Re: [FT] Playtest of Fulton's MT Missile rules proposal

G'day guys,

Great to hear they've been playtested. I'm in a rush, but Derek should
get
to see it all tonight.

Here's his response to all your previous comments.

Cheers

Beth

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks to everyone who replied to Beth's posting of my attempt at
modifying
the MT missile rules, your comments are welcome and have been taken on
board. But as someone who never let's an opportunity pass
by..................

But before I start I should warn you, Beth actually brings each the days
posts to the GZG list as a large text file which I then read I my spare
time, so I have grouped all your posts and my replies into one (goes
without saying lots of snippage).

"Oerjan Ohlson" oerjan.ohlson@telia.com wrote

>Beth wrote:

>> One ship may launch any number of missiles, subject only to the 
>> number of missiles the ship is carrying.

>I'd add in the same provisio as for SMs (only in the FAQ, IIRC - not
explicitly stated in FB1): >It has to have at least one working FC to
launch any missiles of either kind.

It all comes down to how the missiles (whether they are MT missiles or
SMs), are controlled or guided. If you think missiles need to be guided
into their target (similar to SARH, track via  missile or beam riders)
then
you really should have one FC system per target (yes, it is also
possible
to suggest a limit to the number of missiles a FC can control, but I'll
stop here for now) so under this assumption we could end up with FC
requirements similar to those used by pulse torpedoes.

On the other hand if you think that missiles/SMs are an autonomous, fire
and forget system then the use of dedicated FC systems (even one) is not
required. The ship's sensors provide the targeting information to the
missile(s) and once they are launched and on their way, no further input
or
control from the launching ship is needed.

I think I can understand why the 'One working FC system' at the time of
launch rule might be appealing. But as I see it, it's a rule fix to stop
missile/SM armed ships, which have been denuded of their FC systems,
continuing to fire while their beam and torpedo armed cousins in the
same
situation are unable to do so and have to grin and bear it (And before
anyone asks I do use the 'One working FC rule' when playing at the local
club).

An alternative would be to pencil in a sensor icon on the SSD and make
threshold rolls for sensors with all the other ship systems, as long as
the
sensor is operating and can clearly 'see' the target(s) missile/SMs can
be
fired.

This has opened a whole new train of thought for me to consider (Bugger.
And I wanted to have the first draft of the 'operational movement' rules
finished by the weekend so I could at least make a start with the 10 000
point fleet action against Beth. We intend on using a whole star system
as
the battleground.).

Another alternative is to combine both methods and allow the player to
choose, depending on the tactical situation.

>> Attacking (or defending against) missiles.

>> Class 1-beam batteries and screening fighter groups can also engage
>> attacking missiles, for each battery a score of 5 or 6 will kill the
>> missile. For each fighter in the group roll a D6, if a 5 or 6 is
scored on
>> any of the dice rolled the missile is destroyed.

>Since an MT-style missile is about as large as a fighter I'm sorely
tempted to let fighters use >their normal anti-fighter hit rolls here.
>(Well, OK, Class-1s too, but they already hit fighters on 5 or 6 <g>)

I'll admit one the main reasons that I chose the 5 or 6 score was to
keep
any possible confusion about what type of missile had which chance to be
hit during playing down to a minimum. But under the standard 'More
Thrust'
rules a score of 6 on 1D6 was required to kill a missile (talk about
hard
to hit), so I think that the defending side hasn't come out of this
choice
two badly. So far in the playtest games I had so far the scores required
seem OK.

>> Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
range

>> missile defence. 

>Only if you allow salvo missiles to target fighters IMO. (Especially if
you >consider MT missiles to be smaller than fighters, which the
fighter-vs-missile >hit numbers suggest!)

As Beth mentioned we already have considered this, but I considered a
group
of rules dealing with MT missiles an inappropriate to place such a rule.

>> Missile attacks.
>> 
>> A missile can attack any target within 6 MU (3MU if employing
optional
>> rules while using 'vector movement')
>Since you allow secondary movement for the MT missiles, the "3mu" range
vs
>vector-moving targets is pretty much irrelevant IMO. 

Actually I don't use the 3 inch rule at all myself, regardless of
whether
I'm using vector movement or not. I think that the SM and MT missiles
are
handicapped enough as it is, SMs and MT missiles require judgement and
good
dice rolls to be successful and Beams only require goods dice rolls (and
they get rerolls too). This is the main reason I gave the MT missiles a
secondary move,  

>Apart from my intense dislike of the Needle missile (if a 2-Mass system
with a >dedicated firecon is able to inflict on average 1/3 point of
damage
and has a >17% chance of knocking its target system out, I just don't
see
how a missile >smaller than the ship-mounted beam and lacking the
support
of the FC could >possibly have a 50% chance to kill its target system in
addition to an average >damage more than 10 times higher...), 

I dislike needle missiles and (sometimes needle beams)too for a
different
reason, I find the assumption that I will always know the layout of the
enemy ship so well that I will able to individually target and destroy
whatever system I desire

'Gunnery Officer!'
'Yes Captain?'
'Target the enemy captain's private washroom. Next time he needs to go
he'll just have to use the ratings washroom. He won't like that! HA! HA!
HA!'
'Aye Captain. But sir, the bugs don't have the same body functions as we
do.'
'They don't? Well target the washroom anyway, he doesn't need it.'

>I'm not sure I agree with these movement rates. (I'm not sure I
disagree
with >them either, mind!) The MT missiles are as fast as MT Fast
fighters;
this >version is slower than Standard fighters :-/ OTOH, giving them a
movement >allowance of 36mu might be a bit over the top <g>

This time around I was just working out the movement rules, so I left
the
missile types as they are, further down my 'to do' list is alternative
missile types (maybe).

>From: "Denny Graver" <cyberdruss@clara.net>>How about a smaller, faster
missile to pad out the range

>Mass 1 
>Move 24" 
>Damage 1d6 
>Endurance 5
>Cost 4

Like I said, alternative missile types are further down my to do list,
but
in a straight line the MT missile still outranges most other weapons.
three
18" equals 54".

>From: Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com> 

>>Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
range 
>>missile defence.
>I wouldn't allow that. I'd say a missile is small enough that a salvo 
>missile couldn't be expected to detect it. 
>Of course, if it were allowed, I'd a lot rather have you waste your SLM
on a 
>missile than on my ship.

I offered this optional rule because at the moment there is no long
range
missile defence (apart from fighter interception). Given the right
situation I probably will use my SMs to thin out a large MT missile
barrage, so my point defence will have a better chance to handle the
remaining MT missiles. But don't worry as far as your ships are
concerned I
know exactly where to aim my SMs (evil grin).

Derek Fulton.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART 
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax (03) 6232 5199 International +61 3 6232 5199

email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au