[GZG] [FT] Re missile threads

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi all,

I have found the missile discussions of late most interesting and I have
an
idea to throw into the melting pot. Probably not an overly good idea for
reason's my tiny little mind won't detect until they are pointed out,
but
what the hey!

Personally my (and my groups) chief problem with missiles (by which I am
referring to SM's, HM's, and AMT's) is getting them any where near a
possible target. This is not so much that we are bad shots, it's just
the
result of playing the game whereby 1 mu is 1 cm, and the average speed
of a
thrust 4 vessel is 24, and a thrust 6 vessel is 36, or there abouts.

If we get the darn things on target we are all happy with the
interaction
between them and defensive fire as per Beta Test Rules discussed else
where.

However we would like them to be a little more "guided".

Now, given my groups particular problem here is a possible approach to
take...perhaps.

1) Missile launch phase: Upon missile launch the missile is moved
directly
forward from the launching vessel along the bearing said vessel is
facing, a
distance equal to the launching vessels velocity at the end of the
previous
turn.

2) After vessel movement, but before fighter secondary movement: All
missiles may move 0 to full allowed movement distance in any direction.
They
are of course moving from the position they occupied following their
initial
launch move.

Missile attacks etc are then resolved as normal.

In a very simplistic manner this approximates vector style movement
(though
to confuse matters further it is intended for cinematic games). The
launching platforms own velocity restricts somewhat the engagement
envelope
of the missile, whilst at the same time increasing throw distance. A
fast
ship, say moving at 30, could lob a salvo effectively out to a range of
54,
however the section of "Guided" movement, the secondary move of 24 mu,
is
insufficient for the missile to turn and engage a target which following
vessel movement ended up behind the missiles launch position. Or in
other
words, fast ships get to launch their missiles further but sacrificing
agility, slow moving vessels get more flexibility as to where their
missiles
end up, but sacrifice range.

Hope that all made sense...if not ignore the above paragraph and just
re-read steps 1) and 2)...if it still doesn't make sense, then worry
not, it
probably doesn't.

Salvo missiles still retain their 6mu lock on zone. However a 3 arc
launcher
would be redundant, as the missiles can only be launched directly
forwards.
Knocking the launch tubes down to 1 arc and 2 mass should resolve this
easily...I hope.

AMT's still get the 6 mu follow up move immediately after moving in step
2,
though, of course, they still home in on the nearest vessel which may or
may
not be the preferred target.

HM's will require record keeping, their base velocity for step 1 of
subsequent turns being equal to the distance between their launch point
in
step one, and the end point of their move at the end of step 2. This
will of
course require numerous chits and measurements which will of course slow
the
game down, thus a simpler solution may well be preferable. In fact I
think
it would be...

So, to conclude, this idea works best for SM's and AMT's. It can
potentially
boost the missiles range, give the firing player more control, whilst
still
giving the flavour of the placed marker system, that of the firing
player
having to guess, via the launch step, only transferring the onus onto
the
launching vessel to maneuver to the right spot, and at the correct
velocity,
to achieve an accurate volley. Without the need for additional paper
work.
Except in the case of HM's. Ignore the latter for now. Please.

Note the lack of PSB. As pointed out in earlier discussions PSB/Real
life
examples can be argued back and forth. Therefore consider all PSB to
have
been mutually annihilated.

Any hoo, there it is,

Cheers,
Matt Tope