RE: Fire Control lock-on

In message <a05210601bee2f8cf529a@[62.125.28.15]>
	  Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Well, this discussion has certainly made for an interesting few days
> of list traffic!!  <GRIN>
> 
> As I kind of expected, there are almost as many different opinions
> (and ideas) expressed as there are people posting..... but I always
> knew we wouldn't be able to please everyone!	;-)
> 
> Right now, I'm leaning towards the following as a general direction to
> move in:
> 
> 1) Basic FT (the core rules) left much as it is, ie: one firecon
> required per target, lock-on is assumed to be automatic (or assumed
> to be factored into the shots that "miss" - whichever way you like to
> think of it, the game effect is the same).
> 
> 2) A "module" of rules in the advanced section that combines sensors,
> stealth, ECM, evasion etc. into one "lock-on" rule mechanism.
> 
> The biggest problem I can foresee with this (as RB-W mentioned way
> back at the start of the discussion) is that the values of ships
> designed to use the advanced rules module will be different from
> those designed for the basic game only.... but then again, I think
> this will be a difficulty with ANY advanced or optional rules, and
> we'll just have to find a suitable way round it.
> 
> Jon (GZG)
> 
If you design the 'advanced' system so that the default case is that a 
ship with a standard fire control system automatically locks onto a 
ship with standard defences, then (hopefully) ships designed for Basic 
FT will have the same cost as those designed for 'Advanced'.

For example of how this could work:

I'm assuming that all ships have a sensor range equal to that of their 
longest range weapons.

Using the 'defender rolls to break lock' system that has been 
mentioned.

Fire controls come in various classes, as follows

Civilian: a very basic FireCon, has a base break-lock number of 5 or 6
Basic: a standard Full Thrust military FireCon, base break lock of 7
Enhanced: base break-lock number of 8
Superior: base break-lock number of 9

As an alternative, fire controls could be given class numbers equal to 
the break-lock number -6.

I suggest that they all require 1 MASS, but with different costs (for 
example 2 or 3 for civilian, 4 for basic, more for enhanced and 
superior).

The break-lock number is the number the defender needs to equal or 
exceed on a roll of 1d6. Notice that a defender with no special 
systems or circumstances cannot break-lock from any firecon except a 
civilian one.

For simplicity, there are no range modifiers, or ship size modifiers.

Defensive systems (stealth, ECM) give a bonus number to the break-lock 
roll.

Environmental factors such as dust clouds and nebula give bonuses to 
the break-lock roll, when including such terrain in a scenario, assign 
each duct cloud or nebula with a density number, this is the bonus the 
terrain gives to break-lock rolls. The dust clouds and nebula 
described in More Thrust (page 9) have a density of 3.

Either a successful break-lock roll breaks all locks from a particular 
ship, or each lock (if a ship locks multiple firecons onto the 
defender) requires a separate break-lock roll. As has been stated, the 
latter option favours larger ships.
An alternative option for multiple locks if that each additional 
firecon after the first penalises the break-lock roll (analogous to 
damage repair rolls).

The effects of breaking a lock should either be to prevent weapons 
fire, or to double the effective range. It should be noted that a 
logical conclusion that weapons might be expected to be able to fire 
without a fire control system, but with half their usual ranges. If 
this is not a desired outcome then either the first option should be 
used, or some explanation added for the difference between a failed 
attempt to lock on, and no fire control at all.

For placed marker weapons - one option is to give missiles their own 
individual break-lock rolls, or a 'group lock' roll for Salvo 
Missiles, where the break-lock roll determines how many missiles are 
on target (not sure about the best option here).

Well, those are my thoughts.

Charles