Torpedoes

I have been reading the rules for firing Pulse Torpedoes and I have a bit of a
problem. It states that a FireCon use to fire a P.Torp may not be used for
fing at anything else so here's my problem.

Can you use ONE FireCon to fire multiple Torpedoes at the same target, or must
you use a FireCon for each Torpedo tube used regardless of which target it
fires at?

Thanks in advance.

Date sent:  8-AUG-1996 09:34:15

> I have been reading the rules for firing Pulse Torpedoes and I have a

> Can you use ONE FireCon to fire multiple Torpedoes at the same target,

> Thanks in advance.

> -Kelvin.....

I'd use one firecon per target, so you can fire a volley at a single target
with a single firecon.

> kx.henderson@qut.edu.au writes:

@:) I have been reading the rules for firing Pulse Torpedoes and I @:) have a
bit of a problem. It states that a FireCon use to fire a @:) P.Torp may not be
used for fing at anything else so here's my @:) problem.

** ACTIVATE RULES LAWYER MODE... ** RULES LAWYER MODE ON **

@:) Can you use ONE FireCon to fire multiple Torpedoes at the same @:) target,
or must you use a FireCon for each Torpedo tube used @:) regardless of which
target it fires at?

In fact if you read closely you will notice that the rules state "engaging a
target with Torpedoes requires the use of one Fire Control system...". Sounds
to me like you can fire any number of torpedoes at one target with only one
fire control for the whole shebang. This is the kind of thing that makes ships
with six pulse torpedoes so painful.

** ACTIVATE NORMAL HUMAN MODE... ** SYSTEM ERROR... PLEASE REBOOT SELF

Drat.

On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 09:54:51 +1000 (EST) Kelvin
<kx.henderson@qut.edu.au> writes:

> Can you use ONE FireCon to fire multiple Torpedoes at the same target,

My feeling is that since they are VERY specific about the pulse torpedo
launcher, I ahve always played that each tube requires a firecon.

> In message <19960808.092854.8463.1.StarWarsNut@juno.com> you wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 09:54:51 +1000 (EST) Kelvin

> From the way the particular rule is written, I'd say a single FireCon

If they do each need their own individual FireCon, it can make them very
expensive (especially for smaller ships, which can't afford to spare the
limited number of FireCons they get free).

> On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

> kx.henderson@qut.edu.au writes:

Oh, EXCUSE ME!!!!! I'm not trying to be rules lawyer here!! I just wanted to
make sure that I am NOT screwing my friends over when I play using the Torpedo
ships I like to field. I just got the feeling that when I read the rules
closely that in a battle I had just fought that I had used my cruiser badly by
firing both torpedo tubes a one target with one FireCon and firing the "B"
battery at another target with the other FireCon. That's all. I apologise if I
have taken your reply the wrong way, but that's how it feels.

> In fact if you read closely you will notice that the rules state

> kx.henderson@qut.edu.au writes:
@:)
> @:) On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
@:)
> @:) > kx.henderson@qut.edu.au writes:
@:) >
@:) > @:) I have been reading the rules for firing Pulse Torpedoes and I @:) >
@:) have a bit of a problem. It states that a FireCon use to fire a @:) > @:)
P.Torp may not be used for fing at anything else so here's my
@:) > @:) problem.
@:) >
@:) > ** ACTIVATE RULES LAWYER MODE... @:) > ** RULES LAWYER MODE ON **
@:)
@:) Oh, EXCUSE ME!!!!! I'm not trying to be rules lawyer here!!

Never said you were.

@:) I just wanted to make sure that I am NOT screwing my friends over @:) when
I play using the Torpedo ships I like to field. I just got @:) the feeling
that when I read the rules closely that in a battle I @:) had just fought that
I had used my cruiser badly by firing both @:) torpedo tubes a one target with
one FireCon and firing the "B" @:) battery at another target with the other
FireCon. That's all. I @:) apologise if I have taken your reply the wrong way,
but that's how @:) it feels.

Well, as far as screwing your friends over, isn't that what combat simulation
games are for:P? While I might have recommended firing your torps AND the B
battery (for that oh so satisfying "debris cloud the size of a small
continent" effect), I don't think you did anything wrong in a technical sense.

Actually, I've gotten the feeling from reading this group that I am probably
one of the worst rules lawyers here. I'm not much into exploiting weak points
in the rules for personal gain, but since my group is doing campaigns with
ship construction as a major part of the theme, we tend to end up running into
rules problems. I wrote a scenario (we were testing rules changes proposals)
recently and I couldn't believe how satisfying it was to have three capital
ships in the game and still only have six A batteries on the entire field! You
would never see that if people built their own ships, because when people
build their own ships they go into **RULES STATISTICIAN** mode and they notice
how much better A batteries are than anything else. They also notice how much
better mass 36 cruisers are than mass 19 cruisers. Stuff like that. So I've
been closely reading the rulebooks in an effort to determine exactly what they
meant, and I think I've got a lot of stuff (like firecons for pulse torpedues)
straight in my head. Why not share the wealth(?), right?

> I'm not much into exploiting weak points in the rules for personal

I have the same problem. Everyone wants to put a ton of A bats on EVERYTHING!!
I don't want to put in a bunch of rules like "no more than
x%
of mass may be deployed as A-bats" or anything but I am sorely tempted.
You want people to build balanced designs, something akin to real navies but
all
they want is to find the game system's "super-weapon" then equip their
entire fleet with as many of them as possible. What in the world do you do
about this??

James

> On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:

> I have the same problem. Everyone wants to put a ton of A bats

Simplest way is to increase the mass of A batteries to 4. While this
isn't perfect, it changes the A from straight-out better than the rest
to something which spends close-range firepower for better range.

Of course, the vulnerability of A batteries to treshold checks is a good

argument too; increasing their mass puts more emphasis on it.

Regards,

> At 10:36 PM 8/9/96 +0000, you wrote:

> You have this problem even with equal point value games? True, 'a'

It's a definite problem. One of my group's players (for a quick
equal point game) put together a capital ship with 14 (!) A-bats and a
screen generator. That's it. Now if you think that's bad--wait for
it--he
had no point defense in his entire fleet!! The battle was a four way free for
all and one player had a ton of missiles on his ships but he chose to use them
against a player whose fleet was closer to his. The other two players had
neither fighters nor missiles to exploit his fleet's weakness. Now personally,
I think building a fleet with no point defense and cramming
the hulls with A-bats is so bad as to nearly be obscene but there's
nothing in the rules to prevent it. I'm also pretty sure that if after every
abuse I put in a rule like "you've got to have so many point defense systems
in your fleet" or something people will feel so bogged down by my added rules
that they won't want to play anymore.

James

> Paul A. Neher writes:
@:)
> @:) On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:50:39 +0000 JAMES BUTLER writes:
@:) > I have the same problem. Everyone wants to put a ton of A @:) > bats on
EVERYTHING!!
@:)
@:) You have this problem even with equal point value games? True, 'a' @:)
batteries are the weapon of preference, but if you limit the point @:) value
per side to the game, wee have found you run out QUICKLY! @:) Also, wee have
seen while 'a' batteries are more preferable in @:) combat, once thresholds
are suffered and you lose those precious @:) 'a' batteries, there's something
to be said for the 3 'b' to 2 'a' @:) ratio. Anyone involved in a campaign
would see that, especially @:) when damage continues from battle to battle
unless repaired at @:) space dock...

  Hmmm... Our ships never seem to survive a battle - we're about to
start our fourth one-battle campaign :)

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:50:39 +0000 JAMES BUTLER
> <JAMESBUTLER@worldnet.att.net> writes:

You have this problem even with equal point value games? True, 'a' batteries
are the weapon of preference, but if you limit the point value per side to the
game, wee have found you run out QUICKLY! Also, wee have seen while 'a'
batteries are more preferable in combat, once thresholds are suffered and you
lose those precious 'a' batteries, there's something to be said for the 3 'b'
to 2 'a' ratio. Anyone involved in a campaign would see that, especially when
damage continues from battle to battle unless repaired at space dock...

> On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:

> It's a definite problem. One of my group's players (for a

> James

Things tend to balance out if you pit two rules lawyers together. Similar to
the above case, there is "nothing in the rules" about making a special hull
carrier that is Mass 12, loading a single fighter bay and throwing dozens of
micro carriers into battle. This was done once in our group with both the
fighters and carriers attacking as kamikaze ships (i.e. the fighters didn't
care about endurance and attacked at every opportunity and the carriers
attempted to ram at every opportunity.) After this we instituted flak ships to
make it more diffifult for fighter swarms and tacked on VP costs for fighters
lost as well as carriers. Of course the next time we saw a swarm of Needle
beam armed ships. A few well placed Nova cannon shot eliminated or diverted
the swarm long enough for A batteries to eliminate a significant number of the
swarm. If
this swarm was applied to the above 14 A-battery ship, I would place the
bets on the swarm since only 3 ships per turn could be killed by the large
ship and the swarm only needs three fire control hits to knock out the larger
ship. The only good way to fight a swarm is to have multiple fire
platforms with sufficient firepower to knock down 1-2 of the swarm each
turn. This forces players to spread out their firepower in designing ships,
that is until someone generates a supership capable of knocking out
1-2 of the medium sized ships per turn. Then you enter the standard
cycle of various tactics being rotated endlessly to take advantage of a
deficiency of another tactic. At this point they either figure out that it's a
vicious circle and make more reasonable ships or stop playing because they
figure the game is pointless when played with swarms.

> In message <19960809204558.AAA18993@LOCALNAME> James Butler wrote:

> It's a definite problem. One of my group's players (for a

Hmm... I must admit to going very much the same way for my own fleet design. I
have a special 'mauler' class of capital ships which consist of armour (my own
armour rules, which are somewhat more expensive and detrimental than the
Kra'vak ones), plus A batteries, with one or two PDAFs to fill out the odd
couple of points of spare mass.

Such Maulers though never work alone - they are always accompanied by
other ships loaded with fighters, generally interceptors, which are
used exclusively for anti-fighter defence.

I see no reason why a fleet should be forced to use PDAFs/ADAFs. If a
fleet has no anti-fighter defence, then it's a weakness in the fleet
to be exploited. In the case of my fleet, I've sort of plugged the hole by
using fighters in that role. Of course, using interceptors means I've no
fighters for attacking ships, but that's what I use the maulers for.

As for the sole use of A batteries (not a single B or C battery in the entire
fleet), this comes from liking long range weapons. The fact that
A batteries _are_ better than the smaller batteries on a damage/mass
basis is an added bonus. In the real world, if you had a similar choice of
weapons, the military would also go for the weapon which is the best for all
situations. Since such a weapon doesn't exist in the real world, you get use
of multiple weapon types.

One fix for the A battery might be to make it only do 2d6 damage within 12".
That way, a B or even C battery is better at close range.

In message <Pine.ULT.3.91.960809165756.26286A-100000@essex.UCHSC.edu>
> Binhan Lin wrote:

> Things tend to balance out if you pit two rules lawyers together.
Similar
> to the above case, there is "nothing in the rules" about making a

I've done something similar (but haven't yet had a chance to try out the
fleet) with a 'raider' fleet. Basically, nothing larger than
escort sized vessels, with the larger (mass 16/18) being carriers,
and using needle beams and EMP missiles.

It just seemed too good a use for my _Silent Death_ models...

> After this we instituted flak ships to make it more diffifult for

Presumably ships armed with lots of ADAFs/PDAFs?
We could have done with those in our last battle against the Kra-vak
(24 groups of heavy/long range/fast fighters - they made total mincemeat
of one of the human fleets in just a few turns).

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 20:46:00 +0000 JAMES BUTLER
> <JAMESBUTLER@worldnet.att.net> writes:

Here's my pint of view for what it's worth... let the player pack his ship
with 'a' batts if he wants to. Eventually through necessity, the other players
will use alternative systems to compensate. If a player packs with 'a' batts,
use mines, torpedoes, missiles, fighters, swarm tactics. Eventually the folly
of the 'a' ship will be self evident. Actually, the best weapon in the game
isn't the 'a' batt.... it's the EMP missile. Look at the rule sometime. If you
saw my previous post on the Star Wars ships, 4 EMP missiles and a fighter
swarm took out two VSD's! Missiles were launched at 36" as were the fighters,
enemy ships received minimal damage... the missiles impacted, taking out the
majority of the VSD systems, and the fighters cleaned clock withouut the enemy
fleet hardly firing a shot!

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:19:18 -0600 (MDT) Binhan Lin
<Binhan.Lin@UCHSC.edu> writes:

> Things tend to balance out if you pit two rules lawyers together.

Actually, the rules say you have to be capitol class to carry fighters, but I
think it's silly. In Star Wars and many other Genres, EVERYTHING with mass
carries fighters for self defense... it's the best there is!

> This was done once in our group

> the bets on the swarm since only 3 ships per turn could be killed by

> large ship and the swarm only needs three fire control hits to knock

> cycle of various tactics being rotated endlessly to take advantage of a

Like you said, through time it all balances out. You get fighters, I get
*daf's and lots of c's. You get A's and I get pulse torpedoes and shields. You
then get fighters and we com full circle. We've never had a problem.

> James Butler wrote:

> I have the same problem. Everyone wants to put a ton of A bats
You
> want people to build balanced designs, something akin to real navies

I know the "how to balance the A-battery" question is one of the oldest
debates on this list, but has anyone tried limiting the number of firing arcs
by class? One of my pet peeves is that since a 3-arc beam takes up no
more
mass (and only a few more points) than a 1-arc weapon, everyone tend to
use
3-arc weapons all over the place. This makes perfect sense from a
max-effectiveness point of view, but I feel having limited firing arcs
enhaces positional tactics, so I've been toying with the following idea:

A-bats can have only one firing arc
B-bats can have up to two arcs
C-bats can have up to three arcs

Has anyone tried anything similar?

> I know the "how to balance the A-battery" question is one of the oldest

Well, I haven't placed any specific restrictions on batteries in my B5 ship
designs other than what 'felt' right. If I felt a battery on a particular ship
had justification for multiple arcs, I went with it. But if I felt that the
battery(ies) should have more restricted arcs (2, or even 1), I just simply
designed the ships with that in mind.

Most of the B5 ship designs I've come up with are forward-arc heavy,
moderate
to the sides, and, well, in some rare cases have a few aft-arc weapons.

Mk

PS: Scott, whaddya doin' online? ain't'cha supposed to be gettin' *married*
or somethin'?!?  ;-)

> Paul A Neher wrote:

> Actually, the rules say you have to be capitol class to carry

Actually, I believe this refers solely to the standard designs. That's why it
lists specific classes, not "only capital ships". At least, that's the way I
remember it.

On Aug 10, 1996 17:41:15, '"Back from the woods, time to learn how to use a
> fork again..."' wrote:

> Well, I haven't placed any specific restrictions on batteries in my B5

But in the B5 case, the designs and the weapon layouts are pretty much
dictated by what shows up on the series as the episodes progress. The big
question is: where the designs aren't influenced by an outside source, what
sort of limitations have people used to encourage more balanced ship designs?

Restricting battery arcs sounds like a pretty sensible idea.

In a message dated 96-08-10 16:52:11 EDT, you write:

<< A-bats can have only one firing arc
 B-bats can have up to two arcs
 C-bats can have up to three arcs

Has anyone tried anything similar?

 Scott Field

> [quoted text omitted]
We have gone to using the following system. Many people will not like it since
it has fractional values, but we don't mind.
                                                          mass
Battery 1 arc 2 arc 3 arc
A                                  2                    3
                    4
B 1 1.5
                 2
C 0.5 0.75
   1

This has done a lot to improve beam weapon balance (imo).   The three
arc A batt no longer dots every ship, people are using a lot mor single arc
weapons, leading to more maneuver. B batts are becoming more popular. The
C-batt retains its anti-fighter capability.  In our last game. I think I
was
the only player using 3-arc A's.  the others were using a mixture of B's
and one or two arc A's with C's as point defense. All costs remain the same.

Regarding the "unrealistic" ship debate. Our group tries out a lot of whacky
designs and battle schemes. Sometimes they work (Like when one player made
several mass 100 gun monitors, each with only 10 AA batts. These were
protected by Aegis ships and minelayers.) Sometimes they don't. The player
when building this fleet is going for the jackpot. Either a crushing win or a
crushing defeat, since these fleets always have gaping weaknesses which will
be lehally exploited if the opponent shows up properly equipped. If someone in
your group is spoiling others fun with consistent rules lawyering,
just don't play with him/her.  Otherwise, have fun with this flexible
and fun game.

Later

Brian

P.S. Have to disagree about the EMP missile. Any ship with level 2 or 3
screens is not likely to get hurt at all. And thats if the missile arrives in
the first place. They are pretty good for smacking cruisers, but what
isn't..... Then again, my fleets are crawling with
anti-fighter/anti-missile....

> On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 FieldScott@aol.com wrote:

> I know the "how to balance the A-battery" question is one of the
Yes, but with the addition that bigger batteries _can_ fire through more

arcs - but the mass goes up. In this way, you can have ships like WW*
dreadnoughts, with turreted main guns - but you won't have very much
else.

The points are not a very effective limiting factor in the game, but mass is.

Later,

> Sam wrote:

I use one firecon per target for all pulse torpedoes bearing on that target.
It would seem logical that the same weapon type could share a single firecon
for the same target since the weapons operate the same(same rate of fire,
range, etc. - essentially using the same target solution).  It would
appear that the manual follows this approach with weapons such as needle beams
sharing firecons, but not sharing a firecon with another weapon type.

I agree. Pulse torpedoes require one fircon per tube. Otherwise, their fire
control is no different than an A battery.

Okay, I'm probably coming at this discussion from the wrong way (I'm covering
"standard" rules as opposed to a debate on "house" systems), but sue me; I
just got back from 15 days in Uruguay so I'm doing a little catch-up.

Pulse Torpedos: so long as a FireCon is dedicated solely for PulseTorp fire,
any number of tubes may fire at that target using that FireCon. If you wish to
engage another target with PulseTorps, then you need another FireCon.
 If
you want to fire beams, you need another FireCon. Best way to view this is
that FireCon rules for PulseTorps work just like they do for Beams, but the
two systems are mutually exculsive. The one FireCon per target, per weapon
group (ie., beams or PulseTorps).

Morgul, aka Morgan Keyes Sine Pari Airborne All The Way!

> I agree. Pulse torpedoes require one fircon per tube. Otherwise,

I disagree- I belong to the "Pulse torp or torps require a firecon,
which can't simultaneously control anything else" faction. Pulse torps are
already dire, so they don't need any extra disadvantages!

Rob

> Morgul wrote:

How was it in Uruguay? At the recent Auburn Cord Duesenberg auction this past
weekend, two old roadsters(open wheel torpedoes) from Uruguay were sold off.
They made some awesome sounds, but I preferred the muscle cars and exotics
like Ferraris(especially since I got a chance to drive four of them!:)) and
such. I only noticed one military vehicle this year, an old Willys Jeep.

> Pulse Torpedos: so long as a FireCon is dedicated solely for PulseTorp

Ditto.

Seems like there's not much of a consensus on this issue. I tend toward the
"one fire con per torpedo target" school myself, but I could make an argument
for the "one fire con per torpedo" side, too. Hmm...any chance of getting an
"official" ruling, Mike Elliott? (Which, of course, we will then be free to
ignore if we don't like it...I love GZG!)   :-)

In a message dated 96-09-04 11:18:49 EDT, you write:

<< Seems like there's not much of a consensus on this issue. I tend toward the
"one fire con per torpedo target" school myself, but I could make an argument
for the "one fire con per torpedo" side, too. Hmm...any chance of getting an
"official" ruling, Mike Elliott? (Which, of course, we will then be free to
 ignore if we don't like it...I love GZG!)   :-)

Scott Field >>

Well, at GenCon Mike Miserendino and I both had Jon Tuffley (the game
designer) viewing our games. Both of us ran the "one FireCon per Torp target".
That seems fairly official on a ruling right there. Seriously, a FireCon is
the targeting and sensor system. Similar weapons should be able
to share the data provided by the FireCon.  Even telemetry-hungry
weapons like Needle Beams can share a FireCon when they are targeting the same
area. Given the different firing solutions between beams and pulse torps, they
need seperate FireCons to work their respective shots, but on the same target
all similar weapons should be able to share the targeting data.

Morgul, aka Morgan Keyes Sine Pari Airborne All The Way!

> Well, at GenCon Mike Miserendino and I both had Jon Tuffley (the game
Seriously, a
> FireCon is the targeting and sensor system. Similar weapons should be

I agree with this stance as well.

Jay

> Morgul writes:

> << Seems like there's not much of a consensus on this issue. I tend

> an

> to

Works for me!  :-)