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

I tend to agree with Martin -- I feel that the "lock-on" is
already represented in the 50% miss chance when using a regular
beam.  Admittedly, right now this is thus identical for all
ships, but as John A. pointed out, that's really the way it
should be given the nominal size of ships vs. engagement
distances that have been proposed.  There's a lot of "wiggle
room" in various explanations of things due to the granularity
of the system; not everyone likes that, though, especially when
trying to tweak the system.

A few more comments here... partially just tossing out ideas and
questions about the lock-on roll and it's effect on the current
system:

--- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >Would this only affect weapons that need a fire control?
> 
> Yes. Self-guided and/or area-effect weaponry would be 
> launched in the general direction of the target, but 
> anything classed as a "direct fire" weapon will need a 
> lock-on.

One question might be, if you are getting a "lock-on" then would
there still be a 50% miss chance for beams?  Or would the direct
fire rolls then reflect the higher accuracy, and do more damage?
 How would K-guns be affected?

I suppose how far you want to go in this depends on how hard the
standard lock-on roll would be... the ideal would, I think, be
to keep the same average damage that is dealt currently in a
single toss of the beam dice, when you have first a lock-on roll
and then (if successful) the toss of the beam dice.  No?

The next question becomes, how do you design the system such
that it is *not* a requirement that one has the best
ECM/ECCM/ELINT/whatever to win a combat... and/or to make the
price of higher-level gear such that it makes sense to not
always use it.

Also, what effect will this have on the "large ships do better"
effect?  If a large ship can mount -- and, because of more hull,
armor, shields, etc., better protect -- high-level electronics
system, they will get proportionately more use out of them than
any smaller ships will... exact same effect of any weapons
system out there, of course, but depending on the influence of
the electronics system this could have a huge effect on the
overall battle.

> >To address the frustration of not being able to fire, could
> >you give an across-the-board penalty to shooting at a ship 
> >if it fails?  You'd still have a chance of hitting, just
> >reduced.  That's more complex, though.
> 
> I'd rather not go this way. Either you have a firing 
> solution or you don't; if you don't, you try again next 
> turn, or throw a wide spread of indirect small stuff (new 
> use for a modified form of Submunition or "anime missile 
> spread"....?).  Harsh, but simple.

I suppose this might make the indirect fire types a little more
popular... though most of those, I seem to recall, you are
supposed to launch before the fire phase (or even before ship
movement) so you can't really fire them "instead of" beam
weapons if you don't get a lock-on.

Or would there be some new weapons involved as well, that are
indirect but fire in the beam fire phase?  And in this case, why
wouldn't people use that exclusively -- no lock-on at all
needed, then?  (Though presumably a firecon would still need to
"be available".)

Just some questions, and food for thought....

Aaron

> Jon (GZG)
> 
> >andy

		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com