Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)

Hi all,

>On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:07:06AM -0700, Gregory Wong wrote:
>>I wonder if the game could use a house rule involving ship size
>>as a modifier to hit.  Categorize the ships by mass.	Let's say
>>three sizes, small, medium, and large.  When you fire, roll 1D6
>>for each fire control.  For large ships, you automatically lock
>>on and fire as usual.  For medium, you must roll 3-6 and for
>>medium, you roll 5-6 for a lock-on.  If you lock on, then you roll
>>your attack as usual.
>
>The usual objection to this sort of scheme is that you need to make
lots
of lock-on rolls, which slows the game down.

Seeing as this subject has come up in the last few days' discussions, 
I thought I'd take the opportunity to canvass some opinions from all 
of you out there in gzg-list-land..... this is something that's been 
discussed at some length in the past within the playtest group, but 
sometimes it's both interesting and valuable to get some feedback 
from a much larger group of players.

The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to 
acquire a target is one that we've played around with (at least in 
theory) for some time; the exact mechanisms are not important at this 
stage, but the general principle of the idea is that when it is a 
particular ship's turn to fire, the player nominates the intended 
target(s) and makes a roll for each to see if the firing ship's FCs 
can acquire that target with sufficient precision to perform direct 
fire against it. If the roll succeeds, then play proceeds to fire 
resolution exactly as normal FT rules; if it fails, then the firing 
ship has not been able to lock-on to the target and may not perform 
any direct fire against it that turn. Multiple firecons (if the ship 
has them) may be dedicated to a single target to improve success 
chances, but this must be decided before any lock-on rolls are made.

Now, this idea is obviously adding a completely new step into the FT 
combat procedure, and there are a number of arguments both for and 
against this.

The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows 
easy implementation of a number of new variables that are harder (or 
more clumsy) to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as 
they stand; such things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility, 
enhanced sensors, etc etc....
  Thus a lot of different ideas which currently would need a load of 
different and sometimes quite complex rules to implement, would 
suddenly all fit into a single, relatively simple mechanism.

On the other hand, there are a number of possible arguments against; 
ones that have already been identified include:

1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with 
consequent possible game-slowing...

2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under 
current rules, so players will be tempted to load up with larger 
numbers when doing own-design ships unless this is limited in some 
way.....

3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire at 
all that turn; this can be either incredibly frustrating or a huge 
relief depending on which side you're on! While it may be annoying to 
fail to acquire a target with a small ship, it could be a game-losing 
point if you fail with all the firecons on a big ship.....

Now, if we had just launched FT as a new product and it included a 
lock-on step, I'm quite sure that almost no-one would even mention it 
- it would just be taken as a part of the game. The fact that FT 
hasn't had this for all these years, however, means that introducing 
it now is a much more difficult matter. I'm always very aware that 
this list represents only  a small proportion of the people who are 
playing FT, and the test list an even smaller subset of those; trying 
to judge how the "silent majority" of players out there will react to 
any major (or even minor!) changes to the rules is always going to be 
very difficult.  But, hopefully, some feedback from the list may give 
us an idea of whether this is something that is worth pursuing or 
not. I'd be especially pleased to get some reactions for those list 
members who don't post much - your opinions are just as valuable as 
those of the more vocal "regulars"!  ;-)

Looking forward to reading the responses.....  :-)

Over to you!

Jon (GZG)