Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.
From: "james mitchell" <tagalong@s...>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:30:45 +0930
Subject: Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.
There's so many rules you could use for this topic, but first, I would
define the term heavy missile is it.
A heavy missile in it's load capabilities,eg TNT factor, or is it a ship
would you give it a mass and thrust factor, does it have a fighterCEF,
many points is it worth?
You need the rules for this to be simple, fun, realistic in it's
the Fullthrust universe and more importantly the Fullthrust rules,
it turns into harpoon, or worse starfleet battles, oh look a drone.lol
james my crew can breath in space , can your's? mitchell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert N Bryett" <email@example.com>
To: "List GZG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.
> One of my nephews/admirals has started reading the Honor Harrington
> novels, and developed a commendable ambition to launch salvos of
> missiles at the OPFOR. Since I'll have to umpire, I've been browsing
> and trying to integrate the missile rules with FB2. Heavy missiles
> bit of an orphan system (no FB design seems to use them for example),
> I have a few questions:
> 1. Interaction with FB2 armour. Should the effect of armour on heavy
> missiles be the same as that for salvo missiles? My feeling is that
> should, if only to keep things simple.
> 2. Firing/moving heavy missiles. In the fighter movement phase? The
> MT missiles move seems more like fighter movement than the way salvo
> missiles shoot. If the missiles move in the fighter phase, should
> alternate with the fighter groups to give the fighters a chance to
> intercept? In vector, I think the acquisition range should be cut to
> as for salvo missiles.
> 3. Fire control. MT is pretty explicit about this:
> "One ship may launch any number of missiles in one turn, subject only
> the number it is carrying; each missile may have a different target,
> they are guided by their onboard AIs and their own fire controls."
> That seems reasonable enough. I can't imagine missiles engaging over
> ranges up to 60mu (60,000km?) using command guidance, beam-riding,
> semi-active homing or any other form of launch-platform-dependent
> guidance. If each missile has an on-board AI, sensors, IFF etc., they
> should be pretty autonomous. On the other hand, I can't really accept
> that the launch vessel would require *no* fire control at all. So...
> Maybe one FCS per launch?
> 4. Point Defence. Hmmm. This is a thorny one, since PDS vs. fighters
> salvo missiles involves engaging a group of targets, whereas MT has
> PDS engaging each heavy missile and only knocking it out on a roll of
> Now each heavy missile *is* more costly in mass and points than a
> standard fighter despite it's shorter endurance, so I imagine it as
> pretty smart, tough and equipped with its own ECM etc. but... I don't
> know. I guess we'll go with the MT rule and see how it turns out.
> Any thoughts, or URLs where someone's already done this? I'm not
> for a full-on Honorverse adaptation BTW, just ways of bringing heavy
> missiles into our FT 2.5 games.
> Best regards, Robert Bryett
> Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l mailing list