Prev: RE: Capital Ships in Campeign Games Next: Re: Jerks in Full Thrust

Oops and Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

From: Joachim Heck - SunSoft <jheck@E...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 15:04:45 -0500
Subject: Oops and Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

@:) >In the real world, the missile has a choice (in
@:) > any given turn) of five points to move to.
@:) 
@:) Actually, it has *infinite* points, as it can move UP TO 18" and
@:) turn UP TO 60 degrees. Even if you only allow full inches and full
@:) clock facings, that comes out as 91 places to be. But this is a
@:) minor point.

  Probably it's just you and me still reading this thread but I have a
general question.  Do many people allow ships to move on headings
other than those which are integer multiples of 30 degrees?  I think
the rules actually prohibit this but it's an obvious option that I
wouldn't be surprised to see people using.  We don't use it.  As for
the minor point, at any given speed the missile can move to up to five
new positions by making a zero, 1 or 2 point turn in either direction.

@:) > the attack range of the missile is only 6" so it's actually
possible
@:) > for a missile moving at speed 18 to completely miss a stationary
@:) > target.  Of course that would never happen, right?  Why?	Because
the
@:) > player driving the missile would correctly predict where the
target
@:) > would end up and put the missile there.  
@:) 
@:) You're contradicting yourself. Stationary, by definition, does not
@:) move.

  True.  A missile could miss a stationary target if the driver tried
real hard.  A missile could hit a moving target if the driver
predicted where it would be.  Better?

  Here's the oops part:

@:) >	Really?  That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9).  
@:) 
@:) Nope. 6" RADIUS gives 12" DIAMETER. 54/12=4.5 or 5 to be on the
@:) safe side.

  Oops.

@:) > Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a ship like this
@:) > would be completely unable to withstand _any_ fleet that managed
@:) > to escape the missile volley.
@:) 
@:) It's not supposed to. It's supposed to fire off its missile and
@:) exit table. Zero risk. The REST of my fleet is there to kill off
@:) the cripples.

  This rest of the fleet is a major element that I didn't realize you
were assuming.	It makes the missile boats much more useful.  It also
makes them fewer in number, however (since you had to spend points on
other ships).

@:) >	A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS.  I am still
@:) > convinced that the hit rate of missiles is pretty low.
@:) 
@:) Maybe I'll do a simulation if I feel like it, but you're ofcourse
@:) free to believe what you will.

  Well in any event as long as the hit chance is less than 100%, the
missile averages less than 7 damage.  I would guess the damage to be
in the 1-3 range.

@:) > your "bathtub launcher" is a mass 3 thrust 8 cost 21 escort with
@:) > FTL and 1 missile.  Sound right?
@:) 
@:) No, since that's an illegal design. Odd masses are not allowed,
@:) and in any case, a missile weighs in at 2 mass. But you got close
@:) ;-)

  Is this true?  I don't think odd masses are not allowed but I'd love
to be contradicted on this since they are in almost all ways identical
to even-massed ships with one greater mass.  But they're cheaper.

@:) >	This is true.  This tactic is remarkably similar to the
@:) > ever-popular Kaufmann Retrograde.  There is no defense against
@:) > it, and it is completely useless for almost all real situations.
@:) 
@:) No it's not. It's a completely legit tactic based on the game
@:) reality.

  As is the retrograde.  Again I was assuming ONLY missile boats, and
no "rest of the fleet" in which case the only place this action can be
used is in (infinitely) deep space.  If you ever have to defend a
planet or convoy or stop for any reason, the bad guys (who have been
54" behind you for the last six months) catch up and destroy you.
Having a real fleet improves this situation greatly.

@:) Take a real-world comparison: A 30-knot BB outranges a 30-knot
@:) CA. The best possible tactic for the BB is to stay out of the CA's
@:) range and pound the little sucker.

  This is correct.  In fact, this occurred in a battle during WWI in
which the Germans, with their better optics and top armor, pounded the
crap out of several British ships before the British realized that
they weren't catching up.

@:) Yes, this is pretty boring. Yes, it will result in a number of
@:) inconclusive battles. But it IS realistic.

  True.  Now imagine the BB _does_ run out of ammo.  Imagine, for
example, that it only has, say, four shells.  It fires them and they
don't kill the CA.  If they have infinite fuel, the CA can follow the
BB right back into port and engage it there.

@:) Realism doesn't always make a fun game.

  Tell me about it.

@:) To make this crystal clear: I never said I'd build an entire fleet
@:) of bathtub launchers.

  Again I'm glad you clarified this because for some reason it sounded
like that was exactly what you were saying.  Your clarified policy
makes a lot more sense and actually resembles, to a certain extent,
some fleets I've used myself.  I actually like to send the missile
boats into the action after but whatever.

@:) We were talking about resupply in a campaign. What does it cost to
@:) replace a spent missile (or any other one-shot weapon)? Not
@:) specified anywhere.  I'm speculating it must be less than building
@:) the system completely anew.

  My group has had arguments about this.  Is the missile in a launcher
of some kind?  Who knows.  I wouldn't mind seeing this clarified in
some upcoming campaign rules from GZG.

@:) Eh? Do you think the americans were goobers because they bombed
@:) the japanese into submission rather than launch a manly amphibious
@:) assault?  In real warfare, if you have a tactic the other guy
@:) can't defend against, you use it.

  Too true.  And in real warfare the goal is to win at all costs.  In
war games the goal is to have fun first and then to win.  When was the
last time you shelled out $50 for a wargame based on the US bombing of
Hiroshima?  That's be a lot of fun.  Interestingly, Germany vs the
Soviets seems quite popular, wargame-wise - because the sides are
fairly evenly matched.	I'm generally the last guy to blame someone
for capitalizing on flaws in a game system but that doesn't mean I
like such flaws.

@:) Four? I was thinking more on the lines of 10 missiles per capital
@:) size target. A vanilla BC costs 381 pts. That's 14 missiles from
@:) bathtub launchers. An average of 3 of them need to hit -- which
@:) could leave 11 missiles to wreak havoc among the escorts.

  The fact that a missile does not have a predetermined target allows
it to attack the ship you were aiming it at or, if it misses, any ship
near it.  This is a handy trait indeed.

@:) The almost linear ship costs mean they are more cost effective
@:) against larger ships, which have paid more points for the same
@:) evasion ability (i.e. thrust). And you're less likely to "waste
@:) damage" if your target's big enough. Actually, they're LEAST
@:) effective against Mass 2 couriers, because those cost less than
@:) the launching platform.

  Hm.  You're right about mass 2 of course, but there's still the
question of crippling vs killing.  Missiles have a much better chance
of killing a small target than a large one (assuming they hit both) so
you have to compare the costs to repair the large target with the
costs of building the small one.

@:) > pleased to see that other people have opposing (and wrong, of
@:) > course) [ views ]
@:) 
@:) Thank you. How flattering.

  No problem - sensitivity is my middle name.

  Now I'm going to have to wait for other responses on this.  I guess
people really are considering using many more missiles than I would
have considered sufficient.  But then I'm used to the idea of missiles
missing and it seems that you are more into using them to cause
actual damage.	If you are correct about all this missile stuff, I
think some repairs might be in order (ala A batteries).  How much of
an effect would allowing fighters to shoot them down have?

-joachim

Prev: RE: Capital Ships in Campeign Games Next: Re: Jerks in Full Thrust