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

>>Now, I feel that the point of the FCLO (Fire Control Lock-On) roll is 
exactly that it is NOT adding very much in the way of complexity - 
it's going to be one or two rolls per ship per fire phase in most 
cases (ok, maybe three or four at most if a large ship is attempting 
to lock-up the maximum number of small targets at once) - and those 
will most likely be balanced out by the fact that if a ship fails 
those rolls, you don't spend the time taken to fire it's weapons! 
Things like ECM/ECCM, stealth, agility and other countermeasures will 
just modify the roll, and thus all be resolved in one simple 
mechanism.<<

Is there any thought as to making this a 1/engagement roll? Or
1/engagement
until circumstances change? Because all of those things sound great but
I
(for one) don't want to complicate things with more rolls.

I, for one, don't have much of a problem with merely adding things to
the
"roll to hit" which would allow for differences in weapon systems and
what
they're affected by. Is it "as" accurate? No, but I'd be fine with that
level of granularity since it seems to be in keeping with the
"traditions"
of the game.

>>There is no doubt that introducing something like this (which, I must 
emphasise, is nothing more than a discussion point at present - not 
any kind of indicator as to the way we will actually decide to go) 
will make the game feel a little different - but I think that only 
testing on the table will tell if that is a good or bad thing, and 
how much the real difference is. If the general feeling is that it 
will change things enough that it will no longer feel like FT , then 
that's the sort of thing I want to know.<<

I think that if that's the route to go, then redesign the game from the
ground up and then just factor in a "Full Thrust Lite" for people who
don't
want a complicated system.

David Rodemaker