Re: Anti-missile defenses in FT

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Nathan wrote:

> With all the talk about missile boats, I was wondering what others
thought
> about the current state of missile defenses.
> 
> By the rules, about the only thing that can deal with missiles are
ADAFs,
> PDAFs, and C bats.  Each system gets one chance to hit a missile on a
roll
> of a 6.  This seems a pretty poor chance to me.

It is. We did a lot of missiles in the MechaZone campaign.

> Seems to me that missiles are an excellent way to go vs. beams.  If I
had a
> mass 40 battlecruiser, I could load it up with 10 missiles (if I
didn't
> bother with shields or *DAFs).  If each missile did average damage
(let's
> say 6 pts each and 8 out of 10 got through = 48 damage points), it
would
> pretty much chew up anything it came across (considering a fleet
carrier has
> 49 damage points).

Actually, we've found the best missile delivery vehicle to be a mass 18
thrust 8 escort with 3 missiles and nothing else. It's fast enough to
get 
away from anything it doesn't want to fight yet sturdy enough to take a 
couple of hits and still deliver a full load of missiles.

> Does anyone else think that missiles are way too difficult to be
defended
> against?

I once did the calculations, and quite simply the answer is that against
a proper overload attack, you just can't get a cost effective defense
with *DAFs. To wit: You need 6 PDAF's to get a reliable kill against ONE

missile. For that mass and cost, the attacker gets THREE missiles. It's 
a lost cause.

> Suggestions to deal with missiles better:
> 1) increasing the odds of *DAF systems and C bats to hit missiles
might be a
> good idea. (hit on 5 or 6)

I'd go for the same chances as against fighters. Simpler, too.
Another way is to visualize the missiles as having a swarm of
warheads, and deduct the *DAF rolls directly from damage.

> 2) allow ECM to affect the chances a missile has to hit

Sounds reasonable.

> 3) allow fighters to attack missiles
 
We did this. We allowed fighters to attack missiles as if they were 
fighters. The end result was that everyone loaded up with interceptors.
A 
force with a good screen of interceptors was immune to missile attacks,
a 
one without was butchered.

*DAFs had the "vanilla" chances, and they were found to be next to 
useless. ADAF ships were especially non-cost effective.

> Thoughts?

The problem I see with missiles is that they allow stand-off attacks.
Now, modern military is very much in love with stand-off attacks,
because 
they don't put valuable personnel and equipment at risk. Realistically 
speaking, stand-off is a very good tactic if you have the tech and the 
money to do it (in FT/MT, the tech is there and the money is not an
issue
as reload costs are never specified).

It's just not much fun to game.

So, in the interests of keeping the game fun, I do think missiles should

be completely redone.

--
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 |