Assuming that BDS is in the pipeline, I've had a few thoughts about FB3. What
should be in it.
Rules:
* Sensors (and ECM/ESM etc).
* MT Missiles * Needle Beams ( although that's in FB1, no FB1 ships use em) *
Some Spinal Mount Gun? The Wave Motion Gun might be OK, the Nova Cannon is
right out! I'd prefer not to have either, but the UN SuperDread model is
crying out for one. *shrug*
Fleets * UN (Of course) * IF (the ships are available) * OU (range is very low
at the moment) * Some fluff about the IC, LLAR, etc etc using which major
powers designs?
* Perhaps some of the ships that didn't make it into FB1/2, such as the
NSL
Light Carrier (can't think of any others) or the E- or Missile-
Variants?
* NI - here we have a problem. There are a very nice range of New
Israeli ships offered, but GZG don't make them. Perhaps we should let sleeping
dogs lie.
Re new rules:
* Sensors - I like the Simple Simon versions, but that's enough of that,
others I'm sure differ.
* MT missiles - here we need to consider the things, as we now have a
directly competitive system (SMLs) and fighters no longer move 12" vs 18", but
24" with a possible extra.
Some options:
* Minimal Change - they still move 18", like ships, for 3 turns. Of
course this means that fighters will always eat them.
* Same sort of rules as ER SMLs, 36" range, 1-turn endurance. They'd be
directly
competitive to SML ER-racks, cost 5 mass each. So you could get 5 MTs
for the
price of 2 SML-ERs if they cost 2 mass each. That would do 10 dice vs 7
dice (average), but require 5 hits to destroy vs 7 (on average). And they home
in on the selected target, not the closest. Certainly under these
circumstances
they'd be not over-costed!
* Same sort of rules as Fighters/SMRs, but with 3? 2? moves
* Same rules as Fighters but: endurance 3, speed 18(say) CAN burn the an
endurance to go 6" like a fighter can 12. MUST attack closest target within
6".
This way at longer range they'd still be capable of doing damage, just you
have to guess the position of your target rather better. At short range, you
could
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
[...]
> Re new rules:
[...]
> * MT missiles - here we need to consider the things, as we now have a
I like something akin to the last two options. I always disliked the MT
missile because its maneuverability was....rather restricted (2 point
course change/turn was too few to me - esp if fighters can go any which
way).
> Feedback? Do we all agree that FB3 at least should have UN and IF?
I would like to see Jon's idea on the stats for UN, IF, and LLAR ships.
> What about a goal time - say Christmas?
Christmas....which year? With BDS and the scenario book yet to be
put together, you thinkin' 2001 or 2002? ;-)
Mk
> Rules:
Agreed
> * Some Spinal Mount Gun? The Wave Motion Gun might be OK, the Nova
I'd rather not have this in FB3. It was unbalancing before, and I don't see
any change. However, if its mechanic were changed to something more
quantifiable, it could be properly balanced.
> Fleets
..and very nice ships they are. This wouldn't prevent Brigade from publishing
something similar (Tony?)
> Some options:
I'd say 24" move with a 2 (3?) turn endurance, but homes on a specific target.
That way fighter don't automatically eat them for lunch
> Feedback? Do we all agree that FB3 at least should have UN and IF?
I do at least.
> Do we all agree that FB3 should have as a target "all the ships that
No. That's not necessary. By the time it's out, there will be more ships.
> What about a goal time - say Christmas?
I have no idea what you've been smoking ;-) A more realistic goal might
be Christmas of NEXT YEAR. These books take quite alot of time and effort to
put together.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >* Some Spinal Mount Gun? The Wave Motion Gun might be OK, the Nova
I'd also like to see a spinal weapon of some sort - the EFSB style
weapon recently discussed on the list would be a candidate.
> >Fleets
It's something that's vaguely crossed my mind, but the not-so-little
matters of copyright and intellectual property would need to be sorted out. It
would have to be something along the lines of an 'Approved For Use With...'
publication, and I have no idea whether or not St^3 Jon would want to get into
that area
(Jon ?).
Plus, of course, it would be out of date very rapidly given our tendency to
release
new models. And finally, we don't make NI ships, we make SemFed ones ;-)
From: Indy <kochte@stsci.edu>
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
I'd say 2 turns at 24" plus a 6" secondary movement (which keeps the total
move at 54" as current); OR use 2x36" instead of 2x24", which lets the missile
be faster than most fighters (no human pilots to keep the gees down) and gives
you a weapon with a range suffciently longer to be worthwhile. Still attack
selected target, not closest; anyone with a reasonable PDS suite still has a
pretty good chance of knocking them down. Unless we
add in the "ECM-assist" missile we were discussing a few months
ago.
> Feedback? Do we all agree that FB3 at least should have UN
If you'd like to lobby for saintly approval of the Islamic Fed
> I'd say 2 turns at 24" plus a 6" secondary movement (which keeps
> Still attack
Ta for the feedback. Not sure I agree, but opinions that differ from my own
are the most valuable anyway. I'll go into reasons why I differ at the bottom.
> I would like to see Jon's idea on the stats for UN, IF, and
I have a twofold problem with these ships:
Firstly, off-centre firing arcs seem contrary to the spirit of the other
designs. It's very minimaxing to have a "spiral of doom". Still, I could live
with this, as it would give the IF a distinct flavour. It might even be a Good
Thing(tm)
Secondly, and most importantly, the models are symmetric. If they were
"outriggers" like some of the NAC designs, or the OU Light Carrier, so the
left side was
distinctly different from the right side, then I'd say that off-centre
arcs weren't just allowable, they'd be desirable. But the ships are symmetric:
and IMHO (emphasis on the H here) it just wouldn't feel right to have them
with
assymetric weapons. Paired LF/F and RF/F would be fine. Even LF/LR
RF/RR. But
not LF/F or LF/LR on its own.
Trouble is, that if you remove the IF trademark assymetric firing arcs, you're
left with an FSE-like design that's possibly too FSE-like. Still maybe
not -
the Needles and MT missiles certainly make em different. If instead of 3
Beam-3s
with FL/F arcs they had 4 Beam-3s with F arc (and 2 pts to spare for a
Beam-2)
they'd be both different from anyone else, and fearsome at long range.
I was thinking of having the 1-arc Beam-3 as a trademark for the OU, but
decided
that a) modules b) lots of hull c) Nothing bigger than beam-2 was quite
enough to make em different. So that allows the IF to have it.
OK, now on to MT missile discussion.
The MT missile costs were given in FB2. So we're really bound by them, it
would need a powerful argument indeed to convince me that the Chaos and
Confusion
of changing the Mass/Pts cost would be worth any benefit.
So we have a tight constraint on the cost. Therefore, in order to balance the
system, all we can do is twiddle with the effectiveness.
Remember, a normal range SMR costs 4 mass. An extended range SMR costs 5 mass.
So a 2 mass MT missile should be about half as effective as a SMR, all other
things being equal.
Let's look at the comparison:
Range SMR range 24 vs??
Damage Unintercepted SMR does 3.5 dice average vs 4 dice for 2 MTs
Single-hit SMR does 2.5 dice vs 2 dice for 2 MTs
Double-hit SMR does 1.66 dice vs 0 dice for 2 MTs
SMRs have more uncertainty for both sides re damage, it's possible to get 36
pts vs 24 (or 1 vs 4)
Given the plethora of PDSs and Class 1s, I think the single-hit case is
probably representative (too many variables to give other than a guesstimate).
Targetting Closest Available vs??
So the effectiveness of the MT missile should be increased by about
25-50% over
the 24" Range/Closest Target of the SMR, just in order to keep the two
systems comparable. For aesthetic reasons, I'd like the MT missiles to have a
different
mechanic, one where 2MTs+1SMR are more effective than 2xSMR or 4xMTs.
Now it seems to me that a range of 72" (even over 2 turns) and hitting the
target of choice is way too much. And a range of 54" with an effective homing
range of 12" due to the secondary movement is even worse. I'd reckon 5MT
missiles
under these rules would be far more effective than 2 ER-SMRs.
2 x 24" where you can burn one of the 24" for a 6" secondary BUT then have to
hit the closest (which is to say, an effective range of 24" but you choose the
target) sounds good. Choosing the target is probably worth 25% at least. It
also allows the possibility of having a 12" homing effective radius where you
hit the closest. Finally, it allows a double-range shot with the same
restrictions as an SMR, ie hit the closest, 6" homing radius, but with a 48"
range.
A 3x18" further differentiates the MT missile from the SMR, giving a 54" range
rather than a 48" one, and allowing a "target of choice" strike at 36", at the
expense of being very vulnerable to Fighters.
Any of these would give the 2MT missile pair the 25-50% effectiveness
increase over an SMR it deserves.
An aside:
One thing I would like as a possiblility is the concept of the MTL - the
MT missile Launcher. See my Web Page on Star Trek:TOS for some details on
this.
AEBrain's IF design comments
> If you'd like to lobby for saintly approval of the Islamic Fed
I play vector almost exclusively--as my teammembers in the
ongoing PBeM can testify, sorry guys--where this is not an
issue. It would be good to have more feedback on how these designs work for
cinematic.
> Secondly, and most importantly, the models are symmetric. If
All the PDS are on the other side. :-)
> Trouble is, that if you remove the IF trademark assymetric
Still maybe not -
> the Needles and MT missiles certainly make em different. If
That's a Mameluke you're thinking of, I take it. Not a totally representative
ship. The "classic" IF ship has EITHER a mass of
Beam-2's in F/FP/AP OR a mass of SMR's and great motivation to
run in, shoot, and get expeditiously out of the way.
However, I have thought about upgrading them to Beam 3's. I'm not totally
happy with it because my postulate is the IF isn't
as high-tech as the Major Powers and consequently wouldn't have
the ability to hit at range as well the the MP's ships. Same
reason I didn't give them any torps. I suppose, though, we can
say the FSE sold them the tracking gear; by the time of the 1st Xeno War
("XWI"? along the lines of WWI and WWII?) it's hardly brand new tech.
> The MT missile costs were given in FB2. So we're really bound
(much snippage)
I agree with everything except the feel of it. I don't get the feeling that
the MT missile as described is sufficiently different.
Actually what I'd like is a [long range+hit whatever's closest]
or [short range+pick your target] choice. Not necessarily in
the same missile.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> >The MT missile costs were given in FB2. So we're really bound
A telling point. I don't agree, but the point is, that if *you* don't think
they're flavourfull enough, odds are others will be of a like mind. So they
need a bit more pep. How to do?
> Actually what I'd like is a [long range+hit whatever's closest]
Agree completely. I'd like to see them in the same missile to give them more
flavour, but it's not neccessary. But in broad terms, yes I think this is the
way to go, your post puts it well.
From: "Tony Francis" <tony.francis@kuju.com>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Concur.
> I'd also like to see a spinal weapon of some sort - the EFSB style
Concur again.
> >
publication, and I
> have no idea whether or not St^3 Jon would want to get into that area
A Nose by any other name would smell...
I'd like to use em as NIs in any event. Have the current arrangements re
exclusivity *slightly* changed so that GZG can sell em as well, at a greater
price, and pocketing
the difference as its commission/licence fee? This way, instead of a
"Join our Club and get the opportunity to pay us money" it's "Join our club
for an X% discount on the NI range", and GZG gets to make a little from its
trademark if bought (in)direct. *shrug* The tricky bit is the SSDs, if they're
in FB3 they shouldn't be on the web while it's in print.
I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn endurance, no
second movement, range 6.
I would also suggest that they need better protection from PDS. As it
currently stands, no single missile would stand a chance to hit anything
bigger than a corvette (_Each_ PDS has a 50% chance to kill it and each
Class-1 has a 33% chance, most firgates have 3+ anti-missile weapons).
So, they have to be used in a swarm tatic. This leads to fire and leave ship
designs (which I don't like <shrug>). Perhaps they should take 2 hits to kill,
or be treated as Heavy Fighters (although, this does nothing against
the scatterguns or interceptor pods). Better would be a -1 on rolls to
hit
it (PDS only hit on 5-6; Class-1 only hit on a 6; scatterguns and
interceptor pods kill it on a roll of 2-6). I still do not have an
answer to
the fire-and-leave ship design, unless you limit the number of missiles
that can attack a given target in a round, or limit the number of missiles
that can fire in a round (both bad ideas).
As for balancing them against SM missiles, I think that the PDS does this (and
will do it even with my suggested changes). It takes ~2.25x the number of PDS
to shoot down a SM salvo than 1 MT missile (as is) and ~1.5 with my
suggestion.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
Here is a radical Idea for MT missiles:
Mode 1 3 Turn indurance. Target is predesignated at time of launch turn 1
Missile moves a speed 8 ship. initial missle speed = that of launching ship.
Missile has a range of 8. turn 2 Missile moves a speed 6 ship. initial missle
speed = that of launching ship. Missile has a range of 7. turn 2 Missile moves
a speed 4 ship. initial missle speed = that of launching ship. Missile has a
range of 6.
Mode 2 3 Turn indurance. Nearest target mode is predesignated at time of
launch turn 1 Missile moves a speed 8 ship. initial missle speed = that of
launching ship. Missile has a range of 6. turn 2 Missile moves a speed 6 ship.
initial missle speed = that of launching ship. Missile has a range of 6. turn
2 Missile moves a speed 4 ship. initial missle speed = that of launching ship.
Missile has a range of 6.
Andy A
> From: aebrain@dynamite.com.au
alan,
our group's thoughts exactly -- a MT missle launcher and magazine.
however, we are still trying different mass/cost options to balance them
with SMLs. if i can find it, i'll check out your web page.
dave
From: "David Reeves" <davidar@nortelnetworks.com>
> >One thing I would like as a possiblility is the concept of the MTL -
> I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn
I'd ditch the "ship-like movement" entirely and go with the fighter
based system. I'd agree that there would have to be at least some benefit
against PDS, otherwise they'd be too easy to eliminate.
On 9-May-00 at 10:55, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (s_schoon@pacbell.net)
wrote:
> >I would go for the 36" movement (with upto a 2pt turn), 3 turn
I've always thought they would be better with fighter style movement,
move after ships, no radius (must be in base-base contact).
Too powerful? With the levels of PDSs most people have evolved to I don't
think so.
That is my one minor problem with FB ships. They were a nice starting point
but didn't go through a weapons evolution which we are seeing in the game and
see in the real world. They don't have the requisite
PDS/ADFC suites to deal with a fighter/missile heavy environment.
> Laserlight wrote:
...
> >
...
I think the problem here is that the three arc offset and the ability to roll
the ship without any penelty allows five arc coverage with a three arc cost
(in both points and mass). I should also note that the mass saved by this
system can be used to install more weapons or higher thrust, another advantage
that comes with minimal cost. If the ship could not fire while rolling, I
would not object to having to deal with this design concept.
Bye for now,
I don't have the FB2 yet, but I thought that this was addressed (somewhat) in
vector by making rotations and thrust come out of the same pool (I assumed
that rolls counted as a rotation).
In cinematic, a roll counts as a 1 pt turn. So it is not at "no penalty".
While we are on the subject of maneuvering and its effects on combat, how do
people play the "no fire through the aft arc" rule in vector?
- Cannot fire through rear arc of ship (as it is oriented during the
firing phase).
- Cannot fire through the arc that was aft when MD was used.
Since a ship can rotate (even 180 degrees) after firing MD, it makes quite a
bit of difference. I don't use the "aft arc prohibited except when MD isn't
used" rule, but wanted to know how others played it.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Andrew Apter wrote:
> turn 1 Missile moves a speed 8 ship. initial missle speed = that of
A typical battle report with this type of missile mechanics:
My missile boats approach at speed 40+. They launch outside the range
of your weapons. They FTL out to reload. Battle over. Outcome depends on
whether or not the missiles hit anything.
Lots of fun, no?
Regards,
> Alan Brain wrote:
> Rules:
The fighter screen and furball rules need revision as well. They're... not
crystal clear at the moment :-/
> * Sensors (and ECM/ESM etc).
Only pirates, custom patrol forces and others who want to capture their
victims relatively intact are likely to use them much anyway.
> * Some Spinal Mount Gun? The Wave Motion Gun might be OK, the >Nova
The Tasmanians don't seem to be overly worried about NCs or WGs
in Vector, where those weapons are easier to aim/harder to dodge than
in Cinematic. Or perhaps they *are* overly worried, and make sure no
NC- or WG-armed ship survives to fire more than once... either way
they've complained about these weapons being too weak <g>
> Fleets
*Some* ships are available, at least :-/ Hey Jon, I'm still waiting for
those IF cruisers you promised half a year ago... <G>
> * OU (range is very low at the moment)
Is the OU range is the property of GZG? I thought most of them were made by
Eureka, not GZG.
> * MT missiles - here we need to consider the things, as we now have a
The most important thing to do with the MTMs is to explicitly specify how
fighters and point defences shoot them down. AFAIK the current (FB) rule, as
implied by the FB1 PDS rules and also by the FAQ comments, is:
'Each individual MTM counts as a separate "missile salvo" when attacked by
enemy fighters or point defence weapons.'
This has several corollary implications, not least of which is that a fighter
squadron can only target one MTM per turn unless it uses a
secondary move to move into base-to-base contact with the missiles (ie,
engage them in a furball). Unless the fighter bases are very big, good missile
placement can limit the number of MTMs each squadron can furball in one turn.
Below I assume the above rule interpretation is in force; if it is changed all
the numbers below are completely out of whack:
> * Same sort of rules as ER SMLs, 36" range, 1-turn endurance. They'd
Since "1 hit" means a different number of PDS dice in the two cases, this
comparison doesn't say very much.
> And they home in on the selected target, not the closest. Certainly
Assuming the same total number of defending PDSs in both cases, the
average damage of 5 MTMs is some 30-50% higher than that of 2 SMR-ER.
(OK, I haven't checked for more than 12 PDSs (>6 per SMR) but at that point
the MTMs are pulling away from the SMRs rather than losing ground
- and the average damage of either attack against this strong a defence
is rather low anyway...)
So no, with 30-50% higher damage and a higher hit probability (since
they can't be decoyed by BJ tactics), MTMs using this mechanic are
definitely not *over*-costed compared to the SMR-ER :-/
> * Same rules as Fighters but: endurance 3, speed 18(say)
You mean that the MTMs burn 1 endurance per *turn* (+1 per secondary
move) rather than 1 endurance per *attack* (as fighters do), no? <g>
> This way at longer range they'd still be capable of doing damage, just
Uh... Better than what?
> At short range, you
This sounds like an OK compromise - slower than the SMs, but with
multiple chances to attack. If the MTM secondary move is made after fighter
secondary moves, it also gives the MTMs a limited ability to avoid attacking
fighter squadrons (unless of course the fighters burn
CEPs to furball the missiles or are screening the missiles' target) -
but at the cost of reduced range and/or accuracy.
> Roger Books wrote:
> ...my one minor problem with FB ships. They were a nice starting
The weapons evolution we are seeing in the real world is rather slow, with
most weapon systems having a development time measured in decades
rather than years - and with doctrine adjustments lagging behind tech
development, and vehicle design generally lagging behind doctrine adjustments.
The weapons evolution we have seen in our various gaming groups is
roughly equivalent to 50+ years of intensive warfare without any tech
developments whatsoever, and for the most part without any worries about
logistics (which put a rather big crimp in any attempt to create
missile- or fighter-heavy environments at any real distance from your
major naval bases :-/).
I submit that the lack of tech development during such a long period of
intensive warfare and the complete freedom from logistic problems, not
to mention the total lack of high-ranked but incompetent politicians
and officers formulating bad doctrines (cf the recent Newsweek coverage
of the Kosovo cover-up) is rather atypical for any kind of realistic
environment :-)
Later,
The faster both sides move the harder it is to hit. This type of raid may well
inflict no damage to either side. Tricks to get the other side to be
predictable are the fun and the risk.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Andrew Apter wrote:
> The faster both sides move the harder it is to hit.
Correct. Which is why virtually all "battles" worth fighting are
high-velocity missile raids on orbital installations or planets, where
the defenders can't dodge.
Even more fun, no?
Regards,
So the real defense is using mobile units to intercept. To raid, you must
evade pickets without expending your missiles, almost like a bomber
penetration. AA
[quoted original message omitted]
> Andrew Apter wrote:
> So the real defense is using mobile units to intercept. To raid, you
Intercepting high-speed, high-thrust ships is about as impossible as
hitting said ships with missiles, unless those ships want to close with you.
With virtually infinite missile ranges, they don't want to close with you.
Hope you'll have fun playing planetary bombardments.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I think what Oerjan is trying to point out is that the original play
mechanic has some issues which make it a 'game-breaker' in terms of
tactics, given certain assumptions.
For example, the balance in FT changes when ships are travelling at high
velocity versus low velocity (e.g. fighters and SMLs are much more deadly with
low average velocities.) Since I play on a small table (whenever I have time
to play, which is a different
problem (8-) ), I never see high speeds. My feel of FT is different
from Oerjan's since he plays on large tables in cm (if memory serves.)
If you play on a small table, with hard boundaries, you don't have
to worry about effectively unlimited missile ranges - extreme
ranges only become a problem if you have the space for extreme range.
This is actually my one small gripe with FT. (oh God, I'm going to
start a flame war, aren't I? (8-) ) The feel of the game is
so dependent on the size of the table you have. It's true for miniature games
in general, but the FT movement system makes
it more apparent. It's something that can't really be 'fixed' ->
it's just an artifact of the movement system. I love the game in general, and
I don't usually worry about it.
Now, I'll go back to lurking, and let myself get toasted. (8-)
J.
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@pronetusa.net>
> I think the problem here is that the three arc offset and the
I disagree that there's any automatic advantage to side arcs in large melees
where ships come from all directions. Plus rolling to cover the"other side,"
even in smaller conflict is a maneuver decision that can have severe penalties
if you guess the opponent's move wrong.
Re: NI timeline:
> 1) It must have been one He** of a Sha'Vasku fleet, 'cause they cannot
Whyso? The NI/IF conflict was ~500 points of ships, the KV another
5-600.
The Phalons come in with 500, when about 700 (mostly KV) or so remain from the
1st three groups, so if the Sa'Vasku arrive with only about 1000 points, they
should be able to take everyone. Hardly a big fleet needed.
> 2) We can presume the NI did not get alone with the Sha'Vasku at the
I was under the impression that that "first contact" meeting was
non-hostle.
> From Oerjan...
> ...but the first contact between Phalons and humans was in 2191...
Ah! Erk!
Best make the year 2192 (or 3), then.
G'day guys,
> * Some Spinal Mount Gun? The Wave Motion Gun might be OK, the >Nova
No we're not overly worried, we're not worried at all, though that was under
old vector, under new I haven't come up against them yet. Even then though it
would really only be the nova cannon that I'd be concerned with. When you
think how much damage the beams etc can inflict when you let lose and then
compare it with a system that does a few dice worth in a tight beam and
doesn't let you fire any other system its a twiddle. The more I see
discussions like this (and even the MT missile comments from Mikko) the more I
see the difference between the two styles of play.... cinematic seems to be
very much based on movement with quite a few turns and reasonable levels of
damage per turn whereas vector is faster (shorter number of turns total) and
much bloodier (more damage per turnhence shorter games). I guess with out
realising it this was one of the reasons we stayed
with the longer SM ranges in vector - given how bloody everything else
tends to be they just seemed too weak if you only used 3".
Cheers