Re: MT missiles

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

>Please, no, don't screw up the game again!
> 
>MT missiles (and level-3 screens, and "no sense to buy anything but
>A-batts") was exactly the reason that turned me off FT back then...

Oh ye of little faith...

We *)  fixed the "nothing but A-batts". We tried to fix the level-3
screens but found it impossible, so we banned them instead. Now we're
trying to fix the MTMs; if we can that's good, if we can't they'll get
banned too.

Do you have a problem with that?

*) Jon T., the FB1 playtesters and everyone else whose input influenced
FB1.
 
>If anyone is really serious about bringing them back, try this
exercise:
> 
>- Make one normal fleet, say vanilla FB1 designs 
>- Make one fleet of equal value, composed entirely of "bathtub
>launchers":
> MD8, one MTM, FTL, minimal hull, nothing else. 

I suggest that they may want an FC too. According to the FT FAQ they
must have one in order to launch their MTMs... TMF 8, NPV 28.

> - Start the battle in the normal way. The launcher fleet enters at
>maximum allowed velocity.
> - On the first turn (assuming table depth about 60" or less), the
>launcher fleet launches all missiles and executes a hard turn away. 
> - On the following turns they continue running and FTL away at first
> opportunity.

I've fought this battle quite a few times over the years, with both
FT2/MT and FB1 designs. I'd be quite happy to take any vanilla FB1
fleet as long as my slowest ships have thrust-4 or better engines (ie.,
no NSL heavies or ESU superheavies).

>From your rather bitter tone, I gather that your best idea of how to
handle the missile boat Swarm was to charge down their throats? OK,
that wouldn't be too surprising since you don't like cm-measuring or
floating table edges, but IMO you only have yourself to blame for those
restrictions.

This is what tends to happen in Cinematic on a floating or large table:

Regardless of what enemy I'm fighting I usually set up for an oblique
approach to allow more maneuvers before reaching weapons range, so my
ships start facing 60-90 degrees away from the direction the enemy (ie,
the missile boats) approach from. Against this particular foe my
initial velocity isn't very important - you'll see why in a moment.

When the missile boats launch, I turn *away* from them as hard as I
can, and start accellerating.  Since the table edges are floating I
have plenty of space to fall back in.

Since the vanilla MTMs have a maximum range of 60mu from the point of
launch (incl. the attack radius of 6mu), the missile boats need to come
into my weapons range before they launch if they want *any* chance of
hitting - otherwise my ships simply outrun their missiles. For example,
ifmy thrust-4 ships move at speed 4 or more perpendicularly to the
vector from me to their launch position, the missiles must be launched
at range 35 or less to catch my ships (OK, mathematically they'll need
to come to range 34.94, but that's too fine a measurement even for me
<g>). If my ships move at speed 8 the missiles need to be launched at
range 22mu or less, etc.

So I turn away from the missile boats, forcing them to enter my weapons
range before they can launch their missiles, and since they have all
the hull integrity of soap bubbles some of them will die. If I don't
think I can outrun or dodge the missile storm I'll go into hyper -
unless they close to point-blank range before they launch it'll take
the missiles at least two turns to reach attack range, and I only need
one-and-a-half turns to hyper to safety. If they *do* close to
point-blank range, I'll massacre them before they can launch.

End result:
Some dead missile boats (or many, depending on how close they dared to
go before they launched)
Surviving missile boats are unarmed
No damage to my fleet, unless I screw up real bad.

So, I've played this several times already. Time to answer your
questions:

>Then come back and tell just how much fun you had, and how many
>bathtub launchers you managed to shoot down. (My guess is none on
>both counts)

You're guess is off :-)

I had some fun, and quite a bit of suspense. My opponent probably
didn't enjoy it very much, being unable to hurt me but potentially
having his ships slaughtered - serves him right for using a boring
gimmick fleet IMO :-)

If he dared to go close enough to launch with any chance whatsoever of
hitting, I killed roughly one missile boat for every two AP-arc Class-2
batteries in my fleet. Add some kills for the odd AP-arc SML/R, P-torp
or Class-3 battery as well.

If he didn't dare to approach close enough to my ships to have a chance
of inflicting even one missile hit on them he also didn't take any
losses, but I won the battle on walk-over.
 
>You're saying they didn't cause that much damage either? 

I'm saying that they didn't inflict *any* damage. None at all. I, OTOH,
most likely nailed a few of them.

>Well, I have news for you: A kill ratio of something to nothing is
>*infinite*!

<sigh> "News"? I seem to recall a saying about grandmothers and eggs
here...

I repeat: The missile boats inflicted no damage. However, the missiles
they expended cost just over 10% of their total fleet value to replace
(if you use the difference between SMR and magazine-loaded SMs as a
guideline for how much of the MTM mass is launch racks and how much is
the missile). The USAF can probably tell you a few things about
replacing lots of expensive munitions that have been expended without
inflicting any real damage ;-)

My fleet didn't use any expendable ordnance, so it doesn't need to
spend any resources to replace anything. It didn't suffer one single
damage point.

It seems like my fleet inflicted your vaunted infinite kill rate (or at
least infinite economic loss rate) on the missile boats rather than the
other way around, don't you think?

***

Of course, this entire anti-MTM tactic depends on the fact that MTMs do
*not* use Vector movement. If they use Vector instead, their range
becomes virtually unlimited and Mikko's scenario plays out the way he
expects it to. Vector-moving MTMs, SMs, PBs, Nova Cannon or Wave Gun
shots or Energy Mines are seriously Bad Things (tm) for game balance -
been there, done that, worn the T-shirt out years ago... which is of
course why I was so negative to Andrew Apter's suggestion yesterday.

Vector-moving missiles and similar are of course very *realistic*, but
not a single one of the space combat games or novels I've seen have
ever come up with a playable solution to the problem of high-speed
missile strikes being very boring - that is, except for the the
draconian solution "it is not allowed". Weber's "Flag in Exile"
discusses it briefly, but circumvents it by fooling the enemy to come
and play instead of standing off and resort to the high-speed missile
strikes.

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