Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: gpthic imperail convertion Next: Re: [GZG] Re: gpthic imperail convertion

Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@y...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

--- Laserlight <> wrote:

> > However, I would not want multi-turn missiles as long as they are 
> > prohibited
> > from carrying V from turn to turn; they will simply be left behind
> > actions
> > with a higher base V.
> In my experience you usually shoot missiles at targets that are
closing on 
> you, so the missiles don't normally get left behind. I grant there are
> occasions where that isn't the case.

>From what I have gathered from the List, most people line up their
fleets on
opposite table edges and then charge each other.  However, we set up
most games
as parrallel-converging initial conditions, so the vast majority run as
parallel courses, scissoring crossovers, or chases, with a few
into a dogfighting melee or spiral/turning chase.  So, in my experience
are a lot of cases where missiles are used in chaser mounts (F or A) and
also a
lot where they are exchanged in broadsides, and relatively few are
launched by
mutually closing ships.

In several of the early iterations of patches to the SM rules that we
the use of multi-turn missiles also brings up alot of questions that
tend to
complicate the entire missile topic greatly, such as the maneuverablity
of the
missiles.  The answer to this initial question usually brings up a lot
more as
the thoughts are followed to their natural conclusions.  

> >  The second thing to consider is the number of EF.	Your
> > suggestion of 6EFx6MU results in a powered envelope of 36MU, 50%
> > than either my proposal or the FB1 SMs.
> There are other proposals out there--one of which is for SM to move
18mu x 2 
> turns.

I was just being conservative in my proposal by keeping the existing
envelope.  I am trying to fix the parts of the SM mechanics that bother
me, not
make SMs into a superweapon.  That said, I have no objection to
increasing the
range of standard SMs if the general consensus is that this does not
make them
overpowered, and with the stipulation that they may expend their full
in a single game turn, even if they are later given the option for


Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] Re: gpthic imperail convertion Next: Re: [GZG] Re: gpthic imperail convertion