Prev: Re: NI and OU Next: [FT] Islamic Ship Designs

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

From: RWHofrich@a...
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:23:19 EST
Subject: Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers (Re: The GZG Digest V1 #608)

In a message dated 12/10/99 9:09:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil writes:

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

Well, yes.  But I suggest that you may want to playtest first--I have
yet to 
play a game using vector movement... 

>  
>  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.

If you're talking custom designs, which you must be as there is no FB
design 
like the little tikes you described below... 

Why not work it out this way--a salvo launcher and three reloads uses up
9 
spaces and costs 27 points.  With engines, etc. that runs to 9/0.4=22.5
(for 
a thrust 4 ship, average hull, but we'll round down to 22 assuming
you've 
designed the ship with the right break points) and 66 points.  Divide by

three (so we get a per salvo cost) gives us 22 points per salvo.  For
the 
same cost, you can mount about three PDS--9 points (wpn cost) +
(3/0.5--we're 
talking cap ships after all) x3 = 24 points.  Close enough for
government 
work, anyway.

A salvo gets on average 3.5 hits and a hit does, on average 3.5 points 
damage.  But wait--the three PDS have a kill rate of about .60 (amount
you 
can kill for each probability on a d6 divided by the number of different

outcomes--4/6 = .666, but I'll round down since there are only 3.5
targets 
anyway).  So, the 3.5 hits gets reduced to 1.5 missile hits which yields
5.25 
pips of damage.

After taking all three salvos, the target should have absorbed almost 16
hull 
hits in damage.  Of course, the firing ship now has 66 points (cost) of 
useless systems and support.

And we can throw all of these calculations out the window in a FLEET 
engagement.  Since firers will be concentrating their fire and only 
ADFC-equippped ships will be able to add to the defenses of the targets. 

>  
>  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.

Unless you are forced to use Fleet Book designs...in which case you are 
talking about 21 points or thereabouts--very close to the 22 for a
salvo.

>  
>  

snip

>  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.

Not bad, in my opinion, since it does not require any extra die rolls,
major 
rule rewrites, or any extra book keeping.

Just to add a personal note--I have NEVER won playing the FSE, even
against 
wimps like the NAC.  But I just picked up a couple of San Miguels the
other 
day so maybe next time...

>

big snip
  
>  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.

Or not--I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible.

>  > 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.

These could be set at moment of launch--basically you could lay out one
kind 
of chit for normal 6 MU detection and another for those set at 3 (or 4)
MU 
detection.

>  > 
>  > 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.


Prev: Re: NI and OU Next: [FT] Islamic Ship Designs