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

How about failure of a lock on acts as levels of shields?

On 6/22/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> >On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:07:06AM -0700, Gregory Wong wrote:
> >>I wonder if the game could use a house rule involving ship size
> >>as a modifier to hit. Categorize the ships by mass. Let's say
> >>three sizes, small, medium, and large. When you fire, roll 1D6
> >>for each fire control. For large ships, you automatically lock
> >>on and fire as usual. For medium, you must roll 3-6 and for
> >>medium, you roll 5-6 for a lock-on. If you lock on, then you roll
> >>your attack as usual.
> >
> >The usual objection to this sort of scheme is that you need to make
lots
> of lock-on rolls, which slows the game down.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
> acquire a target is one that we've played around with (at least in
> theory) for some time; the exact mechanisms are not important at this
> stage, but the general principle of the idea is that when it is a
> particular ship's turn to fire, the player nominates the intended
> target(s) and makes a roll for each to see if the firing ship's FCs
> can acquire that target with sufficient precision to perform direct
> fire against it. If the roll succeeds, then play proceeds to fire
> resolution exactly as normal FT rules; if it fails, then the firing
> ship has not been able to lock-on to the target and may not perform
> any direct fire against it that turn. Multiple firecons (if the ship
> has them) may be dedicated to a single target to improve success
> chances, but this must be decided before any lock-on rolls are made.
> 
> Now, this idea is obviously adding a completely new step into the FT
> combat procedure, and there are a number of arguments both for and
> against this.
> 
> The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
> easy implementation of a number of new variables that are harder (or
> more clumsy) to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as
> they stand; such things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility,
> enhanced sensors, etc etc....
> Thus a lot of different ideas which currently would need a load of
> different and sometimes quite complex rules to implement, would
> suddenly all fit into a single, relatively simple mechanism.
> 
> On the other hand, there are a number of possible arguments against;
> ones that have already been identified include:
> 
> 1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
> consequent possible game-slowing...
> 
> 2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under
> current rules, so players will be tempted to load up with larger
> numbers when doing own-design ships unless this is limited in some
> way.....
> 
> 3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire at
> all that turn; this can be either incredibly frustrating or a huge
> relief depending on which side you're on! While it may be annoying to
> fail to acquire a target with a small ship, it could be a game-losing
> point if you fail with all the firecons on a big ship.....
> 
> Now, if we had just launched FT as a new product and it included a
> lock-on step, I'm quite sure that almost no-one would even mention it
> - it would just be taken as a part of the game. The fact that FT
> hasn't had this for all these years, however, means that introducing
> it now is a much more difficult matter. I'm always very aware that
> this list represents only a small proportion of the people who are
> playing FT, and the test list an even smaller subset of those; trying
> to judge how the "silent majority" of players out there will react to
> any major (or even minor!) changes to the rules is always going to be
> very difficult. But, hopefully, some feedback from the list may give
> us an idea of whether this is something that is worth pursuing or
> not. I'd be especially pleased to get some reactions for those list
> members who don't post much - your opinions are just as valuable as
> those of the more vocal "regulars"! ;-)
> 
> Looking forward to reading the responses..... :-)
> 
> Over to you!
> 
> Jon (GZG)
> 
> 
> 
>