Prev: Re: DS2 FMA Enhancement Invulnerability and Auto kills Next: Re: DS2 FMA

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

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:33:59 +1000
Subject: Re: [FT] Playtest of Fulton's MT Missile rules proposal

G'day guys,

Well here's Derek's reply to your replies - I'm beginning to feel like
ball in email tennis ;)



>From: -MWS- <>
>Standard "damage" missiles only.  *NO* needle or EMPs allowed.

I know I mentioned this before, but my MT missile rules don't deal with
types of missiles, I left that subject alone for another day. So the
standard, EMP and needle missiles are as they appear in MT. I only
the missile types for completeness, I don't know about you but I hate
flipping backwards and forwards through multiple rulebooks and like to
it down to the minimum.

>From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <>
>However, going to this system, especially if the secondary
>move is of any real distance, significantly changes the
>balance of the Missile system. They were originally fairly
>easy to evade with a fast moving ship, and even average
>ships had a decent chance at evasion if they had enought
>time to prepare. Only the big cows were pretty much a
>sure thing if they got caught flat footed.

>It may be possible to rebalance by making the secondary
>move comparatively small (6"?). Another idea might be to
>restrict the secondary move to a number of arcs (front 3?).

The movement allowance of the secondary move is half that of the
move (ie: 9", sorry I should have made that clear).

Also before I go any further perhaps I should define just what I think a
missile is, it's a small spacecraft, with a endurance of multiple turns,
able to change it's course quickly in order to close with it's target.
if a MT missile has the abiltiy to change course with at least the same
agility as a fighter, being able to close to 'attack range' with a ship
something which is fairly easy to achive (unless you are moving faster
the missile). It is now up to the target's defenses to destroy the
before it can damage the target.

This brings me to another point, so far excluding fighter interceptions
the anti fighter/missile defenses are 'point defense', it's effectively
all or nothing effort at the last moment, there is no area defense (and
before anyone asks the ADFC doesn't count for this, the weapons employed
still fire at no further than six inches from the target ship). Against
this is OK because they don't last more than one turn, they either
to attack you or they're removed from play. They move so fast that they
effectively a 'direct fire' weapon. Fighter interceptions and the
anti MT missile Salvo Missile' rule do provide a area defense against MT
missiles but only if the defending target(s) maintain enough range to
these 'systems' to engage them successfully.

I see the MT missile being used in two different modes, first a long
weapon system (with a straight line range of 54" over a period of three
turns) or a close range 'sprint' mode (hence one reason for the
movement, sorry I've just finished re-reading the David Weber 'starfire'

>>To resolve this attack roll D6 1 for the number of missiles
>>on target, if the final score is less than one then there
>>are no missiles on target and it's a clean miss. If there
>>are missiles on target roll a D6 and add the number of
>>missiles to the score rolled, if the final result is 6 or greater
>>then the target missile is destroyed.

>I don't understand this. I THINK it says roll 1d6-1 for each
>attecking missile, and then add a d6 roll. If the result is >6 
>then you killed it...
>It seems needlessly complicated. An alternate might be to
>simply say that an SML on target for a missile destroys that
>one missile. It's going to be difficult enough to employ this
>effectively, why add more uncertainty with lots of dice.
>Unless, of course, you're just trying to make sure that
>no one tries it.

Sorry should have made that clearer, I think the minus sign got lost <OK
screwed up in the conversion from doc to email - Beth>. But it's roll
per salvo  for the number of SMs on target, a roll of one is a miss
missiles on target). A second D6 is rolled and the first dice score is
added to the result (more SMs on target, the easier it is to kill the MT
missile), if the total is 6 OR GREATER the MT missile is killed.

As for adding uncertainty I've never been one for a sure thing, even if
there are SMs on target they still have to manuever to score a hit.
Assuming a average number of 3 SMs on target, a roll of 3 is required on
the second dice to kill a MT missile (roll of 3 + DM of 3 SMs on target
6). And I don't think two dice qualifies as 'lots'.

>>Please note that unlike a fighter a missile does not need
>>to expend CEF to attack a target.

>Why not? I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but they
>have to manuever in for the "shot" just like a fighter. It would
>make shepherding that last CEF much more interesting as
>well. Do I manuever and hope I get the shot now, or come
>around for a better go.

OK MT missiles may move the same as fighters but they're not fighters,
I was writing this rule I considered using a CEF to attack but as I
redesigning the MT missiles themselves this would reduce the MT missiles
possible range from 54" to 36". Later when MT missiles themselves get
looked at, well maybe we'll just have to see.

>From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <>
>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 ;-) ;-) ;-)

Actually of the games I've played using my missile rules I've only ever
been the missile using race once, every other time I was defending
MT missiles and only one of these games involved Beth <I was busy
ones in the other corner of the board ;)>. There have been at least 6
so far since I got my OU taskforce painted, yes you guessed it the first
batch of designs for these minatures use MT missiles as the main
battery. I
always give my opponents the choice of side and they almost always
the ones with the 'cool paint job that look like the ships from the 5th
element movie'. The opposing forces so far have consisted of either NSL
FSE up to now because Beth and I are providing the miniatures, but that
changing as now some of the people at the local wargaming club are in
process of buying their own fleets. 

>(Schoon guesstimated the increased hit probability of the Derek missile

Beth's reaction: GACK! A missile named after Derek?!

>vs the SM salvo to 2-3x better. It depends a bit on how fast
>you fly, of course, but judging from my "how to place SMs"
>Excel spreadsheet I'd say 4-5x better at speeds of 25 and
>above, infinitely better (*no* chance of missing, unless your
>ships consist of nothing but engines) at speeds of 15 and less...
>interpolate for the area inbetween <g> The 4-5x better could
>be a bit low, though - I have Excel at work, and the past few
>days have been... hectic, like :-/ )

As I said above I think it should be fairly easy for the missile to
with and attack a ship (provided of course that the ship is not moving
at a
speed which is too fast for the missile to catch), sorry I don't see
(maybe not the larger ones anyway) jinking aside like modern day
to avoid incoming missiles (perhaps I could choose a better analogy?).

>Without the secondary movement, Derek's missiles would
>be much better balanced IMO. They still have longer range
>and somewhat better hit chances than SM salvoes (no banzai
>jamming helps a lot!), trading this for somewhat lower damage
>against heavily protected ships.

I'll have to try a few games without the secondary movement, just to see
the difference (like I said I'd just finished rereading Weber and
'Starfire' series) because I'm thinking that some of you are right. The
movement allowance plus the 6" attack range gives a total range of 24",
This gives more than enough range for a missile to 'sprint in'. This
me to think that the secondary move was a 'red herring' of sorts and,
should be dropped.

Which brings me to another question at what ranges do people normally
expect games of 'Full Thrust' to be fought out at? And what general
concepts would people use to acheive this 'optimal range'?

Derek Fulton

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


Prev: Re: DS2 FMA Enhancement Invulnerability and Auto kills Next: Re: DS2 FMA