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

Dirtside style lockons?

Is d6 sacrosanct with FT?

Roger Books

On 6/23/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >>Seeing as this subject has come up in the last few days'
> >>discussions, I thought I'd take the opportunity to canvass some
> >>opinions from all of you out there in gzg-list-land..... this is
> >>something that's been discussed at some length in the past within
> >>the playtest group, but sometimes it's both interesting and
> >>valuable to get some feedback from a much larger group of players.
> >
> >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 FCs - the firing player announces he is using 1 FC to engage a
> DD, and the other 2 against a CH - he expects the CH to try to break
> lock, hence the choice to use 2 FCs on it.
> 
> The DD is neither evading nor using countermeasures, so lock-on is 
> automatic.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Jon (GZG)
> 
> 
>