Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:   
>  >Anti-Matter Missiles:
>  >Two points.
>  >1)	Instead of a new missile system with questionable PSB, we would
>  >rather see an expansion of salvo missile systems into a 
>  >comprehensive family
> 
> The AMT isn't exactly "a new missile system". It is a cross between
> two missile systems that were around before FB1 introduced the Salvo
> Missiles :-/
> 
> That said, I too would've preferred the AMT to be an SM variant 
> (specifically the Nova Salvo Missile that was thoroughly hashed out
> on this list a year or two ago, see 
> <http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Missiles.htm#NovaSM>);
> but Jon wants to get the EFSB "energy mine" damage mechanic into FT
> and I haven't been able to talk him out of it :-/

I always thought that the Phalon PBL was a version of the E-Mine.

 
>  >For example: SMLs are rated with 2 numbers.  The first represents
>  >the number of tubes and the second represents the size of the 
>  >missiles launched in terms of warhead strength, e.g. FB1 SML = 
>  >SML:6/1 = 6 missiles w/ 1-die warhead. Extant designs are
unchanged, 
>  >but player can choose 6/1, 4/2, 3/3, or 2/5 for the current designs

>  >(same MASS).
> 
> Again this run into the problem with munchkins figuring out the
> optimal launcher configuration very quickly - very similar to the 
> flexible carrier design systems discussed in the other ongoing
thread.
> 
> In this particular case, assuming that your sample new launcher
> designs use D4s, D3s and D2s respectively to determine the number 
> of missiles on target, all the new ones are significantly better than

> the standard 6/1 SML against lightly defended targets (inflicting on 
> average between 30% and 110% more damage per salvo depending on the 
> exact type used), and only fall down to the standard SML's level or 
> less when the target has enough PDS available that the missiles
aren't 
> much of a threat anyway (4+ PDSs per incoming salvo for the 4/2 and 
> 3/3 variants, 3+ PDSs per salvo for the 2/5 one).  With other lock-on
> mechanics than a single die per salvo you get different results, of 
> course.

I did not intend for them to use other die sizes.  As I say in 2),
below, we would rather see each missile make a to-hit roll, modified by
ECM, relative positions of missile vis-a-vis target, Stealth, etc. 
Thus the probabilities of hits could be disconnected from the the
number of missiles the launcher put out.

> 
>  >2)	Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
>  > marker missile".  We all feel that the placed-marker missile and 
>  >the "roll a die to determine number of successful lock-on" are the 
>  >two worst game mechanics in FT.  Would like to see a change to 
>  >either a single turn MT-style ordnance
> 
> The MT-style ordnance *is* a placed-marker missile, albeit with more 
> restricted placement options than the Fleet Book salvo missiles and
> plasma bolts...

The problem lies in that the missiles have really dumb seeker systems. 
They attack the target nearest the target point.  They are not capable
of discriminating the "Big Kahuna" FCS suite used on enemy capital
ships from the "Lil' Bopper" FCS suite used on PCGs.  They cannot tell
the drive signatures of these vessels apart.  They cannot be set to
home in on the "Excellent Archer" ADFC emissions of the enemy fleet
escort.  

We see the placed marker as traveling from the launch point to the
placement point at the same time that the ships are moving.  The placed
marker system allows the salvo to overshoot the biggest possible target
and end up attacking a tin can on the far side.  It can even overshoot
the entire fleet.  Given that the seekers attackthe closest target,
shouldn't they attack one that they pass on their way to the target
point?

It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo reaches
the target point, at which time the sensors become active and look for
a target.  This is like artillery in a ground game.  It works if you
PSB that the missiles use some sort of jump or hyperspace movement and
"appear" at the target point, but otherwise it is quite poor.

> 
>  >or direct fire mechanic.
> 
> Cf. Dean's comment about systems which force ships to manoeuvre
> instead of just line up and shoot at one another.
> 
>  >Also would like to see to-hit rolls for each missile (like 2+ at 1
>  >MU).
> 
> IOW you want to roll 6 dice per salvo to determine the lock-on,
> instead of a single die?
> 

Throwing a handful of dice into a box top and counting the number of
successes is no obstacle for us.  <shrug>  Especially if it enhances
our enjoyment by helping the suspension if disbelief with good PSB.

We have been playing some games with the variant SML rules I asked
about some time ago.  I will write up a report on how it worked.

J