RE: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)

>>>> The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
acquire a target is one that we've played around with (at least in
theory) for some time; <<<<

I've only recently started to play FT, but once upon a time I played
many
games of WRG's naval wargame Seastrike which uses a
fire-control/serviceability test for every shot, helicopter launch,
airstrike etc. Seastrike uses a pack of special cards rather than dice
to
handle random factors, but essentially one has a 50% chance per shot (a
shot
being one attempt to fire one ship's weapon at one target) that the
weapon
malfunctions or the fire control fails to lock on. If the target is
acquired, one then tests for effect. At times one seemed to spend a lot
of
time flipping cards for not much effect. Seastrike requires an FC test
per
weapon/target pair, and testing only per shooter/target pair would cut
down
on the number of tests required. I definitely got the feeling that my
ships'
weapons weren't all that reliable (which might be realistic of course),
and
it was prudent to plan for redundant attacks. It's certainly frustrating
to
pull off some nifty manoeuvre, only to be left holding an empty bag on
the
attack.

I'd rather assumed that fire control was factored into FT's "chance to
hit"
rolls. If one added a FC check without adjusting fire effect resolution,
wouldn't one simply make it harder to score hits? Do we feel that ships
die
too quickly in FT at the moment?

>>>> The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
easy
implementation of a number of new variables that are harder (or more
clumsy)
to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as they stand; such
things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility, enhanced sensors, etc
etc.... <<<<

I can see that. How much of a demand for this is there? Is everyone out
there using the bogey markers and other "fog of war" options already
offered
by FT?

>>>>1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
consequent possible game-slowing... <<<<

 I did rather like the idea someone suggested of adding different
coloured
dice (one die per firecon allocated to the target?) to handle the
lock-on
test. But some sort of record keeping would presumably then be required
to
ensure that no firecon is used for more than one target per turn. I'd be
less worried about an extra die-roll, than about all the modifiers (+1
for
enhanced sensors, -2 for target stealth etc.). It could end up like the
old
WRG ancients rules with all sorts of tables to look up.

>>>>2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under
current rules, so players will be tempted to load up with larger numbers
when doing own-design ships unless this is limited in some way.....<<<<

Is that a problem? Designers would have to trade off mass, points etc.
as
normal.

>>>>3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire
at
all that turn; this can be either incredibly frustrating or a huge
relief depending on which side you're on! <<<<

My experience with Seastrike leads me to think that an FC test would
make
attacks feel "chancier" and encourage multiple and combined attacks.
Fleet
Book smaller ships would be at a disadvantage with only one firecon. It
MIGHT discourage fast slashing attacks (FSE?) and encourage a slow
"phalanx"-like approach (NSL?) to give the less reliable weapon systems
more
chances at the target. Playtesting required obviously.

Best regards, Robert Bryett.
mailto:rbryett@mail.com