Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:

@:) On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
@:) > 
@:) >	Missiles indeed do terminate operations after 54".  The
@:) > question is whether they actually hit their target in the mean
@:) > time.  I've heard a lot of talk about missile boats and the like
@:) > but given that typical fleet speeds in our games are 15", it's
@:) > not at all uncommon to see the ships moving faster than the
@:) > missiles.  This makes it extremely difficult for them to hit.

@:) What does it take to get [away from a missile]? I did some
@:) examples.
@:) 
@:) Assuming a head-on, down-yer-throat missile at 18", you need
@:) following minimum velocities for guaranteed escape, *provided* you
@:) make the detailed turn:
@:) 
@:) 1 -pt. turn: 22"
@:) 2pt: 18"
@:) 3pt: 13"
@:) 4pt: 11"

  I wouldn't be surprised.  However, please note that this is a
_guaranteed_ escape.  In the real world, the missile has a choice (in
any given turn) of five points to move to.  It can go straight, or
turn up to two points in either direction at the mid-point of its
move.  At speed 18, this produces a cone 15.58" across.  Note that
the attack range of the missile is only 6" so it's actually possible
for a missile moving at speed 18 to completely miss a stationary
target.  Of course that would never happen, right?  Why?  Because the
player driving the missile would correctly predict where the target
would end up and put the missile there.  Or would he?  I say no.  I
say your 22" with a one point turn is enough to guarantee that your
ship will escape but a significantly smaller move would be enough to
give you 50/50 odds.  Don't forget to add in the 1/6 chance, per PDAF,
to shoot the thing down, and don't forget ADAF from your escorts
(because the smaller the ship, the more likely it can dodge the
missile) and eventually it gets somewhat unlikely.  Don't get me wrong
- missiles are still pretty scary, but I think your analysis grossly
overrepresents the danger of an individual missile.

@:) With longer range 36" case, a 4-pointer is guaranteed to take you
@:) out of trouble.

  Luckily, you probably don't need to manouver until the missile is
one turn away.	But enough of this.

@:) Another thing to consider: My gaming table's 54" wide. For 130
@:) points, I can buy enough bathtub launchers to fire a saturation
@:) salvo that CAN NOT MISS. Why? Because it's striking zone covers
@:) every inch of the table, that's why.

  Really?  That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9).  The cheapest ship
I can buy is 112 points for a mass 23 cruiser with 1 thrust and no
FTL.  Is this one of your "bathtub launchers"?	Maybe I'm missing
something, but it seems like a ship like this would be completely
unable to withstand _any_ fleet that managed to escape the missile
volley.  You would imagine the remains of the fleet to be quite small
(I would expect it to be larger) but in either case your ships have NO
WEAPONS and NO FTL.  They are meat.  Points wise, it's possible you
may come out ahead by trading my escorts for your cheap cruisers, but
again I would suggest that my escorts could mostly avoid your
missiles.

@:) Yet another thing to consider: A missile does average damage of
@:) 7. That's a kill against a Mass14 ship. A mass 14 ship hull+FTL,
@:) no thrust, no weapons, no nothing, costs 42 points. I can almost
@:) get 2 bathtub launchers for that price.

  A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS.  I am still
convinced that the hit rate of missiles is pretty low.	In any event,
this statement seems to indicate that your "bathtub launcher" is a
mass 3 thrust 8 cost 21 escort with FTL and 1 missile.	Sound right?
Nine of those would cost 189 points, which again conflicts with your
previous saturation statement.

@:) Shooting missiles is a numbers game. If you're missing, you're not
@:) using enough of them.

  OK, this I agree with.  But the question is just how many you need
to shoot to hit - and more importantly how many you need to shoot to
hit the things you need to hit.

@:) No need for that. A thrust 8 ship can launch, hard turn, never get
@:) a single INCH closer to foe and promptly exit table. *Even* if you
@:) play with a floating map, nothing has thrust over 8. You can never
@:) close the distance, unless your initial velocity was greater.

  This is true.  This tactic is remarkably similar to the ever-popular
Kaufmann Retrograde.  There is no defense against it, and it is
completely useless for almost all real situations.  It is an artefact
of the game rules system.  So yes it works but it's also one of the
few examples of true "powergaming" that I've heard.  The solution, of
course, is to implement a strategic map so that the ships cannot move
infinite distances.  You can then use your missile boats to attack and
run away but they are useless for defense because they are forced to
run away and whatever they are defending will get nuked.

@:) I'd say a missile must cost a mere fraction of what a scrapped
@:) friendly ship does. I'd even say it's cheaper to get a new missile
@:) than repair and slagged B-battery. Because if your ammo's more
@:) expensive than that, you should be using kamikaze ships.

  Missiles have a cost in the rule book.  They certainly are cheaper
than ships.  Even if you expect to have to fire four of them to
guarantee a hit, they come out cheaper.  Unless you don't kill the
ship.  If the ship survives then you have to start comparing resupply
costs to repair costs which I don't have anything like the energy to
do.

  Ok so my rebuttal is over.  What have we learned from all this?
Arguments can be made for the total superiority of missiles
(interestingly basically the same argument can be made for thrust 8
capitals with AA megabatteries) but there are some serious problems to
be addressed.

  1. Missiles are only totally superior when used in a completely
     defensive mode.  The tactics required to do this make little
     sense in "real-world" (read campaign) terms.  They are useful in
     pick-up games but your opponents will think you are a goober.

  2. Missiles cause significant damage only when they hit the target.
     Although they are manouverable they are by no means guaranteed to
     hit the target (as are, for example, SFB drones).	Depending on
     the manouverability of the target you can expect to need up to
     four missiles to maximize your chances of hitting and this may
     still not guarantee damage if the target is fast.

  3. Missiles are most cost-effective against very small ships, but
     are most likely to hit very large ships.

  4. Missiles become more effective as their numbers increase.	Since
     saturation is the key, missile boats become more effective as
     their non-missile systems decrease.  The ultimate optimization of
     the missile boat has no weapons and no FTL and is completely
     useless in a fleet situation.  It is only useable with the tactic
     in statement 1.

  I think missile boats are quite useful, and I think they should
probably come in, fire their missiles and leave.  After that point,
the REST of the fleet should come in fast behind the missiles and get
behind the target ships who have all turned their flanks to the enemy
in an attempt to avoid the missiles.  Then they should kill them.  The
problem is that the enemy will probably significantly outnumber the
attackers at this point, so you'd better hope the missiles managed to
kill someone.

  I should point out that if an argument like this can even be
happening, missiles must be pretty balanced.  I'm actually quite
pleased to see that other people have opposing (and wrong, of course)
views about these things - it means the system doesn't have obvious
ways to win.  Unless I'm wrong, of course, in which case the system is
fatally flawed.

-joachim