Prev: Re: Missile Balance [for Jon] Next: Re: Bigger--not always better

Re: Oops and Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Oops and Re: Damn the torpedoes and others (long)

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

>   Probably it's just you and me still reading this thread but I have a
> general question.  Do many people allow ships to move on headings
> other than those which are integer multiples of 30 degrees?  I think
> the rules actually prohibit this but it's an obvious option that I
> wouldn't be surprised to see people using.  

Well, I'd allow it IF you write it in your orders. Otherwise it's too
to cheat: "Yes, I was really going to turn just 1 degree..."

> the minor point, at any given speed the missile can move to up to five
> new positions by making a zero, 1 or 2 point turn in either direction.

And it can choose any speed from 0" to 18".

>   True.  A missile could miss a stationary target if the driver tried
> real hard.  A missile could hit a moving target if the driver
> predicted where it would be.	Better?

Yeah, but I was thinking of stationary as a space station or similar 
"does not and will not move".
>   Is this true?  I don't think odd masses are not allowed but I'd love
> to be contradicted on this since they are in almost all ways identical
> to even-massed ships with one greater mass.  But they're cheaper.

Check out the FAQ at

> If you ever have to defend a
> planet or convoy or stop for any reason, 

Guerilla tactics can drive a conventional foe nuts, but they aren't 
suited to holding territory... that's a drawback.

>   True.  Now imagine the BB _does_ run out of ammo.  Imagine, for
> example, that it only has, say, four shells.	It fires them and they
> don't kill the CA.  If they have infinite fuel, the CA can follow the
> BB right back into port and engage it there.

You're ignoring shore defenses. And if they really have unlimited 
endurance, the BB can sail around the seven seas forever... Or maybe FTL

jump is not followable.

Realistically, such a stalemate would probably be decided by who can get

reinforcements there first. The guy going home has the advantage there.
>   Too true.  And in real warfare the goal is to win at all costs.  In
> war games the goal is to have fun first and then to win.  

Some people don't always get this. And some of us either play with them 
or don't play.

> When was the
> last time you shelled out $50 for a wargame based on the US bombing of
> Hiroshima?  

Well, I do think all PTO strategic games are either unrealistic (no 
nukes, articifical time limits or victory conditions) or very boring 
(just wait for the bomb and then nuke the yellow dogs (no offense)).

> That's be a lot of fun.  Interestingly, Germany vs the
> Soviets seems quite popular, wargame-wise - because the sides are
> fairly evenly matched.

Only if you play a limited timeline. The Germans can never reach Ural
before '42 winter, and after that the only victory they can achieve 
is to slow down the red horde. Moscow or any other big city *might*
but it's pure speculation to say that would collapse the Soviet war 
effort. And the reds can and did afford 10:1 manpower losses.

>   The fact that a missile does not have a predetermined target allows
> it to attack the ship you were aiming it at or, if it misses, any ship
> near it.  This is a handy trait indeed.

Yes. Designated targets would be another choice, but that increases 
bookkeeping, and to be fair the tracking abilities should be improved. 
>   Hm.  You're right about mass 2 of course, but there's still the
> question of crippling vs killing.  Missiles have a much better chance
> of killing a small target than a large one (assuming they hit both) so
> you have to compare the costs to repair the large target with the
> costs of building the small one.

Point defence is not a major issue. It takes 6 PD's to reliably stop 1
missile (one might say it's next to useless). With linear point costs, 
you can afford to fire twice as many missiles against a twice as big 
target, and on average you should get twice as many hits and twice as 
much damage.

> think some repairs might be in order (ala A batteries).  How much of
> an effect would allowing fighters to shoot them down have?

I have carrier-heavy games, so I was going to try that. I'm going to
fighters to attack missiles (interceptor get the bonus), because
the big&slow CVs are sitting ducks. The ridiculously low fighter
means they can't even sit back beyond range if they care about
the fighters some day -- like real carriers would. 

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

Prev: Re: Missile Balance [for Jon] Next: Re: Bigger--not always better