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

   I guess I'll throw in my two cents:

	I don't object to the FC rolls *in principle*.	I do think
though that
	they should be in an "advanced rule" section so as to make the
current
	game system the default.  I don't know if the actual dice
rolling will
	add time to the game, but I'm quite sure that the decision
process for
	allocating your fire controls definitely will add time to the
game. 
	People spend time mulling what to shoot at now.  Having to
figure out
	whether or not you'll achieve lock on will add to it.  Like I
said, I
	don't oppose it, in fact I like the principle and the
possibilities it
	allows.  I would want to make the "easier" form of the game be
the
	default though, so people who want a quicker game won't be
turned away.

	One suggestion:  Ships that are using "evasive movement" should
have a
	harder time locking on as well as being locked on *to*.  The
movements
	that make it harder to target you also make it harder for you to
target
	them.

	I like the latest proposals that have had the default be
"automatic
	lockon" if neither side is doing anything to make a lockon more 
	difficult.

	I would include something about how lockon range bands would
need to
	be different depending on the setting.	Your longest lockon band
at 
	least correspond to the range of your longest weapons.	If the
setting
	has class 8 beam batteries, the lockons should be possible to
that
	range.

	Do fighters require a lockon to fire at a ship?  If not, why
not?  If
	the answer is that they are so close (which is fine), then I
think the
	fighter models should actually be moved that 6 MU to the ship
they are
	attacking.  If the fighter is actually firing from 6 MU away
instead,
	then they should have the same lockon problems as a ship, at
least from
	a logical standpoint.

	Along the same lines, do PDS require lockons to fire at missiles
and
	fighters?  Anything that weaken PDS (even a little) tends to
make those
	already powerful systems (missiles and fighters) even more
powerful.

> 
> >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.
> 

	This part concerns me.	If you accept the idea that missiles and
other
	placed weapons are currently balanced versus beams and other
direct 
	fire weapons, then lockons will upset that balance considerably.
 If
	beams are going to fail because they missed lockons when salvo
missiles
	are unchanged, then I am much *much* more likely to use missiles
now
	(let alone my missile happy opponents).  Similiarly if you know
your
	opponent is going to be deploying high ECM ships, then you want
to 
	building missile ships to lessen their impact.	It threatens to
devolve
	into the "lots of pds are good against fighters and not anything
else"
	kind of situation. 
	  At the very least, I would reduce the range of the secondary
"attack"
	move based on the ECM/evasive maneuvers of the target.

> 
> Jon (GZG)
> 

	Grant