Re: Missiles was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

Jared Hilal wrote:

[Re: AMT]

>I always thought that the Phalon PBL was a version of the E-Mine.

So do I. Jon doesn't, however.

> >>For example: SMLs are rated with 2 numbers.  The first represents
> >>the number of tubes and the second represents the size of the
> >>missiles launched in terms of warhead strength, e.g. FB1 SML =
> >>SML:6/1 = 6 missiles w/ 1-die warhead. Extant designs are unchanged,
> >>but player can choose 6/1, 4/2, 3/3, or 2/5 for the current designs
> >>(same MASS).
>[...]
> >In this particular case, assuming that your sample new launcher
> >designs use D4s, D3s and D2s respectively to determine the number
> >of missiles on target, [...] With other lock-on mechanics than a
single 
> die per salvo you get >different results, of course.
>
>I did not intend for them to use other die sizes. As I say in 2),
below, 
>we would rather see each missile make a to-hit roll, modified by ECM, 
>relative positions of missile vis-a-vis target, Stealth, etc.	Thus the

>probabilities of hits could be disconnected from the the number of 
>missiles the launcher put out.

OK. Provided that the costs for "ECM, Stealth etc." are balanced (not a 
trivial task, unfortunately) this balances the 4/2 and 3/3 launcher
types 
against one another and at least reduces the difference between them and

the 6/1 and 2/5 types; but it still doesn't give much reason for using
the 
supposedly "standard" 6/1 launcher except possibly for drawing the enemy

PDS away from more important missile types or fighters, nor for the 2/5 
launcher unless the target is completely undefended by point defence
weapons.

> >>2)	Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
> >> marker missile".  We all feel that the placed-marker missile and
> >>the "roll a die to determine number of successful lock-on" are the
> >>two worst game mechanics in FT.  Would like to see a change to
> >>either a single turn MT-style ordnance
> >
> >The MT-style ordnance *is* a placed-marker missile, albeit with more
> >restricted placement options than the Fleet Book salvo missiles and
> >plasma bolts...
>
>The problem lies in that the missiles have really dumb seeker systems.
>They attack the target nearest the target point.  They are not capable
>of discriminating the "Big Kahuna" FCS suite used on enemy capital
>ships from the "Lil' Bopper" FCS suite used on PCGs.

Correct; the smaller ships are assumed to use their inherent ECM gear to

emulate the bigger ships' signatures in order to lure the missiles away,

much like today's wet-navy fleet escort vessels do. The larger MT
missiles 
have more mass to spare for ECCM gear, so are better able to
discriminate 
between targets.

>It is almost as if the seekers are not active until the salvo reaches
the 
>target point, at which time the sensors become active and look for a
target.

There are several long-range ASM and SSM types today which work exactly 
like this (going on inertial/GPS navigation until they reach the target 
area), so I don't have a problem with it. 'Course, I'm probably biased
in 
this respect since the company I work for build some of those real-world

missile types <shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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