Re: (FT)Canna get the archives to divulge this...
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:33:39 +0100
Subject: 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 nearverbatim 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 vectormovement ship. ..."
(FB1 p.9, 2nd paragraf)
>Though I read somewhere, don't recall offhand, 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. EFSBstyle 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