A smarter SML would have to give up something. How about making they are more
fragile so any PDSs fired
at them get a +1?
Or any ship with PDSs, not needing an ADFC, can fire at any salvos that go by
them if the salvoes would have normally attacked that ship?
just tossing some ideas around.. Glen
In a message dated 12/6/99 11:02:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> owner-gzg-digest@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> < Donald Hosford wrote:
> GBailey@aol.com wrote:
SML's are fairly balanced if you use the ships in the fleet book. When you can
attach 3 mass 2 towed drones to every major ship (at a whopping 6 points each)
suddenly SML's are broken, this is just an attempt to correct the problem.
You know, maybe only playing with official designs is the way to go...
G'day Roger,
> You know, maybe only playing with official designs is the
I seriously hope you're takin' the mick!;)
In an effort to contribute something positive to this palava here's my 2
razoos worth...for what little they're worth (I haven't been keeping complete
track lately so sorry if this is little more than a "me too")
1) I like the idea that if you pay a little more you can specify "only hit
things bigger than size x" (I've been as frustrated as any at seeing my
primary armament all end up in an SC), as for a downside I think the extra
cost and potentially not having anything of the right size class in range is
enough
2) FB SCs work just as well as Banzai Jammers at diverting salvos and both may
well be a justified defence (I know we've heard in the past from plenty of wet
navy guys that say it's used today more or less) so I'd keep the option of
having the standard cost SMs as well... its budget time in planetsville and
defense cuts are on the books, does your govt feel confident enough that it
can forgoe the higher cost for enhanced SMs and still beat those pesky
jammers...?
3) Didn't jammers get invented a few of months back because people though SMs
were too strong... "Aw!#%@^ I lost my BB to 3 salvos what can I
do"?
Is it just me or does this sound like the usual arms race issue (or am I over
simplifying here, probably)?
4) I'm not a great FTer, I get kicked more often than not, but I can tell
you that reverting to that oldie, but goldie - combined arms (send in a
flyby of CTs with submuns or something and coordinate fighters and SMs, but
I guess you've heard it all before) - can go along way to beating those
jammer/ADFC overload problems... Kra'Vak I've yet to figure out <well
I'm not going to admit if I had with a campaign adversary listening, G'day
Br'Ian ;) >.
5) Don't expect games with SM intensive races in them to be of the same
form and flavour as beam shoot-outs. I wouldn't blame people for not
taking FSE to tournies where there's a stipulation you must play x turns a
game, as they're just not going to be able to do it, but they're not made to
either.."fire and flee" that's more their style.
6) There isn't any really, I just got carried away in the numbering of points
thing;)
Anyway, just a few thoughts I'll topple of this heady perch and back into my
hole now...
Cheers
Beth
> Roger Books wrote:
> SML's are fairly balanced if you use the ships in the fleet
Even with these, the problem still remains: for just over 100 pts per BB, I
can completely eliminate all SMLs in the opposing fleet. (eg 4 Stoschen per
Maria). Try it some time, eg a mix of: 3 Maria von Bs 2 Escort Cruisers 10
Corvettes
vs an equal number of points of FSE. Or even a superior number.
G'day Alan,
> 1) I like the idea that if you pay a little more you can specify
What about 4xmass instead of 3x? Do you think that's enough? I wouldn't go for
straight double the cost as that seems too high to me.
> 2) FB SCs work just as well as Banzai Jammers at diverting salvos and
I'll take your word on that... (Beth gets sudden image of Alan dressed in a
Tux, martini in hand saying "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill
you"...)
> Good point. But, and IMHO, the idea of the FSE was to have a
I agree and getting the mix right on that one is a tricky bag a worms.
> But right now, they have no effective first strike, and just play
That may well be the case, at the rate of arms/tactics escalation that
was going on down here when I left the three weeks I've been out of the game
is probably too long to give you an accurate answer re the current situation
here.
Cheers
Beth
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> 1) I like the idea that if you pay a little more you can specify "only
Any suggestions as to points cost?
> 2) FB SCs work just as well as Banzai Jammers at diverting salvos and
...and the proposed counter to them is also pretty close to current reality
too. Usually by narrowing the seek area, but that's not something I can go
into in detail.
> 5) Don't expect games with SM intensive races in them to be of the
Good point. But, and IMHO, the idea of the FSE was to have a devastating first
strike, but not one that would automatically be a game winner. After the
strike was launched, they would be on just slightly less than even terms, so
losses on both sides would be the same after awhile, and the outcome would
depend on the skill of the admirals.
> Beth wrote:
> >> 1) I like the idea that if you pay a little more you can specify
A tiny cost increase for a rather massive improvement - eg, a Jerez
would cost 301 pts with these improved SMs compared to 293 without them
(+2.7%), a Roma would cost 389 instead of 377 (+3.1%). The impact of
such a small cost increase is less than the impact of winning or losing
the initiative on any given turn in a 10-turn battle, but the impact of
the SM targetting change is very big indeed.
Doubling the cost of the SMs would have a measurable impact on the
game, but even that may well be too cheap for the ability it buys - it
would allow me to hit NSL-style heavies with 90+% of the SMs I fire at
them in Vector and Cinematic both (unless they fly faster than speed
~24 in Cinematic, but not even I fly that fast with thrust-2 ships very
often!). Sure, heavy ADFC/PDS outfits help, but they tend not to be
enough against the Missile Boat Swarm from Hell.
No, I don't have any better solutions myself :-/
Regards,
> Roger Books wrote:
> GBailey@aol.com wrote:
I'm just a little bit curious about this banzai jammers/SML thread
(Could someone please enlighten me to what a banzai jammer is?)?
I our games, we've never had that much problem with small ships
escorting...though we use Fleet Book only designs, and try (sometimes at
least) to make logical fleets. Of course most larger ships have smaller
escorts but that's the point right? And isn't it better to spend the points
you spend on surrounding the large ship with small corvettes on some proper
escort cruisers or other ships with overlapping ADAFs? In that case at least
they can shoot back and take some serious pounding.
Though in my little experience (I've only played FT for a few months) the real
missile problem is the german missile destroyers played by a good german
player.:)
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 escort ships closer to
the big one than the miniature allows...
Hope this made some sense, as it's my first post to this list
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Sindre Cools Berg wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
in my understanding (which is far from perfect), a banzai jammer is a tiny
ship designed purely to absorb SM fire, and die doing it. 'jammer' because
they interfere with SM fire, and 'banzai' because they expect to die (that
term may be culturolinguistically inaccurate, but it clearly communicates the
intent). the ultimate banzai jammer is mass 3: 1 hull, 1 engine (thrust 8) and
1 FTL motor. 9 points in total.
> I our games, we've never had that much problem with small ships
which rules out the use of extreme banzai jammers.
> and try (sometimes at
which probably rules out the use of massed scouts as off-the-shelf
banzai jammers.
however, i think there is a good case for banzai jammers being realistic, to
some extent. basically, those tiny ships have jobs other than banzai jamming;
i refer to such tiny utility ships as 'granaatscherven', Dutch for 'shrapnel'.
in the Tuffleyverse (the universe described in the rulebooks), there is no FTL
signalling, only ships. thus, for a fleet to keep in touch with bases, other
fleets, etc, it must have an armada of
small ships suitable for courier work. the mass-3 ship mentioned above
would actually be pretty good for this. furthermore, a fleet needs scouts
to run around looking for the enemy, and those mass-3s do this well too
(or you could use mass 6: hull 1, engine 2 (thrust 8), FTL motor, superior
active sensors, 44 points). there are a multitude of other jobs suitable for
granaatscherven, too: carrying area ECM (these have done their job once the
fleets reach combat range, although one might want to keep them alive: they're
expensive!), intercepting enemy scouts and couriers, fleet security (checking
on other ships in the area), etc.
> Of course most larger ships have smaller
this is a point of debate. on the one hand, proper escorts obviously give
better sustained defence than banzai jammers - escorts defend by giving
ADFC-driven PDS support, whereas jammers defend by getting in the way
and dying, and as such are a very limited resource. on the other hand, it
takes a very heavy PDS barrage to stop a large SM salvo in its tracks, whereas
it only takes a handful of jammers (or is it just one? i forget the details of
the rules.) to do the same. what it comes down to is do you
want all-round area defence, in which case you take ADFC-PDS escorts
(which can defend against fighters and MTMs, too), or do you want cheap
protection against SMs, in which case you take banzai jammers.
> Though in my little experience (I've only played FT for a few months)
on the other hand, the german capitals are the best _targets_ for SMs
ever invented:).
> Anyway I've seen missiles do excellent damage due to clever
that sounds like a very sane rule, and one that i imagine is played by most
people.
> Hope this made some sense, as it's my first post to this list
it was a model of clarity. welcome aboard!
oh, and don't worry about the SG2 guys, you get used to 'em eventually
:).
tom
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Sindre Cools Berg wrote:
because
> they interfere with SM fire, and 'banzai' because they expect to die
Thank you (and Alan) for the explanation.
> > I our games, we've never had that much problem with small ships
Though I agree with you on the need for small ships I see a problem with the
willingness for a fleet to sacrifice large amounts of small usefull ships just
to soak up damage...In a campaign it would mean a non-FSE fleet would
need as much resupply of small scouts as the FSE would of missiles (i..e. you
trade one banzai jammer for each salvo). Not to mention the morale effect
etc...
> > Of course most larger ships have smaller
In
> > that case at least they can shoot back and take some serious
In theory only one jammer per salvo (at least if the firer spreads his
missiles in an intelligent fashion), but take a decent NSL fleet with one
Super-Dreadnought as the main ship. With 2 overlapping Light escorts you
get
10 PDS + the ships own PDS on any ship in the convoy..I've seen in
played that way and it is really a hard nut to crack without severe losses
(I'll gladly accept any good hints on how:) and that without banzai jammers...
> > Though in my little experience (I've only played FT for a few
I don't know really, the NSL fleets have the best Fleet Book equipped ADAF
ships IMHO...
> > Anyway I've seen missiles do excellent damage due to clever
In a message dated 12/9/99 8:54:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
> Doubling the cost of the SMs would have a measurable impact on the
Having played both FSE and NSL, I have been following this thread pretty
carefully and feel it is finally time to weigh in--
First, I don't think that weapon or ammo costs should be increased--all
weapons in Fleet Book cost 3x mass so why change that? The way I see it,
there's two good solutions:
1. increase the mass of each SM salvo by either one point or double
(depending upon what playtesting reveals). These increased-mass SM can
be fine tuned to only hit the LARGEST vessel within 6 MU of the target point
or
2. allow a ship to use reduced radius missiles that can be set to ignore all
ships below size 50--and a ship must use either these or the old ones.
By reduced radius, I mean that the targetting radius of the SM is only 3 (or
4, once again determined by playtest) MU instead of 6 MU.
#1 would work fairly easily and not slow the game down, as a ship could only
mount one kind of SM due to some PSB about launcher compatability (you know,
like a Harpoon tube not being able to launch an Exocet). In our games, we use
numbered chits for marking locations of SM target points, so that it
would not take a great deal of effort to just use different markers for the
heavier missiles. The same could go for #2.
The benefits:
#1 would reduce the missile load out of ships, but still not make the missiles
too awsome (after all, an opponent could use a sacrificial BIG ship
during the approach to effective beam range--backed up by some ADFC/PDS
equiped ships like the area defense version of the Kronprinz Wilhelm).
#2 would allow for easier dodging of missiles (or rather, would allow NSL
heavies to at least have a chance of dodging), yet would allow the missiles to
ignore escort class vessels.
And none of these would add a die roll or slow game play (though some players
may take a while deciding what their loads are going to be on various ships).
Whaddyathinkaboutthemapples?
Rob
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Sindre Cools Berg wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
there's obviously a balance to be struck here. on the one hand, a fleet with
no granaatscherven is obviously in trouble on the strategic scale (no
communications and no scouting). on the other hand, given the choice between
losing two or three granaatscherven and losing a battleship, what admiral will
throw away the BB?
perhaps fleets will need resupplies of granaatscherven, in the same way that
they will need resupplies of fighters. given that granaatscherven
(mass 3-9) are closer to fighters (mass 1) than cruisers (mass 60) in
mass, maybe they should be seen as large small-craft rather than small
ships. they are usually pretty simple, so they should be easy to
mass-produce. yes, it's a nasty way to look at things, but it makes a
certain twisted sort of sense.
> Not to mention the morale effect etc...
well, there is that too. i PSB my way out of it by saying that the
granaatscherven are semi-robotic, so if they are used as banzai jammers,
the crew can bail out.
> > > And isn't it better to spend the
i don't know exactly how many PDS the SDN has; by looking at the FT Ship
Registry, i guess it to be 4. that's 14 PDS in total. that kills about 7 SMs,
i think, which is 2 dice. thus, on average, only the first two dice in a salvo
will be stopped. that's pretty good, and when the average salvo
is 3-5 dice, probably enough.
tom
> Sindre Cools Berg wrote:
> I'm just a little bit curious about this banzai jammers/SML thread
The term comes from current naval practice. Basically, a frigate (small, 3000
tonne vessel) carries a "blip enhancer" which when activated makes it look as
big as a 90,000 tonne aircraft carrier to a radar.
When the 100+ enemy missiles are incoming, the "banzai jammers" are
supposed to turn on their blip enhancers, so at least the majority of the
missiles will go for the "expendables" instead of the CV (carrier).
Not a popular duty.
Hence the application to a flotilla of small corvettes surrounding a BC or
above, so the salvo of 6 SMs all go for a single unlucky ship, which is
overkilled, leaving the value target untouched.
> Though in my little experience (I've only played FT for a few months)
Oh, you mean Waldberg-M's? Yes, I agree. The viewpoint that the NSL
would get severely handicapped by _reducing_ (not eliminating) the
effectiveness of banzai jammers don't consider that with Waldberg-Ms in
small numbers they get an advantage too.
> Anyway I've seen missiles do excellent damage due to clever
I use SFB miniatures (Star Fleet Battles), usually using NSL SSDs from teh
fleetbook. My Andomedan Intruders are of necessity on large, relatively high
bases. The satellite ships are on small, low bases. I can fit about half a
dozen underneath an Intruder, and rest them on the same base.
I don't have an FSE fleet myself. It's just that using NSL I've found that the
use of expendable Frigates is a perfect defence against large numbers of SMLs,
and against small numbers the ADAFs get them all. Meanwhile my opponents are
forced to use the same tactic, or my Waldberg Ms get them. If the tactic was
disallowed, or its effectiveness reduced,
I think you're math is a little funny, Tom.
average missiles per salvo = 3.5 average PDS kills = 0.8 => 4 PDS per salvo
so 14 PDS would eliminate 3-4 complete salvo's on average if split.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
> -----Original Message-----
> RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> Having played both FSE and NSL, I have been following this thread
Good, the more the merrier.
> First, I don't think that weapon or ammo costs should be
IOW KISS. I agree.
> The way I see it, there's two good solutions:
To have them the same cost and mass as an ER would be easier IMHO. I'm not
radically enthused about it, but neither is this a bad idea.
> 2. allow a ship to use reduced radius missiles that can be set to
By
> reduced radius, I mean that the targetting radius of the SM is only 3
Now this one I like. Very much. The only thing agin it is that you must
distinguish between which missiles are "tight pattern" and which "broad
pattern". Niggling, but not a huge concern.
> #2 would allow for easier dodging of missiles (or rather, would allow
Concur. I like this solution.
Summary: I now see 2 solutions which I really like more than the others:
On 9-Dec-99 at 18:47, Tom Anderson (thomas.anderson@univ.ox.ac.uk)
wrote:
> the ultimate banzai jammer is mass 3: 1 hull, 1 engine
No, the ultimate banzai jammer is mass 2: 1 hull, 1 engine (thrust 14) no ftl,
it is towed. 1 mass of towing drive can carry 3 of these pups.
Roger
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Roger Books wrote:
> On 9-Dec-99 at 18:47, Tom Anderson (thomas.anderson@univ.ox.ac.uk)
wrote:
> > the ultimate banzai jammer is mass 3: 1 hull, 1 engine
you still have to pay for a tender for these, so i can't see there will be
much of a saving. plus, you then have to worry about protecting the tender.
also, you lose the excuse that granaatscherven are also useful as
couriers and FTL scouts. i'm not saying the no-FTL plus tender approach
is necessarily worse, just that it isn't particularly better. both are valid
approaches.
it may also be worth bumping the mass up and loading a PDS; that way, if it's
hit by a small salvo, it has a chance of surviving.
tom