Prev: Re: [FT] A thought on that vector movement problem Next: Re: Kinetic Energy Missile--New weapon for DSII

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

From: -MWS- <Hauptman@c...>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:14:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [FT] Playtest of Fulton's MT Missile rules proposal
``````
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[snip]
> > 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
>
> Yep, I forgot that there are no multiple kills or re-rolls against MT
> missiles: OTOH, the original example assumed that the fighters were
busy
> elsewhere; to compare this with Schoon's example you have to drop the
> fighters from the equation and inflict another 14 pts of damage on the
SD
> (for a total of 107).

True, but you then also have to add another 25.2 points of damage to the
SM
side, which brings that total up to 96.25 points.  This actually lessens
the
damage difference between the two missile types (+23.9% more damage with
fighters defending, vs +10% without :).

[snip]

> > Considering the games
> > I've played, where SM's have over an 80% attack success ratio, this
> > balances out quite nicely.
>
> 80% success ratio? You *do* know your opponent far too well (or he is
too
> predictable or too low-thrust)!

More of a playing style difference, I think.  None of us regularly use
missile
systems, and we almost always employ different custom ship designs every
game.
Since we don't tell each other what those designs are before the game
starts,
anyone who *does* bring missiles usually gets a fairly free first shot
with a
high on-target accuracy.  We also tend to like fighting in
knife-fighting
range. :)

[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.
>
> Same here. With secondary movement, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all
> (pretty much regardless of their Mass, and definitely regardless of
which
> side I'm on :-/ )

This is the change we're adopting - 3 turns endurance, 18" movement with
no
secondary, standard warheads only, 1 FiCon to launch any number of
missiles,
launch, movement, and attack occurs during the regular missile phase.

So, basically, an MT missile acts just like an SM, except it stays on
the
board for up to 3 turns, and it has a shorter movement range.  PDS and
anti-misile fire and interception is resolved just as against SM's,
except
that each individual MT missile counts as an entire "salvo" - so 6's and
rerolls have no effect.

[snip]

===================================================================
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.
===================================================================
``````

 Prev: Re: [FT] A thought on that vector movement problem Next: Re: Kinetic Energy Missile--New weapon for DSII