Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers

Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> 
> From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>

> > a) What's the minimum change that would remove Banzai Jamming as
being a
> > 100% defence vs SMLs <note: making it a 50% defence is OK>
 
> The minimum change is a change in the tactics of the SM player. No new
rules
> needed at all. Banzai Jammers only really shred the tactic of
unloading all
> salvoes against the big targets as soon as possible. The
Granaatscherven
> force the SM player to sweep them using beams or (heaven forbid) a few
early
> SM rounds.

...but combined with just a few escort cruisers, you can't sweep them
without unloading 95% of your SMLs. The other 5% are lost along with
your  missile carriers by the 5:1 beam superiority of the other side.

As for Granaatscherven, it's the use of 25-30pt corvettes (which anyone
can use) rather than purpose-built banzai jammers that worry me.

Just try a battle where one side has the FSE but no SMLs in the mags,
the other side has only 75% of the points values (to simulate the loss
of virtually the complete corvette force that was doing the jamming).
That's 5 corvettes for _each_ BB. Darn few FSE ships have enough for 5
rounds of fire, assuming none are shot down and all hit!
 
> Jammers may be close to 100% proof vs.the hail mary dump
> everything and run attack, but that kind of IMO cheesy attack _should_
be
> stoppable in its tracks. Force the SM player to think.

Think about what?

Without wishing to descend to a despicable "StrawMan" argument, IMHO The
same argument taken to its logical conclusion would be "Grade 4 Shields
may be close to 100% proof vs attritive beam attacks, but that kind of
attack should be stoppable in its tracks. Force the Beam User to think."

But I freely admit that you may have a superior intellect to my own
(wouldn't be hard), and there's something obvious I'm missing. Please
elucidate on the FSE's tactics now that 50% of their weaponry is gone
(hey, I might actually learn something if it penetrates my poor thick
skull).
 
> I will continue to argue that if you want/make smarter SM's, I
want/will
> make smarter Jammers.

Fair enough, providing they're play-balanced. An Unmanned 5-mass ship
with a very expensive and very effective blip enhancer and no armament
for the same cost as a super-destroyer would be reasonable, as it would
be worth little more than its cost vs the FSE, but be a complete waste
vs anyone else. Or make it cost less, but be rare.

Personally, I think that a flock of unmanned drones that act as SML
soaker-eppers could be best simulated by lots of variant (cheaper) PDS
systems that can't be used against fighters.  But I digress.

It's too bad we're not physically located anywhere near each other, as
I'd like to demonstrate my points via a game or two. I'm sure you could
teach me something, but I think I'd convince you.

Maybe some experienced players out there can help us out. One side takes
an FSE fleet, the other an NSL fleet with 3-4 Corvettes operating within
1cm of each BB, and 1 Escort Cruiser per BB. Then swap. See what
happens.
(Cinematic movement and a 6x8 table with no disengagement)  
 
-- 
	      http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		       By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale