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

>To be quick and reasonably polite:
>
>the SaVasku and the Kra'Vak will be near
>invincible under this suggested mechanic.

I assume that here you're referring to the suggested rules for 
evasion, John, rather than the stuff actually quoted at the end of 
your post?
If so, then yes, we'd need to look at revising what an "advanced 
drive" does in order to cope with this.

>
>(Not to mention the needed PSB with the fact
>that 'turn' thrust is now 'different' from
>'acceleration' thrust.)

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here? In cinematic, the amount 
of turn thrust with "standard" drives is already limited; the 
assumption is simply that what you don't use for major course changes 
that turn can be used for minor jinking about to throw off enemy 
firing solutions.... surely the PSB is that doing this uses the same 
part of the drive system as is used for actual course changes?

Mind you, all this may be academic if I decide not to include it at 
all - it was only put up here to gather opinions!

Jon (GZG)

>
>Bye for now,
>John L.
>
>
>>  > >On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games
>>  wrote:
>>  > >>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.
>>  > >
>>  > >Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the
>>  defending ship try to
>>  > >"break" the
>>  > >lock-on of a ship that is attacking it. If you
>>  think about it, the reason
>>  > that
>>  > >an attacking ship is unable to lock on usually
>>  depends on some property
>>  > of the
>>  > >defending ship. Either it has ECM, stealth,
>>  decoys or is performing
>>  > evasive
>>  > >manoeuvres. Also, the effect of the failed
>>  lock-on may depend on the
>>  > defence
>>  > >being deployed. For example, an ECM defence may
>>  produce a fuzzy
>>  > >target, whereas
>>  > >a decoy would produce a double target.
>>  > >
>>  > >Tony Christney
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Hmmm, an interesting way of looking at it - one
>>  that had crossed my
>>  > mind at some point, but I hadn't developed it any
>>  further.
>>  > Letting the |target" player roll does not actually
>>  make things any
>>  > different to having the firer do it, but it does
>>  give the target the
>>  > FEEL of trying to defend his ship, and that's a
>>  good thing.....
>>  >
>>  > So, for example (as with the ideas I posted
>>  yesterday), take a BB
>>  > with 3 FCs - the firing player announces he is
>>  using 1 FC to engage a
>>  > DD, and the other 2 against a CH - he expects the
>>  CH to try to break
>>  > lock, hence the choice to use 2 FCs on it.
>>  >
>>  > The DD is neither evading nor using
>>  countermeasures, so lock-on is
>>  > automatic.
>>  >
>>  > The CH, on the other hand, is using ECM and is
>>  trying to evade as
>>  > well; the CH owner adds up whatever values these
>>  give him, and must
>>  > roll equal or less than this total to break the
>>  lock; as the BB
>>  > player is dedicating TWO FCs to the task, the CH
>>  player must roll TWO
>>  > dice and must succeed with BOTH in order to
>>  prevent the BB getting a
>>  > firing solution.....
>>  >
>>  > I think I kind of like this.... what does everyone
>>  else think?
>>  >
>>  > Jon (GZG)
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Yahoo! Sports
>Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com