Re: Fixing salvo missiles

--- Tom Westbrook <tom_westbrook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Idea #1
> > The "# of missiles lock-on roll" is my biggest gripe.  Replace
> > it with a lock-on roll for each missile in the salvo.  The
> > missile must roll the required # or higher to successfully
> > lock on the target.
<snip>
> > (option: missiles which fail lock-on try against next closest 
> > target, etc. until all possible targets exausted.  If missiles
> > from a salvo attack more than 1 target, maybe split salvo for
> > PD purposes) Missiles suffer -1 to hit per level of ECM
> > (enhanced, superior) and -1 per level of stealth hull.
> 
> SMs are dumber than dumb.  They are like a flak load
> and the target basically runs into them, so there is
> potential for a total miss.  To say that SMs can now
> seek another target misses the point of SMs.

I figure SMs are (semi-)autonomus homing munitions like modern SAMs,
AAMs, torpedoes, or the missiles that show up in SF.  That is why I
want to improve their performance in the game.

> BTW, are you planning to now say that SMs have a 54 mu range to
> account for the additional fuel load,

I don't see the connection or logic of this.  What fuel load are you
talking about?

> now you have to
> increase the mass of each missile to account for the
> additional fuel,

What additional fuel?

> oh, and now I need to account for the
> smarter electronics (i.e. targeting at up to range 6),
> so increase the mass some more...
> 

Huh?  RAW the attack targets up to 6 MU, So I don't see what your
bitching about.

> Are you halving the targeting range when using vector
> movement?
> 

Don't know.  Have to get opinions from those who actually play vector.

> ECM has no effect on targeting systems by the FB. If
> you do that then I want the opponent to roll 4+(1d6)
> to lock a fire control onto my ships [one try per FCS]
> for my using ECM systems in normal space and I can't
> be targeted in a nebula.

Why so sarcastic and unreasonably over-the-top?  If you want a good,
genuine discussion kicking around ideas for an integrated
Stealth-ECM-FCS-Sensor system, why don't you start a thread?  I'd be
happy to contribute without getting pissy.

> > Idea #2)  
> > Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.  To
> > encourage their use, change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV
> > (4 per MASS) or 15 PV (5 per MASS)
> 
> I wouldn't use them EVEN IF thats all there is.  For
> that mass, give me a pulse torpedo.
>  

Can't.	PTLs are 6 MASS for 3-Arc, not 3.

> > Idea #4)
> > SM magazines take threshold checks as protected
> > systems (like Core Systems)
> 
> Don't like it, otherwise you may as well move ALL the
> weapons into that protected status.  I think that's
> the risk of having explosive warheads and fuel in such
> close proximity to each other when being hit by large
> destructive measures.  I know that the grunts (at
> least) accept that risk.

Maybe conscripts whose countries can't afford anything better than
soviet cast-offs, but the trend is to protect crews.  Nothing in the
rules implies that the missiles or warheads are a volitile hazard.  RAW
thresholded SMMs can be repaired and then used normally.  Implies no
munition detonation.

> 
> > Idea #3)
> > 1-arc SML = 2 MASS
> > 5 arc SML = 4 MASS
> > if also adopt #2 above, 1- and 5-arc SMRs have same
> > mass as corresponding SML, but 4 or 5 PV/MASS.
> 
>  (see comments under idea 5)
> > > Idea #5)
> > change SM magazine to 3 MASS for 1st salvo, +2 MASS
> > for second salvo,
> > +1 MASS per additional salvo, and 6 PV per salvo.
> 
> Make the weapon system better and cheaper.  Sounds a
> lot like SFB to me.  Not today nor tomorrow.

As I am someone who never played Star Fleet Battles, perhaps you can
explain this?

> 
> > Idea #6)
> > Change ER missiles to be interchangable with standard SMs, but have
> > +50% range (compared to standard missiles) and 1d3 damage.
> > Add Long Range (LR) missiles with +100% range and 1 pt damage.
> > Add Heavy warhead missiles with -33% range and 2d6 damage.
> > Add X-Heavy warhead missiles with -50% range and 3d6 damage.
> 
> ERSMs and SM are interchangeable when using the SML. 

No they aren't.  ER take 50% more MASS RAW.  I said interchangeable, as
in 1-to-1 exchange.  That is why my suggestions have trade-offs between
damage and range.

J