From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:05:40 +1000
Subject: Re:SML's, PDAFs and Banzai Jammers/Escorts
> Tom Anderson wrote: > > 'AI scout' (Have to find an appropriate name for the function) > my first granaatscherven design was even more cheesy: > i then have variants filling other offline roles such as scout, ECM, Something I've been toying with is the Decoy ship. Basically, any Really large vessel would carry a number of them on board (using the usual Tug rules). Basically an unarmed drone with 1 hull and some thrust. What's the smallest effective FTL ship? I would suggest: Mass 3 1 PDF Thrust 6 FTL Hull 1 ie one of the shrapnel. A PDF gives a minimal anti-ship capability (ie can be used effectively vs unarmed targets), and as a bonus, a minimal anti-fighter capability. I would suggest that as regards Anti-Fighter rules: PDAF can shoot at anything attacking them within 6", and anything at all within 3" ADAF can shoot at anything attacking them within 12" and anything at all within 9" Why the bonus for "being attacked"? Basically, anything attacking is an incoming target. Assuming the PDAF kill mechanism is a relatively slow missile using newtonian mechanics, it can be launched further away if the target's incoming. It can even intercept if it's slower than the target. But crossing targets are more difficult, and receding ones can't be intercepted at all if the missile's slower. Assuming the PDAF is based upon a passive ECM sensor, then an attacker "illuminating" the ship with the PDAF will be targettable at a greater distance. This might also explain why in the rules "as is" you can only use a PDAF vs an attacker, and can use an ADAF vs an attacker of another ship (whose firing solution you can use if and only if you have ADAF). Regarding game balance, if you allow ships with nowt but PDAF to engage non-attacking fighters at 6", then the fighters get screwed by a cloud of midget PDAF-armed gunboats picking them off as they come in to attack. Worse, it becomes worthwhile to buy cheap 3-mass escorts as "Fighter Hunters" to go round searching for fighters to beat up on. Shades of the SFB Pseudo-Fighter... wouldn't be too bad IF they cost a lot more! Make the range 3", and you'd need many more of them, so it would be more effective to have them as "close escorts" which rather appeals to me. Regarding SMLs, I've found the "cloud of midges" to be an insuperable defence aginst them (I only play cinematic BTW). I can get the SMLs into 6" of the target most of the time (over 75% in fact), but can't get them within the 1/4" required. Should I try to "blow away the chaff" with beams, then the opponent has too many shots with beams and pulse torps without reply so by the time the chaff is gone, so is 1/3-1/2 of my fleet, and the number of SMLs available is also halved. Now in current Naval warfare, the _more sophisticated_ missiles can be given various parameters to look for in targets: ignore ones under a certain size, for example. But "Banzai Jamming" where a small ship uses a Blip enhancer, corner reflector etc to make it appear bigger, is a common practice. This can be worked around, but at the cost of increasing the chance that the missile will not acquire any target at all. How would we make SMLs more target-sensitive, assuming this is a worthwhile goal? Obviously if they're more effective, they should cost more. Options for SIMPLE rules mechanics: a) "Smart" SMLs cost X points more, same mass (ie more effective and certain to do damage if correctly placed, but at a cost - and makes an undesireable exception to the "cost proportional to mass" rule for weapons) b) Roll twice for the number of SMLs hitting a target, and take the lower value of the two. (Guarenteed that some will get through, BUT you'd have to roll seperately for each, so would be a pain if you use lots, not recommended) c) Roll dice for the SMLs as normal, subtracting X from the result. (Means that sometimes the SMLs will miss entirely, but those that hit will hit the right target, not a decoy)