Prev: [GZG] Defacto Ship Designer? Next: [GZG] Defacto Ship Designer?

[GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@m...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:00:57 +1000
Subject: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

> If someone thinks missile homing is adequate the way it is, I'm  
> going to assume that person haven't used them much--sorry

ROTFL! Pardon me for existing...

> Right. What I'd like is to replace the current lock-on roll with  
> some kind of ECM/ECCM roll, just enough to allow crew/equipment  
> quality to make a difference. Otherwise missiles are going to lock  
> on to brand new NAC EW cruisers just as easily as they do to 80  
> year old PAU tramp freighters, which seems a bit unlikely.

*Shrug* Like I said, this is really a PSB taste issue. Suppose the  
missiles home passively on the infra-red emissions of the target. The  
warship would probably have better decoys etc. but the freighter  
might have a much smaller basic signature because of its lower	
thrust, smaller crew, lack of power-guzzling weapons and smaller  
fusion reactors to power it all. For some good stuff about infra-red  
detection and anti-ship "heat seekers":

 From a game point of view, I'd make the following comments about  
these proposed Revised Salvo Missiles (RSM). In all the various  
posts, I've lost track of who precisely advocated what, so I  
apologise in advance if any of my comments refer to proposals from  
someone other than the listee I'm quoting above.

1. The placed marker mechanism dilutes the effect of missiles in two  
ways. One is obviously that if the target zigs instead of zagging,  
the attack may miss completely. The second is that the attacker may  
have to spread the markers for multiple salvos to cover more than one  
possible target trajectory. The effect of both is to give benefit to  
high-thrust ships by making them more difficult and expensive to hit,  
and conversely to impose risks on choosing low-thrust ships. I don't  
think that imposing these sorts of trade-offs is a bad thing.

2. Replacing the placed marker "dilution" with a move-after-the-ships- 
guaranteed-successful attack mechanism seems to make RSM a  
*decisively* more powerful weapon system than the existing SM. Fine,  
if that's what you want in your universe, but make it a house rule.  
If it's to be part of FT3 core, I think the RSM may need work for  
game balance.

3. In an admittedly rough and ready way, the FT2.5 missile system  
carries with it the assumption that more manoeuvrable targets should  
be more difficult to hit. Unless you're prepared to say that this  
assumption is false (against all evidence of history), replacing the  
placed marker mechanism with an "attack guaranteed" system for RSMs  
should provide some other means of reflecting the target's  
manoeuvrability. That *could* be achieved with Yet Another Dice  
Modifier (YADM), based on a sliding scale of target engine thrust,  
but I think I prefer to see ships actually zigzagging on the table,  
and captains trying to out-guess their opponents.

4. I must admit up front that I'm not a big fan of ECM rules. Of  
course Electronic Warfare (EW) is a big deal in the Real World, but  
rules to deal with it in war-games usually seem to be fiddly, with  
lots of YADMs to reflect ECM, ECCM, etc. FT2.5's sensor and EW rules  
have never worked for me because they're based on the barmy idea that  
active sensors should have longer range than passive, when the	
opposite is true for radar, sonar, optical systems etc. The  
suggestion quoted above that ECM be factored in to the RSM "lock-on"  
roll seems a reasonable idea as an *optional* rule for EW fans.

Best regards, Robert Bryett.
Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: [GZG] Defacto Ship Designer? Next: [GZG] Defacto Ship Designer?