Re: Fire Control lock-on

Ground Zero Games wrote:
>> On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>
[...]
>> Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try to 
>> "break" the
>> lock-on of a ship that is attacking it. If you think about it, the 
>> reason that
>> an attacking ship is unable to lock on usually depends on some 
>> property of the
>> defending ship. Either it has ECM, stealth, decoys or is performing 
>> evasive
>> manoeuvres. Also, the effect of the failed lock-on may depend on the 
>> defence
>> being deployed. For example, an ECM defence may produce a fuzzy 
>> target, whereas
>> a decoy would produce a double target.
>>
>> Tony Christney
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, an interesting way of looking at it - one that had crossed my
mind 
> at some point, but I hadn't developed it any further.
> Letting the |target" player roll does not actually make things any 
> different to having the firer do it, but it does give the target the 
> FEEL of trying to defend his ship, and that's a good thing.....
> 
> So, for example (as with the ideas I posted yesterday), take a BB with
3 
[...]
> The CH, on the other hand, is using ECM and is trying to evade as
well; 
> the CH owner adds up whatever values these give him, and must roll
equal 
> or less than this total to break the lock; as the BB player is 
> dedicating TWO FCs to the task, the CH player must roll TWO dice and 
> must succeed with BOTH in order to prevent the BB getting a firing 
> solution.....
> 
> I think I kind of like this.... what does everyone else think?

A similar (but not exactly the same) mechanism is used in Flames of War
to reflect target armor deflecting (or not) the inbound shot (presuming
it hit). It seems to work okay, and yes, it does give the target some
feeling of being able to *try* and do defend his unit.

Mk