Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers (Re: The GZG Digest V1 #608)

What would you do in vector? We already use the suggested 3" radius for
vector. Would you propose dropping it to 2" (still -1")?

As I see it, there is a trade-off needed.

Problem #1: Salvo Missiles (SM's) are too effective against PDS. 
The average SM carries 2.5 missiles per launcher. So add 3.6 pts (9/2.5)
to
the cost of a SM salvo to get 9.6 pts. You can buy 3 PDS FOR 9 pts. On
average, 3 PDS will kill .53 missiles each (not counting re-rolls). So,
on
average 4 missiles of a salvo will hit (assumes correct placement of the
salvo to hit the target). Each missile does an average of 3.5 damage.
This
can really hurt.

Problem #2: Banzai Jamming.
The use of small, disposible ships to negate SM attacks. How does this
work?
Since SM's attack the nearest ship, place inexpensive ships arround your
large ships. The smallest, FTL jammer (mass 3) costs 9 pts. This makes
the
SM salvo cost more than the Jammer. But wait, you say, 9 pts vs 9.6 pts
is
not much of a difference. True, but that does not count the cost of
engines,
FTL, and hull of the ship carring the SM's. When you do this the cost is
closer to 14.22 (hull etc. multiplies cost by an average of 2.1xmass).
Which
makes the jammers about 2/3rd's the cost of a SM salvo.

What is needed, IMHO, is a way to make PDS more effective agianst SM's,
but
reduce the effectiveness of B-Jamming. 

I prefer a method that would not require re-design of the existing ships
or
a change in thier cost.

Here are the 3 propsals that I like so far:

1. SM's must attack the largest target in range. Simple, no redesign,
and
the largest ships are the most likely to have ADFC equiped escorts.

2. Allow SM's to attack a specific mass range set at launch of the SM's.
I
would suggest range brackets of 50 or 100. If this is allowed, I would
also
suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighters/missiles in range. Side
Effect,
gives a reason to use the scanning rules, improved sensors, and ecm.

3. Allow FCS of the firing ship to designate a target for the SM's. The
FCS
cannot be used for other purposes that turn. If more than one ship in
range
is designated, the SM's attack the closest designated ship. Again, I
would
suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighter/missile in range. Side
effect:
opens the doors for sensor/ecm rules in the future.

As you can tell by the above statements, I believe that the PDS needs to
be
allowed to attack any fighters/missiles in range. I maintain that both
SM's
and Fighters are too powerful when compaired to other weapons (on a mas
to
mass or cost to cost basis). This is a bias that I have long held (since
my
2nd FT game). So, you may weight my statements as appropriate.

Note: My math is suspect, as I am doing intuitive approximations. If
someone
wants to run the math, be my guest.
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain [SMTP:aebrain@dynamite.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 10:10 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: The GZG Digest V1 #608
> 
> RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> 
[snip]
>  
> > 2.	allow a ship to use reduced radius missiles that can be set to
> ignore all
> > ships below size 50--and a ship must use either these or the old
ones.
> By
> > reduced radius, I mean that the targetting radius of the SM is only
3
> (or 4,
> > once again determined by playtest) MU instead of 6 MU.
> 
> Now this one I like. Very much. The only thing agin it is that you
must
> distinguish between which missiles are "tight pattern" and which
"broad
> pattern". Niggling, but not a huge concern.
>  
[snip]

> Summary: I now see 2 solutions which I really like more than the
others:
> a) The D6 one (probably because I proposed it and am prejudiced)
> b) The reduced radius one.
> 
> Of the two, I think b) is marginally better.
> 
> -- 
>		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
>