[GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

[Robert N Bryett <rbryett@xxxxxxxx>]

Hey, don't blame me :) !
I asked about MT or Heavy missiles in FT2.5 rather than Salvo  
Missiles and *I* don't have a problem with the "placed marker"  
mechanism that some listees seem to find so offensive.

I've stayed out of this because most of the debate really seemed to  
be about people's tastes in PSB and just how "guaranteed-to-hit- 
because-they're-homing" missiles ought to be. Of course I too have  
PSB ideas and personal feelings about what is credible and  
"realistic" in SF space battles, but I think house rules or  
"universe" rules are the place to express those, rather than wanting  
to change the basic rules of FT because they don't fit with what  
happens in Star Warts, Star Drek, Bumblestar Gargantua etc.

From a gaming point of view in the rules as they stand at present, a  
successful attack with a volley of missiles (Salvo or Heavy) can be  
pretty crushing, so some balancing feature needs to be present. FT2.5  
seems to make use of the placed marker mechanism to make it more  
difficult to achieve a hit. If you want missiles to be perfect  
homers, something else would be required. I don't want to fiddle  
about with masses of modifiers and IF-THEN conditions for Attack  
Points, ECM, endurance, powered vs. coasting flight etc. I'm sure the  
guys who come up with this stuff would say that it's all quite easy,  
but then the publishers of Attack Vector: Tactical claim *their* game  
is fast and simple to play for 12-year-olds...

Best regards, Robert Bryett
rbryett@xxxxxxxx


On 27/06/2006, at 5:10 PM, J L Hilal wrote:

> First, keep in mind that this suggestion originally was for the  
> benefit of
> Robert Bryett, whose nephews want to use missiles after having read  
> some of
> David Weber's HH books.

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