Re: The iCloak

on 6/14/00 15:52, John C at john1x@hotmail.com wrote:

> For the sake of simplicity, each FireCon used would give another +1. 
This
> seems like the quickest and easiest way to resolve things.  You'd have
to
> dedicate those FireCons to the attempt, though -- you couldn't use
three
> FireCons to lock on and then use two of them direct fire at different
> targets.

Nice, simple and straight forward way to handle it.  From what I'm
gathering
your saying here if you don't lock on your free to use any FCs not used
for
the attempted lock on for firing elsewhere.  I like this - less
potential
for a single dice roll to eliminate multiple weapons fire assuming
there's
another valid target to shoot at.  ;-)

> Here's the thing: my group uses simultaneous fire, so I tend to
> automatically think in those terms.  With us, the Fnorded ship would
have to
> declare all fire before anyone started rolling dice, so it would be
easy to
> determine the exact modifier.

True, simultaneous Fire is much easier to deal with on this issue.

> For non-simultaneous fire, you're very right: tremendous potential for
> abuse.  Jut wait 'til everyone else has fired, and *then* let go with
> everything you have because you now have nothing to lose.  One option
that
> occurs to me is to make the modifier dependant on the weapon's fire
from
> *last* turn -- targeting computers can use it to extrapolate your
movements,
> I suppose.  So the total modifier would be last turn's firing, and
this
> turn's movement -- this would likely lead to:
> Cut loose with everything you have (turn one),
> You're already screwed because of last turn, so use this one to
> maneuver (turn two),
> Don't maneuver, to get your bonus back (turn three),
> Repeat.

I'd lean towards having the iCloak ship's controlling player announce
his/her attempted fire at the beginning of the fire phase (not the
targets
though).  Otherwise you end up with the potential situation of the
iCloak
providing a one turn shielding effect, allowing the iCloaked ship to get
in
some punishing for free (for the moment).  With rapid moment, damage
effects, etc. it's very possible that the enemy ship may not be able to
fire
back.  Of course this effect could be very interesting to game with but
again it's very difficult to balance.

> I was trying to keep the modifiers as simple as possible -- usually
the
> amount of points that you spend (on maneuvering, or firing) is equal
to the
> modifier.  I think that it would be pretty smooth in play, but I'll
> obviously have to playtest it to determine this.

I'll bow to your expectations.	It's probably not to difficult to deal
with
- try calculating expected damage levels on enemy ships when a referee
is
running with semi-secret damage (you know you've hit with a weapon, but
not
for how much - BTW it makes for a very interesting game, one where
repeated
scanning of enemy vessels is very useful).  Now back to the discussion
at
hand...

> Negative is good.  I want people to point out the things that I
screwed up,
> or forgot about.  Exactly as you did above.

Glad to be of help...  Hope you can say the same thing in a week.  ;-)

Well, back to early morning work on converting Win32 Networking code
over to
the MacOS...oh joy.

Kevin Walker
sage5@home.com