Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:

>   I wouldn't be surprised.  However, please note that this is a
> _guaranteed_ escape.	

Well, actually it's not. I was away from my rulebook when I did the 
calculations and to be on the safe side, based them on single 30 degree 
turn. I need to redo these a bit... but all safe speeds will INCREASE as

a result.

>In the real world, the missile has a choice (in
> any given turn) of five points to move to.

Actually, it has *infinite* points, as it can move UP TO 18" and turn UP

TO 60 degrees. Even if you only allow full inches and full clock
facings, 
that comes out as 91 places to be. But this is a minor point. 

> 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.  

You're contradicting yourself. Stationary, by definition, does not move.

> - missiles are still pretty scary, but I think your analysis grossly
> overrepresents the danger of an individual missile.

Individual missiles are not (that) bad. Actually, they're very easy to
avoid. My analysis represents your chances of escaping a missile spread
from a single source. 
 
>   Luckily, you probably don't need to manouver until the missile is
> one turn away.  But enough of this.

Depends on your speed. The breakpoint is probably thrust 5. Slower than 
that, and you probably need to start evasion 2 turns away (or have base 
velocity around 20").

>   Really?  That should take 9 missiles (54/6 = 9).  

Nope. 6" RADIUS gives 12" DIAMETER. 54/12=4.5 or 5 to be on the safe
side.

> FTL.	Is this one of your "bathtub launchers"?  

FYI: Bathtub launcher: Mass 4, FTL, Thrust 8, 1 Missile. Costs 26
points.
Thinking about it, since ship costs are linear, this *is* the optimal 
design (for this particular mission). I could probably save a few points

by cutting the thrust, but this is good enough.

> 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.  

It's not supposed to. It's supposed to fire off its missile and exit 
table. Zero risk. The REST of my fleet is there to kill off the
cripples.

> You would imagine the remains of the fleet to be quite small

Eh? 130 points is 2 frigates. 260pts (two sure-hit volleys) is roughly a

single vanilla heavy cruiser. Not that large a part for a 1000-2000
point 
engagement. And the more juicy cap targets you have, the more worthwhile

it gets.

> (I would expect it to be larger) but in either case your ships have NO
> WEAPONS and NO FTL.  

Eh? False assumption.

>   A missile does an average damage of 7 IF IT HITS.  I am still
> convinced that the hit rate of missiles is pretty low.  

Maybe I'll do a simulation if I feel like it, but you're ofcourse free
to 
believe what you will.

> 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?

No, since that's an illegal design. Odd masses are not allowed, and in 
any case, a missile weighs in at 2 mass. But you got close ;-)

>   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.

True. But generally speaking, the more targets there are, the more it 
pays off to shoot large volleys. 
 
>   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.  

No it's not. It's a completely legit tactic based on the game reality.

Take a real-world comparison: A 30-knot BB outranges a 30-knot CA. The
best possible tactic for the BB is to stay out of the CA's range and
pound
the little sucker. No matter what the CA does, it can not close the
range
because they're both equally fast. It can't really disengage either.
It's
a dead duck unless the BB runs out of ammo or the night falls. 

Yes, this is pretty boring. Yes, it will result in a number of 
inconclusive battles. But it IS realistic.

Realism doesn't always make a fun game.

> The solution, of
> course, is to implement a strategic map so that the ships cannot move
> infinite distances.  

Borders in space? Are you serious? Strategic map for one-off or 
tournament games?

> 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.

To make this crystal clear: I never said I'd build an entire fleet of 
bathtub launchers. But they will make a fine and rather cheap boost to 
the firepower of a balanced fleet. You could say a fleet *without* its 
share of launcher ships is not balanced.

They make fine scouts and raiders by themselves, nevermind a good 
deterrant to attack. And they absolutely slaughter space stations and 
other stationary targets.

> 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.

We were talking about resupply in a campaign. What does it cost to
replace
a spent missile (or any other one-shot weapon)? Not specified anywhere.
I'm speculating it must be less than building the system completely
anew. 
 
> 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) 

There's this little thing called points cost. Since thrust is the only 
thing that's not linear, I'm willing to bet a selection of smaller ships

would prevail.

>   1. Missiles are only totally superior when used in a completely
>      defensive mode.	

I wouldn't call "hit & run" defensive. 

> The tactics required to do this make little
>      sense in "real-world" (read campaign) terms.  They are useful in

Au contraire. For the cost of missiles, you're inflicting damage your 
opponent needs shipyards to repair. The only way he can hurt you is to 
attack your resupply bases -- thus you'll have the base defenses for any

stand-up slugfests on your side.

>      pick-up games but your opponents will think you are a goober.

Eh? Do you think the americans were goobers because they bombed the 
japanese into submission rather than launch a manly amphibious assault? 
In real warfare, if you have a tactic the other guy can't defend
against, 
you use it.
 
> 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.

Four? I was thinking more on the lines of 10 missiles per capital size 
target. A vanilla BC costs 381 pts. That's 14 missiles from bathtub 
launchers. An average of 3 of them need to hit -- which could leave 11 
missiles to wreak havoc among the escorts.

>   3. Missiles are most cost-effective against very small ships, but
>      are most likely to hit very large ships.
 
Not true. The almost linear ship costs mean they are more cost effective

against larger ships, which have paid more points for the same evasion 
ability (i.e. thrust). And you're less likely to "waste damage" if your 
target's big enough. Actually, they're LEAST effective against Mass 2 
couriers, because those cost less than the launching platform.

>   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 

Hey! We DO agree!

> 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.
 
Crippling or wounding are good results too. And I guess we disagree just

what constitutes "significant outnumbering".

> pleased to see that other people have opposing (and wrong, of course)

Thank you. How flattering.

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |