Re: The iCloak
From: "John C" <john1x@h...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:52:09 GMT
Subject: Re: The iCloak
>on 6/14/00 12:18, John C at john1x@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>--->8--- (snipped intro)
>
> > In game terms, this is how it works
> >
> > Any ship that wishes to fire at an iCloaked ship must first roll a
"6"
>on
> > one die. This applies to direct fire only; Salvo Missiles, Nova
>Cannons,
> > and Wave Guns are unaffected by the iCloak.
>
>Here's some questions:
>
>Can multiple FireCon systems be used to have several attempts at
locking
>on?
For the sake of simplicity, each FireCon used would give another +1.
This
seems like the quickest and easiest way to resolve things. You'd have
to
dedicate those FireCons to the attempt, though -- you couldn't use three
FireCons to lock on and then use two of them direct fire at different
targets.
>If so would weapons be declared as linked with one particular FireCon's
>lock-on attempt before rolling the lock on? Ex. I want to fire 3x
Class 2
>Beams at a ship under iCloak - I want to use 2 FireCons - 1 with 2 of
the
>beams and the other with one.
>
>Would the lock-on mods for use of weapons by the cloaking ship modify
all
>lock-on attempts, even ones that come before the cloaked ship fires.
This
>could require the cloaking player to commit to a certain amount (or
lack)
>of
>weapons fire before she/he knows whether those weapons are going to
still
>be
>around. I'm assuming the use the standard initiative rules.
>If the lock-on modifiers only happen after the cloak ship's turn to
fire
>has
>come and gone then there is some real potential for abuse.
Here's the thing: my group uses simultaneous fire, so I tend to
automatically think in those terms. With us, the Fnorded ship would
have to
declare all fire before anyone started rolling dice, so it would be easy
to
determine the exact modifier.
For non-simultaneous fire, you're very right: tremendous potential for
abuse. Jut wait 'til everyone else has fired, and *then* let go with
everything you have because you now have nothing to lose. One option
that
occurs to me is to make the modifier dependant on the weapon's fire from
*last* turn -- targeting computers can use it to extrapolate your
movements,
I suppose. So the total modifier would be last turn's firing, and this
turn's movement -- this would likely lead to:
Cut loose with everything you have (turn one),
You're already screwed because of last turn, so use this one to
maneuver (turn two),
Don't maneuver, to get your bonus back (turn three),
Repeat.
Whether this is a bad thing or not is up to others to determine.
Strikes me
as being a trifle annoying, but not too unbalancing. Others probably
have
better ideas, though.
>The system has some potential issues towards balancing the cost
depending
>upon the decision with when the lock-on modifiers come into play.
>Regardless of the final decision though this mechanism will be a bit
more
>complicated than the usual FT type of rules (not necessarily a bad
thing
>though depending on your preferred style of play).
I was trying to keep the modifiers as simple as possible -- usually the
amount of points that you spend (on maneuvering, or firing) is equal to
the
modifier. I think that it would be pretty smooth in play, but I'll
obviously have to playtest it to determine this.
>I hope this doesn't sound too negative. I have a hard time not
slipping
>into play-tester mode. ;-)
Negative is good. I want people to point out the things that I screwed
up,
or forgot about. Exactly as you did above.
John Crimmins john1x@hotmail.com
http://www.voicenet.com/~johncrim/index.html
"We're not at home to Mr. Reasonable, sergeant."
"I do not hear him knockin', sir."
--Terry Pratchett, _The Fifth Elephant_
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com