Prev: Running games in LA ... was Re: [OFFICIAL] QUESTIONNAIRE.... Next: Re: OT: Cool looking ships...

Re: [FT] Fire and Forget MT missiles (was MT missile control...)

From: Ryan M Gill <monty@a...>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:26:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [FT] Fire and Forget MT missiles (was MT missile control...)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Beth Fulton wrote:

> I'm assuming that you do have a friendly unit that is within sensor
range and
> has gained a fire control solution (sensor lock) sufficient to launch
> missile( OK. Under the sensor and ECM rules for our local campaign you
> have
> varying degrees of success with sensor rolls, one of which gives you
> information to attack but doesn't yet reveal the ship.).

> No theory involved here, even today such a network exists. NDTS I
think is
> what the US Navy calls it.

I'm making unneded assumptions. I'm so used to that damn "we lost simple
technological concepts" rule with so many sci fi wargames.... 

> Here is the rule from my house rules for controlling missiles.

Actually it really looks like we agree on this for the most part...

> The other additions I would want to mention is that fighter groups can
> missiles if they are uninvolved in combat and the obvious one, the
target for
> the missile has to be in active sensor range (if your using sensor

makes sense. I'm thinking that a scout fighter is in order. 1-2 for a 
large vessel and 2 more to act at SWACS...I really want to do some 
special fightertypes...

> I agree totally with what you are saying while missiles are under
control and
> not autonomous the controlling player can control the course of the
> and can even change targets. He could even slow some missiles down so
> arrive on target the same time as other missiles and/or fighters to
> overwhelm the enemy defences.

that would make sense. Imagine their horror to realize those MT missiles

are inbound the same turn some Salvo Missiles and Fighters are inbound. 
Spread those PDS's out really thin...

> I think you misunderstood the suggested rule is for 'FIRE AND FORGET'
> missiles which are autonomous, that is once you launch them you have
> further
> control over what they will do.

To a degree. I think the initial intent was that the play launched them 
and didn't have to designate a firecontrol. The sophistication of the 
missile being such that it required minimal control from the launching 
ship and thus didn't require the entire staff/systems allocation of a 
Firecon. I see a firecon as being a set of telescopes, sensors and a 
small staff of operators that collate the data on a particular target
captain said to "zap", and then make it zapped. 

But if the system requires a firecon to be spare to re-direct/update the

missile, I have not a problems with it...

- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
-	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -

Prev: Running games in LA ... was Re: [OFFICIAL] QUESTIONNAIRE.... Next: Re: OT: Cool looking ships...