As player of Full Thrust and new to the GZG mailing list (I apologize if this
is a redundant topic). Why does the Fleet Book use salvo missiles instead of
the more potent, in my opinion, MT missiles. Is this part of a NWO conspiracy
to have new systems that are inferior to the systems they replace and call
them an improvement? For instance, The US Navy with the original Belknap class
DDGs could shoot at and hit targets
bordering on 100-nautical miles (nm) with sixty's and seventy's
tetechnologyaka SM2ER. The new Arleighurke (AEGIS) DDGs with their SMVL
systems and nininety'sechnology can only hit at a published range of
60-nm, [in Orwellian doublespeak] what an improvement. As I learned to
play with MT missiles, I got pretty good at launching at 60mu and
hitting at 40+mu, well out of the range of retaliation from the opposing
force. Some of friends, current and former US Navy OSs & CIC men, are
better than me, ever so slightly. With Salvo missiles, while they pack
a pu!
nch
(rebutted further) they are one shot whiz-bangs and, in my opinion, not
worth the mass they soak.
Statistically speaking, the salvo missile pack will lock on with about 3.5
missiles and the defender's PDS will shoot down 3.5 missiles, therefore
hitting on average with NONE. MT missiles, that are shot down on a 6 on 1D6,
will be shot down 17% of the time and hitting 83% of the time. Further, the
range difference and seeking distance are drastically different. MT missiles
can hit up to 54mu away (in theory)
and salvo missiles can hit up to a total of 12-18mu, nearly a factor of
2/3 or more LESS.
Generally speaking, the best fleet tactics and weapons as stated by many navel
theorists are those that will destroy the enemy fleet with minimal damage to
your own(like Ma Bell's "reach out and touch someone"). Hence the domination
of the aircraft carrier as a weapons system in WWII and beyond.
Can we get MT missiles back into the game on standard fleets? I have drawn up
a few FCT designs that emphasize MT missiles over salvo missiles, though they
exist only on my hard drive.
> Thomas Westbrook wrote:
Greetings, Thomas, and welcome to here.
> (I apologize if this
[...]
> With Salvo
Further, the
> range difference and seeking distance are drastically different. MT
I'm not going to argue statistics with ya (I'm not the statistician
here; Oerjan Ohlson, on the other hand, is ;-), but I can give you
a little input for reasons for using salvos.
First, a PDS can only target one salvo at a time. Overwhelm the defenses, and
you can potentially get some hits in.
Secondly, while you could argue that you can buy more PDS' than the opponent
carries salvos, at what point do you draw the line? PDS's
cost mass, too, and the mass you put into anti-missile defenses means
that much less mass you have for anti-ship weaponry. What if your
opponent trades out salvos for, say, beam weapons in a given scenario?
Your PDS-laden ships are likely going to be outgunned.
Third, salvos do more than *damage* an opponent. Unless you want to run
straight through them, and risk taking it on the chin, you will very likely
maneuver your ships so that the salvos launched are "wasted"; i.e., don't hit
*any*thing. But what if that is what your opponent wants? He has just taken
the initiative away from you, forcing you to move where he wants you to, maybe
not necessarily where you wanted to (this can be used to break up fleets into
two or more smaller parts, allowing one to be defeated in detail while the
other attempts to come about to engage). So in *this* capacity, salvos can be
used as terrain to force an opponent to maneuver elsewhere from where they
might have originally intended.
So, there are three reasons why one might use salvos. But you have to make
sure you use enough of them. Too few and it's not worth it.
Mk
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 01:30 pm, Indy wrote:
Hang on. Perhaps we've been doing the turn sequence wrong, but aren't move
orders written before salvos are put out there?
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 01:30 pm, Indy wrote:
Whoops, kindly ignore that incomplete message I just send. Nothing of note to
read there...
As I was saying: I thought the turn sequence precluded reacting to the salvos
because movement orders are written before the salvo markers are placed on the
table. So how can salvos be used to force an opponent out of position, either
they hit and damage him, or he's moved to where he wanted to be anyway...
> Hang on. Perhaps we've been doing the turn sequence wrong, but aren't
You are correct, sir. I took it that Chris merely was pointing to the threat
of launch, though, now that I cogitate, it does sound more like your
interpretation.
The few times I've used SMs, I've tended to cluster them where an opponent
could hurt me worst.
The_Beast
Whoops! Mark, not Chris...
The_Beast
> "Flak Magnet (Tim)" wrote:
Exactly. However, your opponent has to take into account (if they are thinking
about it, that is) where salvos MIGHT be placed when they are writing their
movement orders, no? So it becomes a guessing game: does your opponent think
you are going to launch salvos now, and if so, where might you stack them, and
if you do, where can *they* move to avoid them? Or do they call your 'bluff'
and charge on in, thinking you are holding back on the salvos until later?
So, what I wrote earlier still holds. Salvos can be used as 'terrain', but
your opponent has to be thinking about what you might be trying to do and
react accordingly. Otherwise they might get smacked around a little. ;-)
Of course it takes some thinking on the part of the salvo player, as well, to
try and anticipate where the opponent might move, whether they are avoiding
salvos or if they are ignoring them.
Mk
> Doug Evans wrote:
I was gonna say...
Mk
> As I learned to play with MT missiles, I got pretty good at launching
The Islamic Federation Navy will be happy to offer you a commission...
> Statistically speaking, the salvo missile pack will lock on with about
No, on average a defending PDS will shoot down 0.8, not 3.5. Most ships have
more than one PDS, but if you can hit your target with two or three
salvos and if your opponent doesnt have a stack of Area-Defense-enabled
ships, you would expect to get some significant damage in.
> As I was saying: I thought the turn sequence precluded reacting to the
Let's say you are playing against the Islamic Fed. You don't know whether he's
launching this turn or not, but almost every IF ship carries a SM rack so if
he does launch, you're going to be hurting. Do you move into the missile
envelope? If not, you're reacting to the missiles even though you don't know
where they're going.
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> As I was saying: I thought the turn sequence precluded reacting to the
> salvos
Easy: you know where his ships could move next turn, and you know where your
ships could move next turn, and so does he; you know where you could
launch your missiles, and so does he; depending on the set-up, you could
even know each others' weapon fire arcs. In other words, both of you know
where the other would have to move in order to get into an advantageous
position in the direct-fire phase.
Now, if his maneouvre envelope is big enough that you can't cover it with a
single salvo (and for cinematic-moving ships with thrust-4 or better
engines, it usually is), you aim for the spot which - except for the
missiles - would give him the greatest tactical advantage over you (eg.
where he could get into your (A) arc, or catch your ships in his (F) arcs).
If he moves to that spot he'll have to eat your missiles before he can shoot
at your ships, giving you at least some compensation for being at a
tactical disadvantage in the direct-fire phase; if he *doesn't* go there
your missiles will miss BUT he has given up a chance to get his ships into
a tactically advantageous position - and surprisingly often he has
allowed *your* ships to get into a similarly advantageous position relative to
his while dodging your missiles. It is all about psychology: if he doesn't
want to get hit by your missiles, the mere *threat* of your missiles can have
a significant influence on his manoeuvres <g>
Later,
> Statistically speaking, the salvo missile pack will lock on with about
and salvo missiles can hit up to a total of 12-18mu, nearly a factor of
2/3 or more LESS.
> [quoted text omitted]
Hmm, I don't remember the primary and secondary moves of salvo missiles, but
aren't they more than 18 mu combined. The extended range salvo missiles
certainly are.
In any case as I recall, each PDS will only average ~3/4 of a hit.
It takes on average 5 PDS to shoot down the *average* salvo missile group.
It's rare that a ship has that many, let alone enough to handle two or more
SM's at once. On the other hand, a SM can do up to 36 points of damage if
nothing shoots at it, which is a huge potential. They are crazy powerful when
used properly. The best real defense against the SM is a screen of cheap scout
ships! :-)
Welcome to the list!
Warning: I often express myself quite bluntly and/or cynically. Don't
take it as personal hostility; I'm like this against *everyone* including Jon
Tuffley himself.
> Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> As player of Full Thrust and new to the GZG mailing list (I apologize
Nope. MT missiles under the current rules (MT+FB1+FB2) aren't
particularly
powerful - they're easy to dodge at least in Cinematic (since they can
only be launched into the launching ship's (F) arc and are about as
manoeuvrable
as thrust-2 Cinematic-moving dreadnoughts on their 2nd and 3rd turns of
flight), easy to outrun (since their max speed is a paltry 18 mu/turn)
and
easy to shoot down (PDS and Pulsers hit them on 4+, Class-1 Beams and
K-guns hit them on 5+, scatterguns and interceptor pods kill them
automatically - more on this below). If the MT missiles manage to reach
a target in spite of all those handicaps they can hit it hard, but that's one
mighty big "if" to get past first.
> As I learned to play with MT missiles, I got pretty good at launching
In that case you either used house rules giving the missiles a vastly improved
manoeuvre abilities, or your opponents had no clue about how to
avoid them.
If you had played against me using the MT rules and you had launched that far
out, none of your missiles would've hit: if you launch ~60 mu out and I turn
away your missiles will run out of endurance and expire before they
reach me, and if I don't turn aside I have plenty of space and time to build
up a velocity which allows me to overfly them. (With their "one
60-degree turn at the mid-point of their move" they can't turn back to
engage me once I'm past them, and with a mere 18-mu move they're easy to
overfly.) Been there, done that plenty of times.
> Statistically speaking, the salvo missile pack will lock on with about
Ouch. Two bad mistakes in one sentence, combining to give a completely
false image :-/
Mistake number one: if each salvo missile pack locks on with 1D6 missiles and
each PD weapon shoots down 1D6 missiles from the salvo it targets, you
still get a *positive* average number of missiles getting through -
because the *lowest* number of missiles that gets through is zero (you can't
shoot
down more missiles than there are lock-ons), and you also have a number
of cases where the PD rolls low and the missile salvo rolls high:
Number of missiles getting through for the various combinations of
lock-on
and PD rolls: PD roll:
Missile roll: 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 1 0 0 0 0
4 3 2 1 0 0 0
5 4 3 2 1 0 0
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
IOW, with 1 D6-rolling PD weapon vs 1 missile salvo there are 36
possible
outcomes, of which 21 result in zero missiles locking on - but the other
15 outcomes have one or more missiles getting past the PD weapon, and the
actual *average* number of missiles hitting is 35/36. The only way to
get an *average* of zero missiles getting past this kind of PD weapon is to
fire 6 (or more) of these weapons at each salvo - otherwise there's
always the chance, albeit small, that the PD weapons will all roll '1' while
the salvo rolls a '6'.
Second (and worse), *PDS* doesn't shoot down on average 3.5 missiles from a
single salvo unless you fire around 10 PDSs against it! While there are PD
weapons which shoot down 1D6 missiles (the Kra'Vak scattergun and the Sa'Vasku
interceptor pod, both from FB2), the FB1 PDS isn't one of them;
instead it fires a *beam* die: rolls of '1', '2' or '3' have no effect, rolls
of '4' or '5' destroy one missile from the salvo, and rolls of '6'
destroy two missiles and allow a re-roll. If there had been an infinite
number of missiles in the salvo, the PDS would shoot down on average 0.8
missiles per shot
Thing is, a salvo *doesn't* have an infinite number of missiles; it only
has 6 missiles, and most of the time not all of those 6 missiles will lock
on. Any PDS hits that exceed the number of locking-on missiles in the
salvo
are simply wasted - they don't carry over to the next salvo. Because of
this a single PDS firing at a salvo missile salvo shoots down on average
~0.7 missiles from it, and the more PDSs you throw at a single salvo the
fewer missiles each one of them will shoot down. The *total* number of
missiles killed will of course go up when you throw more PDSs at the salvo,
but it isn't as simple as saying "2 PDSs will shoot down on average 1.4
missiles" because they're going to steal each others' kills - instead 2
PDSs shooting at a single missile salvo will shoot down on average 0.66
missiles each (for a total of ~1.3 missiles killed), 3 PDSs against a single
missile salvo take out on average 0.6 each (for a total of 1.8 missiles
killed), and so on.
> MT missiles, that are shot down on a 6 on 1D6,
And a third mistake: here you are confusing the PDAF and ADAF systems from the
basic FT2 rulebook with the PDS introduced in FB1.
PDAF and ADAF shoot down MT missiles on rolls of '6' on 1D6. However, none
of the ships in FB1 have PDAF or ADAF; they all have PDS instead - and
that's a different system, with different rules.
According to FB1 p.7 PDSs kill *missiles* - not just the Salvo variety,
but
*any* missiles including the MT ones - on rolls of '4' or better. Since
the MT missiles don't fly grouped in tight salvoes each of them counts as an
individual target, so even a PDS roll of '6' can only shoot down one single MT
missile; but a 50% kill probability per PDS is pretty nasty to the missiles
anyway.
FWIW work is being done to update the MT missiles to Fleet Book status; the
UNSC AMTs is a variant of them. The UNSC beta-test rules and designs can
be found via the "Links" page on the GZG site.
Regards,
OO said:
> Warning: I often express myself quite bluntly and/or cynically.
Not "cynically", I don't think, but often "dry" and sometimes "acerbic."
> The *total* number of missiles killed will of course go up when you
kills
(Oerjan, could you post the average expected missile hits against N PDS, for
say N= 1 to 10? That'll save me having to calculate it, and you having
to correct my mistakes... ;-) )
Thomas, you might also look at the the MT Missile revision at
http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Missiles.htm#MTM-update
I don't think it's the Official Version yet but it is a widely accepted house
rule.
From: "Thomas Westbrook" <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com>
> Statistically speaking, the salvo missile pack will lock on with about
Umm... 1 PDS gets 0.8 missiles on average. The important thing is "on
average". There's a lot of variance.
e.g. I've had an ESU SuperDN with 2 Bejing-B escorts (over a dozen PDS)
wrecked by 2 SMs. I've also had an OUDF destroyer survive 10 SMs.
> Laserlight wrote:
> Warning: I often express myself quite bluntly and/or cynically.
<chuckle> Once again the fact that English is not my first language makes
itself felt. While I know what "acerbic" means, it isn't a word I would've
thought of on my own <g>
> The *total* number of missiles killed will of course go up when you
I have N = 1 to 9 at hand so can send that immediately; 10 I'll need to
re-calculate - not difficult to do, but it'll take time I won't be able
to spare until some time next week at which time I won't be able to post the
results to the list :-( ('Course, with me being effectively off-line for
the next five weeks you have plenty of time to calculate it for yourself
anyway ;-) )
Average values for 1 missile salvo faced by N = 0 to 9 PDSs (the "0" line
included for reference):
Missile kills Avg. #msl
N: /PDS: Total: hits: Avg dmg:
0 0 0 3.5 12.25 1 0.71 0.71 2.79 9.75 2 0.66 1.32 2.18 7.62 3 0.61 1.83 1.67
5.84 4 0.56 2.25 1.25 4.39 5 0.52 2.58 0.92 3.24 6 0.47 2.83 0.67 2.34 7 0.43
3.03 0.48 1.66 8 0.40 3.17 0.33 1.16 9 0.36 3.27 0.23 0.80
Note the two columns for missile kills; the first shows how many missiles
*each individual* PDS kills on average, the second how many missiles all
the PDSs together shoot down. Then there's the column answering LL's actual
question, ie. the average number of missiles that hit the target in spite of
the PDS fire; and finally the average damage (which is of course simply 3.5x
the number of hitting missiles.
As Alan pointed out these are *average* values only, and the variance is
pretty big. Just because the *average* damage from a single SM salvo opposed
by 5 PDSs is 3.24 pts doesn't mean that you'll never see a lucky SM
salvo inflict over 30 pts against such opposition; it happens - only not
very often :-/
Also note that the above values are NOT valid for PDS shooting at *fighter
groups*. The above table shows the average values for N PDSs shooting at a
target with 1D6 sub-targets, which means that if the 1D6 rolls low and
the PDSs roll high there'll be a lot of wasted hits.
However, when you're shooting at a full-strength fighter group there are
enough fighters in the target that the risk of wasting kills is low - so
the average number of kills per PDS is much closer to the theoretical 0.8 than
it is for the SM salvo. (Conversely, if the fighter group has taken
previous losses and is down to 3 fighters or less, the PDSs will on average
kill *fewer* fighters than the above table suggests.)
In fact, although the target needs an infinite number of "hit points"
(missiles in a salvo, fighters in a fighter group, hull boxes on a ship etc)
for the beam dice to really reach their theoretical average of 0.8 dmg pts, it
turns out that 6 "hit points" is infinite *enough* (<g>) that the rounding
error becomes insignificant: a lone beam die shooting at a target with 6 "hit
points" will destroy on average 0.7996 of them.
The average total losses from a fighter group with X fighters attacked by N
PDS are: X: N: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0,50 0,67 0,75 0,78 0,79 0,80 2 0,75 1,17 1,39
1,50 1,55 1,58 3 0,88 1,50 1,90 2,13 2,26 2,33 4 0,94 1,71 2,27 2,65 2,88 3,03
5 0,97 1,83 2,53 3,05 3,41 3,65 6 0,98 1,91 2,71 3,36 3,84 4,19 7 0,99 1,95
2,82 3,57 4,18 4,64 8 1,00 1,97 2,89 3,72 4,43 5,00 9 1,00 1,98 2,94 3,82 4,61
5,28
If you take the average of each row in this table, you'll get the "total
missile kills" values from the PDS-vs-missiles table above.
Later,
> <chuckle> Once again the fact that English is not my first language
I suspect it isn't in the active vocabulary of most native English speakers.
It wouldn't have been in mine either, if not for Lois Bujold.
> I have N = 1 to 9 at hand so can send that immediately
That's sufficient -- I picked 10 arbitrarily.
> Average values for 1 missile salvo faced by N = 0 to 9 PDSs (the "0"
line
> included for reference):
The IF Navy thanks you...