RE: RE: [FT] Salvo Missile Range + Plasma Bolt question

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Gundberg [SMTP:dean.gundberg@noridian.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 3:24 PM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	RE: RE: [FT] Salvo Missile Range + Plasma Bolt question
> 
> > I have a solution for missiles and plasma bolts. If we take the
> > vector movement system
> > everything has enercia. Well it should anyrate :) So why not add
> > the LAST turn's velocity to
> > the missiles? If you ship is traveling 18" then the missiles go
> > and extra 18" in the direction of
> > the velocity of the ship that's firing them. Messure out hte
> > velocity and then use that as the
> > starting point of the missile fire point.
> 
[Bri] That was what I intended in my original post. Missile fire is
before
ship movement, so you do not get to add in the ship's velocity changes
in the current turn to the missile.

> Why not?  Well because it changes the balance of the whole game :)
> 
> With current rules, Salvo Missile armed ships have to close within 30"
> (24"
> range plus 6" attack radius) and survive a round of fire before they
can
> fire their missiles.	Smaller ships may not survive to fire their SMs
and
> larger ships may loose their SMs to threshold checks.
> 
[Bri] 
Not necessarily true. Your statement is correct if the ships are 
closing range at a rate of 1-6. Any faster and the ships could be out of
range of each other (i.e. start the turn at >36 the previous turn) on
the
previous turn.

> With those proposed rules, the range of the SMs are increase by the
ships
> velocity so per your example, normal SMs can now hit targets up to 48"
> away,
> so they can fire off their SMs before any damage is taken, and then
plot
> movement so as to get out of harms way.
> 
[Bri] As stated, above, this is already the case. Example: 2 ships are 
closing going head to head. Ship S (with the SMLs) is moving at 48mu
and ship T (target) is moving at 6. The ships end the last turn at 37mu
away from each other (out of range). This turn Ship S fires its SRMs
24mu away and does a 3pt turn to the port. Ship T increases velocity
by 6, but does not turn. Ship T moves with in 2mu of the missiles and
are targeted by them. Ship S is now over 36mu away so still out of
range.

> As a result, Salvo Missiles are now very powerful first strike weapons
and
> fleets of small ships with high thrust and SMRs will rule the
spacelanes.
> This would throw the point system out of whack and require changes in
the
> whole game.
> 
[Bri] I don't think that it would be as much a problem as you think. 
It will not be as bad as the problem with MT Missile Boats, because
salvo missiles are not multi-turn and cannot react to the movement
of opponent ships. But that option is already open (as demonstrated 
above) for a force of small, fast SML Boats to approach at a closing
speed of 7-35 and drop missiles and escape out of range. 
Some results of applying inertia to salvo missiles would be:
 -  Encourage faster, more agile ships and explain why the FSE use 
    faster ships.
 - Encourage more ADFC/PDS. But, already the game is encouraging 
    more PDS and ADFC/PDS than the original designs carried, with the
    the strength of fighter, PHC plasma, and SV pods.
 - Encourage faster close rates. 
 - Encourage more attack wave type of combat rather than a 
    spiral of death or standing wall of guns.
 - Encourage the use of more small ships.

> The fixed range from the ship's initial location is not the most
realistic
> but it works.  If inertia is added to SMs, then we better add it to
> fighter
> movement and fighter launches, and additional problems will then show
up.
> 
[Bri] It is true. Fighters face the same problem, but to a lesser degree

since they are multi-turn. It has already been proposed on the list that

fighters keep track of inertia and velocity. Orders would not have to be

written, but fighters would move in the direction they last moved, the
distance they last moved before applying their movement. I believe that
this option was generally rejected to keep the game simplified. But
it remains an option for house rules.

> Dean Gundberg
--------End Original Message------------

My comments above marked by [Bri]

After all of the above has been said, I understand that it is not a
perfect
solution. The cure may be worse than the problem. I was just interested
if anyone else had run into this problem and if there was a good
solution
to it.

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org
---