chance to analyse this.

Please do. I am happy to answer any questions, and I'd like to get feedback
from outside my regular gaming group.

J

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:09:43 -0400

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> However, I would not want multi-turn missiles as long as they are

In my experience you usually shoot missiles at targets that are closing on
you, so the missiles don't normally get left behind. I grant there are some
occasions where that isn't the case.

> The second thing to consider is the number of EF. Your

There are other proposals out there--one of which is for SM to move 18mu
x 2 turns.

> b) delete the FCS tracking stuff for simplicity's sake.

JonT considered that for the original MT missile rules but decided against it
for simplicity's sake.

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:23:37 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:

> > However, I would not want multi-turn missiles as long as they are

> From what I have gathered from the List, most people line up their

In several of the early iterations of patches to the SM rules that we tried,
the use of multi-turn missiles also brings up alot of questions that
tend to complicate the entire missile topic greatly, such as the
maneuverablity of the missiles. The answer to this initial question usually
brings up a lot more as the thoughts are followed to their natural
conclusions.

> > The second thing to consider is the number of EF. Your

I was just being conservative in my proposal by keeping the existing range
envelope. I am trying to fix the parts of the SM mechanics that bother me, not
make SMs into a superweapon. That said, I have no objection to increasing the
range of standard SMs if the general consensus is that this does not make them
overpowered, and with the stipulation that they may expend their full
endurance in a single game turn, even if they are later given the option for
multi-turn
persistance.

J

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:59:57 -0500 (CDT)

Subject: Re: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> From: J L Hilal

IME those tend to turn into mutually-closing pretty rapidly--which is
what you'd expect when fire arcs are centered around F arc. Do you tend to use
broadside arcs?

> I was just being conservative in my proposal by keeping the existing

No problem, I had two concepts in mind for those two proposals:
a) 6mu/Endurance gives you a pretty easy way to change the max range for
a missile. There's no reason ESU and NAC and FSE and so foth all have to
have the same performance/range. And if you're out at the edge of your
powered envelope, your chance of hitting should go down.
b) the 18+18 suggestion was originally put forth by someone else, but it
offered and interesting idea--on the first turn, your missiles launch
after ship movement, so they can seek their intended targets if you're close
enough (and your ship won't overrun its own missiles); on the second turn
things are handled as they are now for SMs

I am trying to fix the parts of the SM mechanics that bother me, not
> make SMs into a superweapon. That said, I have no objection to

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:48:47 -0500 (CDT)

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

responding to myself:
> b) the 18+18 suggestion was originally put forth by someone else, but

Note that if you're closing on the enemy, this suggestion means your missile's
range increases by your ship speed, since you're launching from your end point
rather than your start point.

From: Jared Hilal <jlhilal@y...>

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> --- laserlight@verizon.net wrote:

> >From: J L Hilal

Firstly, the group of people that I play with all prefer cinematic movement
(just making sure there's no confusion). Secondly, all our games are played as
a scenario, never as "show up with X points and we'll shoot each other for a
while". So both players have a goal, which may or may not involve actually
blowing up the other force, even when told to "show up with X points".

e.g. #1
Blue force is transiting between A and B (jumpgates, planet &
jumpgate/hyperlimit, etc) with convoy (freighters, troop transports,
parts for the sunbuster superweapon, the Heir Tertiary, etc.). Red force is
trying to raid convoy. Long table edges are 12 and 6. Set up in corners of
table edge 6, blue facing
12, Red facing 1 (or 11, as appropriate), starting V=30, 1MU = 1/2 inch.
Blue must get X convoy ships off of table edge 12 on scrolling play area. Red
must disable or destroy Y convoy ships

e.g. #2
Blue force is transiting from jumpgate/hyperlimit to inner system target
(planet, outpost, station, shipyard, etc.) with intention to bombard. Red
force is trying to defend target. Long table edges are 12 and 6. Set up in
corners of table edge 6, blue facing
12, Red facing 1 (or 11, as appropriate), starting V=40, 1MU = 1/2 inch.
Blue must get ships with X operational PTLs or SM salvoes off of table edge 12
on scrolling play area to successfully bombard target. Red must prevent
bombardment of target.

Since the playing area scrolls, in order to count towards victory Blue ships
will need to be at least 1 table width (short edge) away from farthest red
ship still engaged. Disengaged Red ships will be left behind.

Finally, To acually answer your question, most of the ships have wider than
1-arc weapon mounts.  Common patterns are 3-arc weapons overlapping F,
4-arc
weapons overlapping F and A, or 5-arc weapons overlapping 120-degrees
each broadside.

> >I was just being conservative in my proposal by keeping the existing

Any limits to where the marker is moved, such as arcs or turning
limits/rates?
On the second turn, is the player required to maneuver the salvo against the
original target or can he maneuver it against a different target? If the 2nd
turn move is before ships move (you said "handled as they are now for
SMs"),
how can you tell if the player is maneuvering against what target? Can the SM
marker turn around and chase down targets that overflew it? Can a player
intentionally shoot at a target out of range so as to get the salvo on a
target next turn at the same time as a new salvo from the same launcher,
effectively doubling his throw weight?

We encountered alot of these questions in our trials of various SM variants,
which is why I am suspicious of multi-turn missiles as either complex
rules-wise or open to abuse if using simple rules.

J

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:20:38 -0500 (CDT)

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

> To acually answer your question, most of the ships have wider than

If your strongest arcs are FP F FS, I'd expect you to try to close on
your target and vice versa, so it turns into a head-on (more or less)
pretty quickly. But it sounds as if your firepower might be pretty evenly
spread.

> Any limits to where the marker is moved, such as arcs or turning

On the first turn it has to go in the launcher's covered arc. In the second
turn, I'd say it can go anywhere.

> On the second turn, is the player required to maneuver the salvo

No--you may have a target in mind but you don't have to announce it.

> Can the SM marker turn around and chase down targets that overflew it?

Yes.

> Can a player intentionally shoot at a target out of range so as to get

Yes, although your opponent knows the first missile is out so actually hitting
with that first missile is a bit tricky.