Re: [GZG] Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI was never,
ever a fan of the "salvos are dumb and attack closest" camp.
But my voice was small on the playtest list on that issue. <shrug>

Mk

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Charles Lee <xarcht@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahhh yes Missle sponges, let the admiral relying on Missle Sponges
against
> someone with More Thrust missles and watch him move his command to a
cutter
> as the big boys and cruisers go mision killed. At 54 plus 6 movement
units
> away the launch cruisers are ready to take out the small boys. Missle
> sponges are old and obsolite today with smart cruise missle. Compare
Cruise
> missles with MT Missles while Salvo missles are likened to short range
dumb
> missles carried by lesser navies.
>
> --- On *Tue, 1/12/10, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Monster ships
> To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 11:34 AM
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM, John Tailby
<john_tailby@xtra.co.nz<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=joh
n_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
> > wrote:
>
>>  Not really sure what you mean by banzi jammers and it depends on
your
>> rules about mixed and on table hyperspace assaults. We don't allow
mixed on
>> table and hyper assault games because it makes it too easy to just
jump
>> accross the table and do you might as well equip all ships with close
range
>> weapons if you can tactical jump.
>>
>
> Banzai Jammer was a termed coined years ago for small, usually
> nigh-worthlesss ships (scouts, corvettes, etc) to surround larger
targetable
> ships to self-intercept salvo missiles. Given the current rules for
salvos
> (attacking closest target, irregardless of targets in the attack
envelope),
> sacrificing a 6- or 10-mass ship to several swarms of salvo missiles
is
> highly cost-effective in saving the larger ship, which could, in turn,
blast
> the snot out of the salvo missile firing ship.
>
> If I understand Eric's paragraph correctly, I believe he was
suggesting
> that while banzai jammers are easy to kill with anti-ship (i.e., beam)
fire,
> having a bunch of them means not all may be killed off in one turn by
> direct-fire ships. So the easiest way to eliminate the horde of banzai
> jammers would be to send a similar horde of dinky ships into
point-blank
> range and having them fire up their FTL drives, blowing all the tiny
ships
> (including the banzai jammers) to smithereens.
>
> Mk
>
> PS: amusing to see the number of replies in this thread and the
subject
> line of the thread; I think this has become one of the larger/largest
> on-going threads we have had here in a long, long time
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Eric Foley
<stiltman@teleport.com<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stil
tman@teleport.com>
>> >
>> *To:*
gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t
o=gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
>> *Sent:* Tue, 12 January, 2010 2:58:27 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [GZG] Monster ships
>>
>> Yeah, I've been somewhat pondering what to do with this.  On the one
hand,
>> I think it's not a bad idea to treat MT missiles sort of like plasma
bolts
>> for point defense fire, because if you treat them the same as
individual
>> salvo missiles then they get a little _too_ easy to shoot down and
they'll
>> have no effectiveness at all.  At the same time, I think it's a good
idea to
>> let fighters shoot at them as well, which wasn't possible in More
Thrust.
>> We wound requiring each MT missile to use an individual fire control
partly
>> because of this.  Area defense got a lot better in the fleet books,
though,
>> although we wound up mostly using salvoes in the old group.
>>
>> Resupply for missile ships and carriers is a potential issue, but a
lot of
>> this depends on how easy you make it to resupply them.  The decoy
drones
>> aren't going to work very long if the other side's even the slightest
bit
>> balanced or inventive, though.  Even if there's way too many of them
to ever
>> reasonably shoot them all with conventional beam support, it's still
so easy
>> to just send a similar swarm of drones into the midst of the banzai
jammers
>> and FTL bomb the lot of them, even if you don't feel like actually
arming
>> them.  Different variants of this can pretty much trash anything that
tries
>> to exploit the design rules with 1 hull point, really.  Take a
>> few scatterguns and ruin soap bubble carriers too, for instance.
>>
>> There's really a lot of different things that can work in battles if
>> you've got the logistics to support it, though, but you usually have
to have
>> at least a semi-credible Plan B for it to work.  Good carriers and
missile
>> ships still usually need to keep it semi-honest with beams or K-guns
at some
>> point, because sometimes it takes a lot of work to get through point
>> defense.
>>
>> E
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Tailby
>> Sent: Jan 11, 2010 11:37 AM
>> To:
gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t
o=gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [GZG] Monster ships
>>
>>  Charles
>>
>> Our gaming group dropped the penalty to PDS hitting the MT missiles a
long
>> time ago. A couple of players made fleets whose doctrine was
Missiles, Beam
>> 2 and PDS, very like a modern naval fleet... With the increased
protection
>> agaisnt PDS fire they were a very superior weapon system especially
when
>> compared to Salvo missile weapons.
>>
>> Unfortunately massed missiles and fighter squadrons make for a rather
>> boring game. The ships sit at opposite ends of the table and moves
waves of
>> counters at each other.
>>
>> I agree that missile armed destroyers especially if equipped with
stealth
>> technology to protect against long range sniping are pretty effective
strike
>> ships
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gzg-l mailing list
>>
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t
o=Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
>> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
>
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu<http://us.mc513.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t
o=Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>