Re: Fixing salvo missiles

Replying to several posts at once here:

Jared Hilal wrote:

 >>>Salvo Missile Racks are really underutilized.
 >>
 >> <grin> Allahu akhbar!  Underutilized by whom?
 >
 >Jon T. and the Official GZG-verse fleets (as Dean G. has stated that
 >Jon T. designed all the FB1 fleets).

Jon T's "official" GZGverse fleets:

1) do not cover every "official" nation of the GZGverse; in fact FB1 
explicitly states that it doesn't even cover all of the ship designs
used 
by the four powers described in FB1,

2) form at best a few percent of all Full Thrust ship designs created
and 
used under the Fleet Book rules, and

3) include three times as many SMR-armed ships as you claimed ;-)

In short, FB1 on its own is *far* too small a sample base to give you
any 
idea of how commonly used a particular weapon is. All it tells you is
that 
Jon didn't include SMRs as a major part of the "design themes" of the
any 
of the four FB powers - but it doesn't tell you anything about his ideas

for *other* GZGverse fleets' design doctrines, and it doesn't tell you 
anything about what the hundreds or even thousands of *other* Full
Thrust 
players around the world think of the weapons.

(FWIW I don't know what all FT players think either; only those I've
been 
in contact with. That's why I'm subscribing to so many GZG-related
mailing 
lists - to try and sample the thoughts of as many players as possible.)

 >There is only 1 FB ship that has any SMRs, and it is a variant
 >described in text only, no SSD.  There are no SM-armed MTB/PT/PCG
 >designs at all.

The following three FB1 ships use SMRs:

ESU Gorshkov-class Heavy Cruiser (standard variant, SMRs shown on SSD)
FSE San Miguel/M-class missile destroyer (described in text only)
FSE Athena/M-class missile corvette (described in text only)

How small would a ship have to be in order to qualify as an "MTB/PT/PCG"

craft, BTW?

 >Since 2 SMRs = 8 MASS, and 1 SML + 2-salvo SMM = 7 MASS, all of the
 >ships with small SM loads in FB1 use a SML rather than SMRs.

No, ships with *large* SM loads use SMLs since they're the ones that
save 
significant amounts of Mass from doing so. The FB1 ships with the 
*smallest* SM loads both use SMRs (can't get smaller loads than 1 salvo,

like), and of the 3 designs with the next-smallest SM loads (2 salvoes)
2 
designs use SMLs, the 3rd SMRs.

 >>though please note that I'm *not* saying that
 >>you're wrong in the context of your gaming group, only that many
 >>other groups have reached quite different conclusions than you have.
 >
 >Other players use 2 SMRs vs (SML + 2-S SMM) or 3 SMRs vs (SML + 3-S
 >SMM)?

2xSMR is more common than SML+4-Mass magazine, yes. Being able to launch

both salvoes at once is a major consideration here, as is the SML's
higher 
vulnerability to threshold damage.

3xSMR on a single ship is less common than SML+6-Mass magazine, though
I'd 
say that that's as much because SMR players tend to use numerous ships
with 
1-2 SMRs each rather than fewer ships with many SMRs.

 >>>To encourage their use, change SMR to 3 MASS & 12 PV (4 per MASS)
 >>>or 15 PV (5 per MASS)
 >
 >>Unless your missile boats are thrust-8 or faster, Mass 3, cost 15
 >>makes the SMRs *more* expensive overall than Mass 4, cost 12.
 >>Mass 3, cost 12 gives them a bit of a rebate, though in light of
 >>what I wrote above I'm not at all convinced that it is necessary.

Talking NPV here, not CPV. Apologies for any confusion that caused!

 >I understand the cost difference, I just don't know how much weight
you
 >give to the "logistical slice" in figuring PV.

Figure out what fraction of the ship's engines the weapon requires, and 
what they cost.

Add the cost for the Basic Hull Structure holding the weapon *and* its 
fraction of the engines (ie. 1 pt in the NPV system, a variable amount
if 
you use CPV instead).

Add all three costs together.

Eg., let's study a Mass 4/cost 12 weapon aboard a thrust-6 FTL-capable
ship 
of TMF 20. The ship has 8 Mass of engines and thus 20-8 = 12 Mass of 
systems and hull boxes who have to share those engines; so the Mass 4 
weapon's share of the engines is 4/12 = 33%, or 2.67 Mass. These engine 
bits cost 2.67*2 = 5.33 pts.

The Basic Hull Structure to hold a 4-Mass weapon and 2.67 Mass of
engines 
is 6.67 NPV, or (in a TMF 20 ship) 1.33 CPV. The total cost of this
weapon 
in this ship is therefore 12+5.33+6.67 = 24 NPV or 12+5.33+1.33 = 18.67
CPV.

 >>>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.
 >>
 >>So the 9-salvo magazine aboard the FSE Foch-class ships would have a
 >>Mass of 12 instead of 18 and the 6-salvo magazine on the Roma-class
 >>drops from 12 to 9 Mass? That's nice, but I'm not sure how it fits
 >
 >I would say that the above SMMs should stay the same MASS, and alter
 >their capacity rating accordingly. All of the FB designs are light on
 >ammunition IMO, especially if viewed in terms of ships actually
 >operating on cruises, rather than built for one-off games.

How many battles do you expect a ship to fight on each cruise, before 
returning to base for repairs and resupply? More importantly, how many 
battles do you expect them to fight before they can meet up with a fleet

collier and top up their magazines?

 >How many games do you see a missile collier or three taging along with
the
 >FSE fleet to replenish them between engagements?

In one-off games? About as often as you see carrier task forces include 
freighters to carry replenishment fighters to fill up the emptied hangar

bays after a battle, ie. very rarely. They're nice objectives in
scenario 
games, though.

In campaigns, and specifically campaigns which track missile usage? Very

often, though usually both the missile colliers and the fighter
replacement 
transports stay far enough behind the front lines that the enemy has to
go 
through the warships before it can reach them.

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