Re: [FT] squadron suggestions

On 6/22/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> Second reason is that, logically, it ought to be easier to hit a SDN
> than a DD.  Let's say the DD is mass 25, the SDN is mass 200, and they
> have similar configurations (same ratio of length to width to height).
> If I've done this right (without benefit of caffeine), the SDN is
> presenting four times the cross section area as the DD; aiming errors
> which would miss the DD entirely merely mean that you hit the SDN
> somewhere other than where you planned.  But FT doesn't (officially)
> have any way to account for that.

If you have the precision to hit _anything_ at ranges of thousands of
km, you have the precision to hit a beer can.

No, the only way to make that kind of fire control miss targets
regularly is to put out enough deceptive jamming to overload the fire
control.

Which is easier with the extra power and square footage of antenna
carried by capital warships.  So capital warships should be harder to
hit.

Realistically, look at the granularity.  You've only got a range of
1-6 to work with.  Each + or - 1 on the dice represents the loss of
33% of your hits, on an average (hit on a 5 rather than a 4).  Does
the minor difference in cross section cause that much inaccuracy?  I
don't think so.  Then let's worry about target aspect, since a
cylindrincal battleship head-on would be harder to hit than a
cylindrical destroyer caught looking at the long axis.	Wouldn't that
add so much to the game?  I mean, you could spend HOURS arguing over
the precise cross section presented.  An FSE SDN head-on vs. an FSE
destroyer caught at an angle, look at the minis.  A few degrees
deflection make a huge difference.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani