Re:Fw: Missile Question

At 6:34 PM +0100 5/16/97, Roger Gerrish wrote:
>----------
>>
>> Jon (GZG)
>
>A player in our group used that tactic to attempt to damage ships that
>were
>following him. He had a cruiser armed with missiles and was being
harried
>by some smaller more manoeverable ships which he couldn't get out of
the
>'blind spot' (he had to keep up his speed as part of the scenario) He
>launched missiles and moved them forward ahead of his ships final move
>position that turn. On the 2nd turn the missiles did not move but
turned
>nearly 360'. On the 3rd turn they moved to an intercept and attack
>position
>on the pursuers.
>In this case one of the pursuers were destroyed.

That was me :-) We lost the battle, but I killed a Dilgar cruiser and a
tin can in the process.

When I saw that the FT rules allowed this tactic I was skeptical.
Missiles should start with the same vector the launching unit had. I
asked the referee in the game in question if that interpretation of the
rules was valid. He agreed, and I started lobbing missiles around the
corner.

I'm very glad that I started reading Weber <b>after</b> I played this
game. In Honor Harrington's universe, the vector of both the target and
the launching units are factors in the missile's engagment envelope. If
I'd read the books, I'd have assumed that I couldn't hit my targets.

I hate rules lawyering like this. I console myself with the thought
that all I wanted was to accelerate up to a decent vector and rotate
ship to launch missiles back down my flight path. Sadly, missiles can
only be launched straight ahead in Full Thrust. You can usually make a
set of rules do what you want.

>I've only seen this once in any of the games we played, but we thought
it
>was a valid tactic and games mechanic.

Taking the larger perspective, the tactic makes sense in that it
simulates missile tactics that would otherwise require complicated
rules.

>Regards.....
>Roger

Michael Carter Llaneza	  http://www.hypnotic.com/
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1991-1950
Devolution is very real to me.
A few hundred microseconds lag here, a few hundred there, and pretty
soon you're talking serious time.