Re: FC and stealth was: Four years without thrust

--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Burton West" <roger@firedrake.org>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> >
> > >How about an ECM mechanic somehow opposed by the
> target's fire control?
> > >Allocate firecons to cracking it to partially or
> totally negate the
> effects.
> >
> > A substantial problem with the FC-as-anti-ECM
> mechanic is that it makes
> > multiple FCs vastly more valuable than they are
> now.
> 
> Should depend on the mechanism in question, wouldn't
> it ?
> 
> After all, if you have to concentrate several
> firecontrols on one target
> and/or for one weapon, you can't use them for
> something else.

I like the ECM vs FC scheme for exactly this reason:
it is all about priorities in combat, though the
mechanic would sorely press the 'old-school' designs
that are currently canon if for no other reason than
the threat of ECM/stealth didn't exist at the time of
their design. War Technology marches on, i guess....

Where the scheme would need some clarity built in is
the order in which combat would take place. We roll
initiative as a custom in our games, but since WE play
with simultaneous damage it is more of a formality
than a need.
> 
> You could also introduce various qualitiy levels for
> fire-controls, as well
> as for stealth.

I can see extending different levels of stealth or
signal corruption (ECM) to be counteracted with FC,
but the idea of adding new levels of FC starts to
depart from the simple nature of FT in general, IMO. ymmv.

=====
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow  
Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!

"Who's Daddy's favorite weapon, huh? Is it Choo-Choo? Is it Choo-Choo?
Yes it is! Such a good hand-to-hand weapon you are!"- S*P 041002

XT350/DOD#1890

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail