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

On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[snip]
> So, in the Valley Forge vs 3 missile barges example the missile barges
> *temporarily* knock out on average ~190 points worth of SD, and have
> themselves completely expended 162 pts to do so - all the missile
barges
> can do is to withdraw as fast as possible, which may not always be
> possible given their low Thrust rating.

Agreed, which is why I suggested the combined EMP roll - it seems to
balance
the effects with the point cost.

> If those three barges had had *standard* warheads though, the ship
> would've taken on average 4.6*7 = 32.2 pts of damage... no, sorry,
-MWS-
> only wanted the specialty missiles to be doubled in size, not the
> standard ones. OK, it gets hit by 18 - 4.4 missiles, for on average
95.2
> pts of damage - a rather massive overkill, I think. *This* is
unbalancing
> IMO.

Not by that much, though.  However, I'm not sure that we can find the
right
"balance point" without fractional points cost - something I'm sure we
all
want to avoid.

Taking another look at the numbers, and using the "first order"
approximation
of the effectiveness of PDS fire as follows:

  PDS vs SM = -0.8 missiles
  FTR vs SM = -0.6 missiles per fighter, or -3.6 missiles per fighter
group
  C.1 vs SM = -0.4 missiles

  PDS vs MT = -0.5 missiles (can only kill 1, and 6's have no reroll)
  FTR vs MT = -0.33 missiles per fighter, or -1 missiles per fighter
group
  C.1 vs MT = -0.33 missiles

If you take the NAC SDN "missile boat" we've been using as an example,
it
could wield 18 MT missiles (scary!!), or 9 SMRs.  Assuming all of the
SMR
salvos hit the opposing ship - just for the sake of comparing numbers -
and
using straight summed average damage and missile hit numbers, we end up
with
the following:

NAC standard SDN defenses: 4x PDS
			 + 2x Std Fighter groups screen
			 + 2x Class 1 Beams

SMR Salvo:     9 * 3.5 missiles = 31.5 missiles
Total Defense: 4 * -0.8 + 2 * -3.6 + 2 * -0.4 = -11.2 missiles
Missile Hits:  31.5 - 10.4 = 20.3 missiles
Damage Points: 20.3 * 3.5 = 71.05 points

MT "Salvo":    18 missiles
Total Defense: 4 * -0.5 + 2 * -1 + 2 * -0.33 = -4.67 missiles
Missile Hits:  18 - 4.67 = 13.33 missiles
Damage Points: 13.33 * 7 = 93.33 points

Hmmmm.	Overpowering, but not horribly so, except for the fact that the
MT
missiles will almost *certainly* have a 100% on-target rate (unlike SMs)
at
medium to slow speeds.

> There's *very* little chance at all to dodge the missiles - if you
move
> at speed 15 or less in Cinematic, not even a Thrust-8 MT Kra'Vak ship
> would be able to dodge at all since the 12" secondary move and the 6"
> engagement radius, together with the ability to engage any target
rather
> than the nearest, covers all possible end locations for the ship...
OK, I
> usually fly faster than that, but Human drives allow much less dodging
> than KV ones. 

Minor correction - since the movement rate is 18", the secondary
movement
would be 9", not 12".  At least, that's how we playtested them the other
night.

As far as your "fly fast" speeds go, I've yet to play a game in which
*any*
ship has gone faster than about 20.  Mostly, we're moving in the 9 to 16
range, so my view of the effectiveness of Salvo Missiles is probably
quite
different than yours. :)

However, the numbers above suggest the following "fix" to balance out
the
mass & points costs.

If you use the 9" secondary movement rules for MT missiles, then
increase the
cost of the standard 'damage' missiles to 3 MASS and 9 points a piece.
Using
our example above, the missile boat SDN would then wield 12 missiles -
instead
of 18 - for an average expected damage of 51.33 points.  Considering the
games
I've played, where SM's have over an 80% attack success ratio, this
balances
out quite nicely.

If you use 3 turns endurance with 18" missile movement rules and *no*
secondary movement, then keep the costs at 2 MASS and 6 points.  The
attack
success ratio will then be quite a bit lower than SMs, IMO, because even
with
the increased number of turns allowed, their lower movement range makes
them
easier to dodge - and more subject to multiple turn interception by
fighter
groups.  Also, point defense against small numbers of MT missiles is
more
effective than point defense against SMs, because *any* hit kills an
entire
unit of MT missiles, while hits against SMs usually leaves you with at
least
*some* missiles on target.

> I think Derek seriously underestimates the ease of hitting with these
> missiles. That is probably to be expected if he draws on experience
from
> battles against Beth's FSE ;-) ;-) ;-)

I agree, and our playtesting tends to bear this out.  *All* the missiles
I
launched hit their targets in our test game, using the secondary
movement
rules.

[snip]

Personally, I would feel comfortable using the 18" movement, three turn,
no
secondary movement rules at 2 MASS & 6 POINTS per standard missile.
Furthermore, I'd feel comfortable playing *against* them with those
rules.

I'm not sure that I like either the Needle or EMP missiles of any sort
in any
situation, unless you're trying to implement a specific genre. :)

As far as the FiCon goes, use the same rules as SMs - a ship needs a
[single]
working FiCon to launch missiles.

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
       The Gear Locker:  http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear/
	   Full Thrust:  http://www.sfcmd.com/fullthrust/

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================