Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > >If you want to make the missiles more seeking then why
> > not let them burn some endurance after the ships move.
> > Gives them a bigger engagement envelope for people that can't guess.
> > Why bother? Is there a reason for them not to be direct fire?

> I thought the whole idea was something other than direct fire, but that is
> tricky when detaching from the movement system.

All our games are played cinematic movement and most peoples ships more 
12-18mu, typically around thrust 4.

We have had people that have had missile heavy fleets but these were mostly 
the heavy missiles rather than Salvos. People quickly had to learn that they 
needed an effective anti missile doctrine to counter this tactic.

> > >Its also how homing torpedos work.  You have to get your torpedo
> > >into an engagement range before the enemy realises it
> > otherwise they can react and evade.
> >
> > Which is exactly how salvo missiles DON'T work at present.
> > No matter how close you are, you have to guess right; if
> > you do, you hit, if not, you miss, and the enemy has to
> > chance to evade unless he guesses when you're going to
> > launch. With the revised version, if you get close, you
> > can hit; if you launch from farther away, he has a chance to evade.

Why would range of engagement with a missile affect it's chance of a hit? I 
can see situations where missiles have a harder chance locking on up close 
than they do at a distance. Missile chance to hit would likely be a function 
of sensor lock from parent ship - ECM with distance a neutral factor.

> Have to give this point to John; how you place the SM marker is 'getting 
> it
> into engagement range'. Not getting your SHIP into engagement range, which
> is important as well, but only in staging to the former. Ok, not exactly
> like homing torpedoes, but similar to other deployable submunitions.

Exactly what I meant. When attacking with deployable ordnance its the 
placement of the weapon relative to the target that is important. what the 
launching ship does after launch is less relevant. I'd expect that the 
launching ship will begin an escape turn in case the enemy has similar 
capabilities.


What feel do you want with your missiles?
If you use a couple of 20 century models as examples.
If you want the game to feel like 20C naval warfare then your missile speed 
/ engagement envelope needs to be much larger than the speed of the ships. 
Missiles lauched today are thousands of times faster than the speed of a 
warship and may well act more like direct fire weapons. So you could have 
the missiles placed on the target and then hit n a 2+ modifed by ECM and 
then targetable by anti ship weapons.
If you use air-air combat or submarine combat as your model then you have a 
situation where the missiles are not that much faster than their target. Is 
this case you need to predict where your target is going and get your 
missile into that area so that your target runs into it's terminal envelope.

> Your reasons of playability, fun, balance, variety ALWAYS trump.
>
> The_Beast
Exactly the reason to leave ordnance as the way it is so its different from 
direct fire weapons.

There really are only 4 weapon types in the game.
Weapons that use the beam mechanism.
Weapons that use the torpedo mechanism (pulse torps and K guns for example)
Weapons that use the missile place ordnance counter mechansim
Fighters.

For additional variety my gaming group invented seeking missiles that can 
burn endurance after the ship moves. These cost 2 mass have 3 endurance and 
do 1d6 damage.
We also invented rockets, these hit like pulse torpedos, modified by the ECM 
level do 2D6 damage and can be stopped by PDS fire. This is the missile 
system for people that can't guess.

John


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