Re: Thoughts on FB3

>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

>Still attack
>selected target, not closest

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
>LLAR ships.
>
>
>If you'd like to lobby for saintly approval of the Islamic Fed
>ships on http://www.angelfire.com/va/laserlight/fullthrust.html
>(or maybe .htm, I don't recall--if you get lost, just go to
>/laserlight/ and look around), I'd certainly be happy.   Or
>suggestions for alternate ships.

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.

EMP and Needle missiles I'll leave out at this point. They're another
can of
worms.