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

Bell, Brian K wrpte_

> 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).

Against a single SM salvo, yes. With re-rolls, still against a single
SM salvo, it's about 0.6 missiles each (0.71 for the first, 0.59 for
the second, don't have the figure for the third handy now but it's just
below 0.5 - on average close to 0.6 for all three PDS).

> So, on average 4 missiles of a salvo will hit (assumes correct
placement > of the salvo to hit the target). 

You already corrected this :-/

> 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.

Yes.

> 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.

Ouch. I know how often I'd hit the enemy premium target in this case.
It'd make me avoid SMs just to avoid feeling like a Brie :-(

> 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.
 
Probable side effect: Makes sensor/ECM rules pretty much compulsory if
you or your opponent likes SMs :-(

> 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. 

Why would you designate more than one ship to be attacked? When do you
do the designation - when you fire the SMs (ie, before movement), or
when they attack (after movement)? If the former, what happens if none
of the ships you designate is within attack range of the missiles after
movement?

> Again, I would suggest allowing PDS to attack any fighter/missile in 
> range. 

In which case you must reduce the PDS firepower drastically, or see the
fighters and missiles removed from the game. ADFC is a very powerful
check on fighter power already; your suggestion far surpasses the ADFC.

> Side effect:opens the doors for sensor/ecm rules in the future.

Only if you can use ECM to deny the PDSs their long-range capability.
You don't need to know how big a fighter is to shoot it down, unless
you use SMs to do it under the abvoe options:-/

> 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).

Can't say I agree with that. Not since MT introduced Interceptors, and
definitely not since FB1 brought the ADFC and raised the Mass of a
fighter bay... the fighter morale rules merely provide the last nail in
the proverbial coffin.

> Note: My math is suspect,

Yep :-/ But so are several other people's <g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry