Prev: RE: [DS] Ever played on an ocean? Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] New UNSC ships out!!

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

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:32:19 +1000
Subject: Re: [FT] Fire and Forget MT missiles (was MT missile control...)

At 01:26 11/11/99 -0500, Ryan wrote:
>I'm making unneded assumptions. I'm so used to that damn "we lost
>technological concepts" rule with so many sci fi wargames.... 

Yeah I always get a chuckle from those backgrounds, 40K is the worst for
that, for thousands of years after the loss of technonlogy there has
little or no recovery (?).

>> 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
>> 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...

Me too, something along the lines of Jared Noble's or Phil Pournelle's

>that would make sense. Imagine their horror to realize those MT
>are inbound the same turn some Salvo Missiles and Fighters are inbound.

>Spread those PDS's out really thin...

And with your battleline joining in with it's heavy weapons (Class 3 and
above and similar) just watch the other player cringe.

>> 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
>missile, I have not a problems with it...
I'm leaning towards a missile sensor system that is multi-function,
something similar to command or SARH with the abiltiy to have I/TARH if


Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053


Prev: RE: [DS] Ever played on an ocean? Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] New UNSC ships out!!