Re: [OFFICIAL] Missile Ideas

I'm just catching up with a backlog of mail... but I'm far too 
weak a man not to stick my oar into the, now aging, missile 
thread...

In message <199704021624.LAA10972@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> Joachim Heck
- SunSoft writes:
> Ground Zero Games writes:
> 
> @:) FTIII Missile Ideas:
> @:) 
> @:) We DROP the existing multi-turn duration missiles from the game,
> @:) replacing them with one or both of the following ideas:
> 
>   Ooh... bad.

Hmmm.... I agree that dropping multi-turn missiles is ungood, but 
I'm not terribly keen on the ones at present. Somebody wrote that 
they liked the suspense of watching missiles close in, and I agree. 

The influence that even a single missile has on a game is just too
great, though. Any "new system" that would force a radical re-think
of what a basic fish-and-chips ship would be like is probably a bad
thing (for a game).

> @:) SALVO MISSILE BATTERIES
> 
>   Sounds good.  I think someone has already recommended having these
> work like a sunmunition for simplicity - that is, the number of
> missiles that hit is 1d6 (or the number left, whichever is smaller).
> *DAF should kill one missile on a 6.

I don't really see why *DAF should be less effective against
missiles (any sort of missiles) than against fighters. Fighters, 
being non-disposable and built to higher specs should be more agile 
and generally less hittable, if anything.

A need for simplicity suggests that *DAF fire be the same against
both. That one rule tweak alone should do much to lessen the
ungoodness of missiles. Allowing fighters to interact with them
also seems to follow. 

> @:) JUMP TORPEDOES: [...] When it pops out (on same turn as launched),
> @:) missile goes off immediately with a big (ish?) area effect -
> @:) perhaps damage to all ships within 6", lessening with actual
> @:) distance?
> 
>   This sounds... interesting.  

I'll say. I, personally, really dislike "area effect" weapons. My
personal visualisation of FT involves a scale of one-inch-to-one-
really-really-big-distance, which may be a bit nebulous but 
precludes area effects because the release of energy involved in
damaging every ship in even a square-inch of table is simply too
vast to contemplate. (No, I don't like nova and wave thingies).

However, FT already has rules for area-effect damage from ships 
translating to FTL (...those rips in the fabric of space-time are 
nasty beggars). So you could turn this idea arse-about-tit and have 
a "normal" missile with a sort of "FTL drive" warhead that gets you
1d6 damage in 6". This gives ships a shot at shooting it down, too.

> @:) THESE ARE ONLY IDEAS (sorry to shout...), and may go no further,
> @:) but who would miss the "old" FT missiles if we replaced them with
> @:) something like these?  Let me know!
> 
>   I think missiles as they currently exist are (mostly) fine.  Keep
> them in.  Tweak them if necessary.  Add new missiles if appropriate.

I vaguely agree with this sentiment, although I definately think
tweaking missiles should be on the cards.

What I really like to see are SF rules that mesh well together, to 
produce a relatively consistant model. New missile and fighter 
movement rules should tie in together (with missiles less agile),
*DAF systems should engage fighters and missiles in the same way,
missile damage and mine damage should tie in together... that sort 
of thing. 

What I, personally, am not so keen on is tendancy in SF games 
(generally) to just throw in every "cool" idea that pops into a 
gamer's head without any sort of structure being imposed on it. 
Take, say, the Nove Cannon. No, sir, I don't like 'em (no offence 
intended, Jon). If you can get a gun to throw out something like 
that... why not have a missile with "an uncontrolled plasma 
generator and a powerful gravitic system" for a warhead? 

A missile that does 6d6 damage anyone? (...then 4, then 2...)

Was there any result to the polling on new fighter movement ideas?
Any possibility of tying in missile movement?

-- 
David Brewer