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

Right, where to start...

Jon and the playtesters have already seen me make most of the following 
points on the playtest list, but for the rest of you:

R. Bryett:

> >>>> 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.... <<<<
>
>I can see that. How much of a demand for this is there? Is everyone out
>there using the bogey markers and other "fog of war" options already
offered
>by FT?

I don't think so. I've actually never encountered any FT gaming group
who 
claim to use these rules regularly (I know a few groups using them in 
special scenarios, but that's all); to me at least it seems like most 
players deploy the models on the table immediately unless they're
Cloaked.

> >>>>1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
>consequent possible game-slowing... <<<<
>
>  I did rather like the idea someone suggested of adding different
coloured
>dice (one die per firecon allocated to the target?) to handle the
lock-on
>test.

[This also answers Robert Crawford]
If you do this you first spend X time to measure the range, checking
what 
target numbers your P-torps/K-guns/etc. have, checking how many beam
dice 
to fire for your beam and graser batteries, etc... and then you flunk
the 
lock-on roll. As someone (Randy or Derk IIRC? - I deleted that post
since I 
didn't disagree with it, so can't check) noted, making the lock-on check

*first* speeds the game up since you don't have to resolve the fire of 
weapons for which you get no target lock.

>But some sort of record keeping would presumably then be required to
>ensure that no firecon is used for more than one target per turn.

No record-keeping necessary if you resolve all of a ship's fire at the
same 
time (which is the case in the beta-test fighter rules).

> >>>>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.....<<<<
>
>Is that a problem? Designers would have to trade off mass, points etc.
as
>normal.

It is *yet another* game mechanic which favours big ships which can
easily 
afford buying 2-3 extra FCSs over small ones which can't, and that's a 
problem unless you like games where the smallest ships are Mass 150.
(Full 
Thrust already has several other game mechanics which also favour large 
ships over small ones.)

EFSB avoided this game balance problem by requiring the players to
specify 
which weapons on the ship were using which SINGLE FCS - and no weapon
could 
use *more* than one FCS, even if several FCSs were targetting the same 
victim. IOW, if a battleship had weapons A, B, C, D, E and F and FCSs 1
and 
2, it could say that "weapons A, B and C use FCS 1, weapons D, E and F
use 
FCS 2"; it then made lock-on checks for both FCSs, and if FCS 1 got a
lock 
while FCS 2 didn't then only weapons A, B and C could fire.

Unfortunately this solution doesn't work from a PSB point of view. If
any 
single FCS aboard a ship gets a lock, there's no good PSB reason why it 
couldn't share that lock with every weapon on the ship... which is most 
likely why that particular EFSB rule has been stripped out of every
"update 
to EFSB" I've seen on-line :-/

***
Ralph Hoenig:

>Personally, I would like the "Unspend thrust gives an evasive bonus"
idea 
>the most.
>I works best from a belivability point of view IMO and would have
pretty 
>much the same effect as a lock-on malus against small ships, as those 
>ships usually will be the only ones with left over thrust.

If the evasive manoeuvres give any noticable protection, it will take
the 
munchkins approximately ten minutes after this rule becomes implemented
to 
make sure that their capital ships have enough thrust to make evasive 
manoeuvres.

***
Rrok Anroll wrote:

>And as far as complexity is concerned... Jon's the first one to tell
>you that if you don't like a rule, don't use it...

As Robert Bryett noted, the fire resolution is *very* fundamental to the

game. Any "house rule" which changes the fire resolution results
noticably 
- and Jon's recent concept rules do change the fire resolution results 
*very* noticably - will effectively throw the entire ship design system
out 
the window.

That's not a problem for those who don't use the ship design rules
anyway, 
but unfortunately they seem to be a rather small minority of the FT
players...

> >The problem I see with this approach is that, as with the split
> >between cinematic and vector movement, there's a need to change
designs to
> >take advantage of the ruleset in use.
>
>Somehow I just can't seem to see this as a problem....
>
>First off I would think that most of the time you'd be playing with the
>same folks...

If your players design to the rules and your group uses the same rules
all 
the time, you'll spend most of your games playing with or against the
same 
DESIGNS (or designs which are very similar to each other) as well 
with/against the same FOLKS. For a game which prides itself on being
highly 
customizable, that's not a good thing.

>Additionally, it would seem that if you're building to the rules
>system, instead of using the rules to build, then that would seem to me
>that you're more concerned with what you can pack into the numbers than
>you are with any actual design element...

In my experience roughly 90% of all players (in all wargames which allow

custom design of units, not just in Full Thrust) build to the rules more

than they build to any actual design element. Many are unaware that they
do 
this, but you'd probably be surprised by how often an outside observer
can 
tell what movement system and other variant rules a particular gaming
group 
uses just by looking at what type of ship designs they've come up with.

***
Tim Jones:

>ECM was modelled in MT

In MT, ECM had one single use: deny the enemy detailed knowledge about
the 
state of your ships, by making his sensor scan attempts harder. It had 
nothing to do with denying him target locks.

***
Broadband:

>Its speed divide by its present speed rounded of to the nearest whole 
>number (sounds complicated but thats why I got the spreadsheet - 
>everything is instant).

"Its speed divided by its present speed" sounds as if it would be
exactly 
1, every single time...?

Using a spreadsheet to calculate the lock-on rolls means that you must
have 
a computer handy whenever you're gaming. Not all gamers do,
unfortunately.

>In the real world Motor torpedo boats can (and frequently have)
suceeded 
>against far heavier ships (destroyers were invented to specifically
combat 
>MTB's	in the early 1900's because the battleships of the time were 
>sitting ducks).

In the real world *of the early 1900s*, the battleships of the time
didn't 
have any light-speed weapons :-/

'Course, in the real world of *today* warships still dont have
light-speed 
weapons, yet in spite of that MTBs and similar don't stand much of a
chance 
against larger modern warships unless there are plenty of nearby islands

for the MTBs to hide behind... and deep space is usually rather short on

such cover :-/

>Any naval history will point out that big slows ships where there to
kill 
>other big slow ships, not mix it with the piranhas.

Any *good* naval history will point out that big slow ships were there
to 
make sure that the *troop transports and freighters* got where they were

supposed to get, no matter who tried to stop them - be it "pirhanas" or 
other big slow ships.

***
Andy Skinner, replying to Jon:

> > Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
> > the hit/damage chance of most weapons be increased? Well, I think
no.
> > Yes, 50% of beam shots against unscreened targets will have no
effect
> > - but that doesn't necessarily mean they have all been "misses";
that
> > 50% may be considered to include those shots that hit but do
> > negligible damage - the ones that just scorch the paint off the hull
> > a bit.
>
>It is still the case that those weapons are 50% less effective. 
Doesn't 
>that change the balance?

Er, no, it isn't "still the case that those weapons are 50% less 
effective". The 50% Jon talks about here are the 50% of the time a
standard 
beam die rolls "1", "2" or "3" (instead of "4", "5" or "6") and thus 
inflicts no damage whatsoever - in the CURRENT rules; and since it is in

the current rules rather than a change it does not change the balance.

One thing which DOES change the balance however is when the lock-on 
probability varies with the range - because that makes shots at longer 
ranges less likely to get a target lock, and thus be fired, than 
shorter-ranged shots are. Since the existing FT weapon Mass and Cost
values 
were all determined based on how often they get to shoot under the 
*current* rules, and the longer-ranged weapons pay extra for their
ability 
to inflict damage before the shorter-ranged weapons can do anything, 
reducing the number of long-range shots more than the number of 
short-ranged shots means that all long-ranged weapons in the game 
immediately become overpriced.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry