RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval (Correction)

Sorry, editing error.
The 1st bullet should read:
	* Any ship that has not fired and is hit (including hits to
screen(s) or armor) must commit 1 of its fire controls and one weapon to
attack the
ship that hit it. If hit by multiple ships, it must commit one FCS and
weapon to each
ship that hit it.

-----
Brian Bell
      
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bell, Brian K [SMTP:Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil]
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 9:52 AM
> To:	'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'
> Subject:	RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval
> 
> I agree. I see two ways to change this. 1) Force the attacking ships
to
> concentrate some firepower to the protecting/screening ships -or- 2)
Raise
> the withdraw threshold for the attacker.
> 
> 1) Drawing Fire
> Awhile ago I came up with the following rules for drawing fire:
> The following optional rules are designed to allow ships to draw fire
away
> from something that they are guarding. 
>	* Any ship that has not fired and is hit (including hits to
> screen(s) or armor) must commit 1 of its fire controls and one to
attack
> the
> ship that hit it. If hit by multiple ships, it must commit one FCS to
each
> ship that hit it.
>	* If all ships that attacked it are invalid targets (not in a
valid
> firing arc or out of range) the ship must commit a fire control and
weapon
> to a ship that fired on it (even if it missed). 
>	* The weapon committed must have the ability to hit the ships
that
> damaged it. That is, the damaged ship may not commit a weapon that
does
> not
> point at the attackers or a weapon that does not have the range to hit
the
> attackers. 
>	* The attacked ship does not have to commit more fire controls
than
> there are valid attackers. 
>	Attacks from independent weapons (fighters, missiles, mines, &
Nova
> Cannon) do NOT force commitment a firecon to the ship that launched
the
> weapon. 
> 
> 2) Raised Withdraw Thresholds
> When an attacker makes a threshold check, that ship must make a
confidence
> check or withdraw.
> 1st Threshold: Roll 3+
> 2nd Threshold: Roll 5+
> 3rd Threshold: Roll 6
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> Brian Bell
> bkb@beol.net	
> http://fly.to/fullthrust	 
> -----
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Tom McCarthy [SMTP:tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca]
> > Sent:	Friday, September 17, 1999 9:00 AM
> > To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> > Subject:	[FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> > n FT, I find the convoy defender usually lacks the advantages of
either
> of
> > these models and this is exaggerated in vector.  Specifically, the
games
> > usually start with the convoy and defenders close and the attackers
no
> > more
> > than 2 turns outside of engagement range.  The attackers can usually
> mete
> > out punishment to the convoy and defenders as they choose, because
> there's
> > few ways to block or degrade shots at the freighters or civilian
> shipping
> > and the attackers usually don't have the same consideration
attacking
> > naval
> > and air craft have (that they are becoming more exposed by commiting
to
> > the
> > attack).  The only way to deter the enemy from flying right at the
> target
> > is
> > to use area effect weapons like e-mines, SMLs, and nova cannons, and
in
> > vector this main not prevent them from using their best weapons (as
> > explained above).
> > 
> > I find myself wishing for a better model for convoy defense, like
not
> > having
> > the target ships on the board (like the air model) or some model for
> > escorts
> > to actively protect the targets (like the naval model).