Re: (FT)Canna get the archives to divulge this...

Thomas Westbrook wrote:

 >>No. The reduction of the missiles' target
 >>acquisition range prevents the
 >>*missiles* from getting a very good deal in Vector.
 >
 >MT missles DO NOT have the OPTIONAL, as I read it,
 >reduced acquision range and are harder to knock down.

The updated "MT missiles" (aka "Heavy Missiles") have the same reduced 
acquisition range as SMs do once they've finished their 2ndary move, and

are *easier* for PDS to shoot down than an entire SM salvo.

 >>The ships' manoevering envelope is much smaller in
+>>Vector than it is in Cinematic,
 >
 >I thought the OPTIONAL reduction

It is optional, but as the rule says this option is "strongly
suggested".

 >more for the more predictable trajectory, or so

That's what I said, and it was a near-verbatim quote from FB1. The 
"manoeuvre envelope" for a specific ship is the the smallest volume 
encompassing all trajectories that ship can follow, so the smaller the 
manoeuvre envelope is the fewer trajectories the ship has to choose
between 
and thus the more predictable its movement will be.

And going back to Inire's question, the motivation for reducing the SMs'

target acquisition range to 3mu in Vector is explicitly given in FB1 
immediately after the rule itself:

"SPECIAL NOTE if you choose to use the VECTOR MOVEMENT system given in
this 
book instead of the "standard" FT movement rules, then we strongly
suggest 
redusing the attack radius of Salvo Missiles from 6" to 3" - this will 
prevent the missiles becoming too accurate against the more predictable 
manoeuvre envelope of a vector-movement ship. ..."

(FB1 p.9, 2nd paragraf)

 >Though I read somewhere, don't recall off-hand, that
 >the Kravak Gravatic engines

Looks like you didn't finish this sentence, but I know what you're
thinking 
of anyway: it is the sentence immediately after the above quote. You're 
misremembering it, though - that bit is not about the Kra'Vak Advanced 
drives (which use the same movement system as human/Phalon standard
drives) 
at all; instead it is about how to justify using different target 
acquisition ranges in games where some ships use *Cinematic* movement
while 
others use *Vector* movement (eg. EFSB-style Babylon 5 battles).

 >>missiles a much higher hit
 >>probability in Vector than it does in Cinematic.
 >
 >The actual probability of SM hitting a ship with a PDS
 >is about zero percent on average (I did the analysis),

Is that the same analysis you presented in your very first post to this 
list (September 2nd
<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200409/msg00032.html>), where you
claimed 
the very same thing? If so, it was very badly wrong; I pointed out the 
flaws in it in my reply the same day you posted it 
(<http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200409/msg00048.html>). If you have 
updated your analysis and still get the same completely false "about
zero 
percent on average" result, you're welcome to post it here so we can
check 
where you went wrong this time.

The actual probability of an SM salvo inflicting damage on a target is
the 
product
of the probabilities of two separate events: the probability that it
will 
acquire the target at all (ie., that the target ends its movement within

the salvo's target acquisition range), and the probability that at least

one of the salvo's missiles will make it past the target's PDS.

The first of these, the probability that the salvo will acquire a
target, 
depends mainly on the target's thrust rating and the two players' 
respective skills. As such it is difficult to analyze other than by 
empirical means, ie. by keeping records during games and counting how
large 
a fraction of the launched salvoes that actually locked on to something;

but it is definitely larger than zero percent :-/

The second is the probability that at least one of the salvo's missiles 
will make it past the target's PDS, and this seems to be the one you 
believe is "about zero percent on average" even for a ship with "a PDS"
- 
ie., *one single* PDS (unless of course this is a second case of your 
interpreting "a" as meaning "any number of"). This iis incorrect; the 
probability that an SM salvo opposed by one single PDS will inflict at 
least some damage on the target is 87%. That's quite far from "about
zero 
percent on average".

If the salvo is opposed by 2, 3 or 4 PDSs this probability drops to 74%,

61% or 50% respectively; even if the target manages to mass 10 PDSs
against 
this single SM salvo there's still an 8.5% chance that at least one of
its 
missiles will get through. Of course 8.5% isn't very much (only one in 
twelve), but 10 PDSs against a single salvo is a *lot* - and little
though 
it is, 8.5% is nevertheless quite a bit more than your "about zero
percent 
on average".

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