> Rob wrote:
> First, I don't think that weapon or ammo costs should be
Because changing the Mass of a weapon is a pretty blunt instrument -
particularly for smaller weapons. I strongly suspect that many FB2 weapons
will have different costs than 3xMass.
However, since the current SM may be underpowered - we'll know in a
couple of months when people start developing anti-granaatscherven
tactics - it may not be necessary to change the cost or mass for
improved performance.
> The way I see it, there's two good solutions:
can be fine tuned to only hit the LARGEST vessel within 6 MU of the > target
point or
Largest as an option, or always the largest?
> 2. allow a ship to use reduced radius missiles that can be set to
Why? A ship can mix ER and normal salvoes now.
> By reduced radius, I mean that the targetting radius of the SM is
And in Vector? 3" is the recommended SM engagement radius, though many
people use seem to use 4" instead - but reducing the templates further
still would make it somewhat tricky to score any hits on faster ships
:-/
Also, 3- and 4-mu templates are rather useless against thrust-4 or
faster ships in Cinematic, so variant #2 doesn't solve the granaatscherven
problem when you go up against eg an NAC battlegroup screened by Harrisons or
an ESU BDN battlegroup screened by Lenovs.
> The benefits:
> missiles too awsome (after all, an opponent could use a sacrificial
Try this in a campaign where ship size influences building and repair times.
Besides, BIG decoy ships are very expensive if you want to bring your own
"real" heavies.
> #2 would allow for easier dodging of missiles (or rather, would allow
Depends on how fast you fly, and what movement system you use. Flying
thrust-2 ships at speed 16 is doable, but they're still fairly easy to
hit :-/
Regards,
> Sindre Cools Berg wrote:
[BTW, when you reply to a digest post - PLEASE change the header to
something appropriate... I know I've sinned against that quite often too, but
I berate myself everytime I realise it]
> Though I agree with you on the need for small ships I see a problem
One small, cheap ship can soak up damage which would cripple or even kill one
large, expensive ship. Which of the two ships would you prefer to have hit, if
you're the target?
> In theory only one jammer per salvo (at least if the firer spreads
In theory, yes. In practice it isn't always that easy to be intelligent
- I've seen intelligent-looking 4-salvo spreads concentrate on a single
corvette (out of usually 4, arranged in a diamond pattern around the capital
ship they protected) more than once. (I've also seen
"stupid-looking" salvo placements ignore all decoy units completely and
concentrate on the real target, but that's rarer <g>)
> but take a decent NSL fleet with one
[Ie, the Kronprinz Wilhelm, escort version]
> you get 10 PDS + the ships own PDS on any ship in the convoy..
Any one, or any two, ships in the convoy. Each CLE (more to the point, each
ADFC) can only protect one ship at a time. However, for the cost
of those three ships (2xCLE + 1 SD), I can get about 7 SMLs. *All* of
them will hit something, and if you don't bring granaatscherven (or fly in a
very tight formation, or very fast) they're all quite likely to
hit your thrust-2 SD. 7 SMs vs 14 PDS means on average some 50 points
of damage... but with granaatscherven, they're unlikely to score any
real damage at all - some salvoes usually hit the SD, but not enough to
get through those 14 PDS.
> > on the other hand, the german capitals are the best _targets_ for
> ADAF ships IMHO...
No, the ESU do. The Beijing/BE has only slightly more PDS than the
KW/E, but its screen and larger hull lets it survive considerably more
punishment.
In addition most ESU capital ships (ie, everything up to DN size) are fast
enough to force the attacker to dodge at least some salvoes, at least in
Cinematic; NSL capitals can't dodge regardless of which movement rules you
use.
> > > Anyway I've seen missiles do excellent damage due to clever > > >
placements,
> > > but of course we have a house rule that says you can't place
<chuckle> That's never made any difference for me, and the minimum possible
distance in our games is on average 3 mu (rather than approx.
1, for you inch-measurers).
Regards,
Tom Anderson replied to Roger Books:
> > > the ultimate banzai jammer is mass 3: 1 hull, 1 engine
Roger wasn't entirely correct here - 1 mass of towing drive can only
carry 5 mass of ship, not 6.
> you still have to pay for a tender for these, so i can't see there
Very true.
The tug engine costs - when you include the hull it is mounted on, and
the normal engines moving it around - at least 1.7 points per banzai
jammer... if the tug has fragile hull and thrust-2 engines, that is. If
it is a warship with a small BJ-carrying capacity instead, it's more
like 3 points per jammer instead. IOW, the FTL-capable and FTL-less BJs
cost pretty much the same amount of points..
Regards,
> On 11-Dec-99 at 05:36, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
If
> it is a warship with a small BJ-carrying capacity instead, it's more
You obviously aren't playing campaign. You have to expect to lose all
your defense drones/banzai jammers every engagement. Any you get away
with is just a bonus.
6 mass X 0.2 is 1.2 extra mass on the tower. I didn't see any dispensation for
towing that said it doesn't get the rounding advantage.
You know what I would dearly love to see, even more than FB2 or anything else?
An official campaign game. It doesn't need to be terribly complicated. It does
need to have costs for expendable ammo and
production rules. Everyone here seems to work on different assumptions
depending on what campaign system (or lack of one) they are using.
I'll agree, if every game is a one off then you are better off with FTL
capable banzai jammers. If you are in a campaign AND your universe has no FTL
comms AND you have rules for communications FTL jammers
_may_ be better. If I were doing it my high speed communications ships
would never have contact with the enemy. If you are in a campaign and you have
FTL comms then my jammers are better. What would be nice would be a rules mod
that fixes the problem having jammers go away. I play FSE based fleets,
jammers hurt me much worse than they help me.
Oh, and for the record I still see SM's primary reason d'etre (my french is
rather atrophied) as a way to keep my fighters alive.
> You know what I would dearly love to see, even more than FB2 or
We have Top Men working on it. (to save Indy feeling obliged to reply, I'll
mention the source: Raiders of the Lost Ark)
> Roger Books wrote:
> You obviously aren't playing campaign.
Not in FT. Only in Starfire - including mixed-tech campaigns using both
Akelda Dawn technology (many non-FTL ships carried by FTL tugs)
against standard Starfire tech (all ships FTL capable).
> You have to expect to lose all
In a campaign, how do you resupply your forward forces with new non-FTL
drones after each engagement? By dedicated tugs (eg the normal supply
ships, since using your already-existing ones will inevitably cause you
logistic problems whenever you need those tugs to carry out normal tug
duties), or by withdrawing all of your capital ships to a shipyard to pick up
new drones whenever they've been shot away?
The first option only forces you to pay twice for the FTL tug capacity (plus
any maintenance on those ships), which might be acceptable. The
second puts a big crimp in your ability to sustain an offensive - or,
indeed, to defend any place which lacks drone-building capacity of its
own. Is there a third option that I've missed?
The FTL drones cost a bit more apiece than the non-FTL ones, but they
do reduce your logistic worries quite drastically.
> 6 mass X 0.2 is 1.2 extra mass on the tower. I didn't see any
True. Unless, of course, you've optimized your ships to have masses
ending in -4 (24, 34, etc) - that Mass rating normally gives you the
biggest rounding benefits. The tug drive Mass is added to the standard FTL
drive Mass before rounding, so that extra.2 would push the FTL
size above the rounding limit :-/
> You know what I would dearly love to see, even more than FB2 or
are using.
Of course they do. Unlike Starfire (just to pick a completely arbitrary
campaign system out of thin air <G>), FT isn't tied to one single background
for its PSB. That makes it bloody difficult to come up with
"realistic" campaign rules - eg, campaign for Star Wars probably
wouldn't work very well in the B5 universe, nor would a Motie-universe
campaign system work well in an SAAB setting.
> I'll agree, if every game is a one off then you are better off with
In a one-off game, the FTL-capable jammers are probably less efficient
than they are in a campaign since that's the only time you don't have
to worry about getting more non-FTL jammers forward to the front :-/
> If I were doing it my high speed communications ships
No? Then, unless it is heavily escorted, my ships will most likely be
able to chase it away, suddenly leaving parts of your force cut off :-/
> If you are in a campaign
Except for the logistics problems involved :-/
> What would be nice
me.
Of course they do - they're an anti-SM gimmick, after all. It's just
that they can be overcome by changing your tactics.
> Oh, and for the record I still see SM's primary reason d'etre (my
<chuckle> Which is of course a fair way to use them. IOW, you have developed
new tactics to deal with the jammer problem <g>
Regards,