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

--- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >It is still the case that those weapons are 50% less
> >effective. Doesn't that change the balance?
> >
> >andy
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, but by how much depends on how hard we make 
> the lock-on roll and how much countermeasures people load up 
> with. The 50% mentioned in the example above was nothing to 
> do with the lock-on ideas, it was just talking about the 
> "misses" in regular FT.

Yes, I should have been a little more clear about that, I guess.

> Whether lowering the overall damage potential by having the
> lock-on mechanism (and not altering the normal weapon fire 
> resolution) is a problem depends on peoples' views about 
> whether current FT damage is 1) too low already, 2) about 
> right, or 3) too harsh.....
> 
> Jon (GZG)

The other consideration would be balance between systems, as
Andy mentioned in a later e-mail.  For example, salvo missiles
would seem to be an indirect fire weapon, and in fact have a
'lock-on' mechanism in place already, to a degree.  But how will
making ships lock on for beam or K-gun fire affect the balance
in effectiveness between salvo missiles and beams? 
Scatterpacks?  Subpacks?  (Which are probably pretty under-used
at this point, really, other than by IF.... ^_- )

I do like the 'defender rolls to break lock' a little better
than rolling to acquire, though the mechanism is really similar.
 Whether you want to go all the way to a DS-style opposed roll
is also a good question, since at least part of the systems are
on the attacking ship (FC quality, as you noted).

'Til later,
Aaron

		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com