[[[Playtest Focus]]] Missiles III

[Nerhesi]

Of course this system will break down for ships larger than 1000t or if you allow bays. So more than one system will be necessary, and there will be exploitable loopholes...

I think we've finally arrived at something workable now, and it works for all scenarios unless you have something lopsided (such as 24 missiles from merc cruiser bearing down on free trader)

I think more than one system is a forgone conclusion now as Matt as indicated that. The abridged/simplified/mass combat systems will be different. (This is one I lost out on too But ultimately I try to avoid arguing personal preference too much )

 

[Chas]

Regards the Smart Missile rule: there does need to be a price difference per TL of the missile.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As a sidenote, AnotherDilbert, I think you may be slightly under estimating the power of evasion, pilot skill + evasion software can get pretty high.

I'm using old prejudice, specifically LBB5 stating skill-2 is Navy standard. I have always seen space combat as a little too expensive hobby for PCs.
I have rarely seen skills higher than 2-3 in PCs anyway. Exceptional individuals should be noticed.

On the other hand with a cost of 50-100 MCr for each hard point on a warship I think we can count on navies being quite liberal with skill augmentation, DEX augmentation, and wafer jacks with expert system. So any major warship pilot or sensor operator could go from skill+2, DEX+1 to skill+4, DEX+2 as standard.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Of course this system will break down for ships larger than 1000t or if you allow bays. So more than one system will be necessary, and there will be exploitable loopholes...

I think we've finally arrived at something workable now, and it works for all scenarios unless you have something lopsided (such as 24 missiles from merc cruiser bearing down on free trader)

I'm more afraid of 2 - 3 Patrol Corvettes instantly killing an enemy Patrol Corvette, small squadron combat could become very short and bloody...

I guess we have to make something similar for energy weapon and see if there is any sort of balance, or if one type is always better than the other...

 

[ErinPalette]

In 1e High Guard (p.50, para 3), you could shoot down a missile with a sand cannister so long as the missile had been fired from at least medium range.

Are we no longer doing that in 2e?

 

[MongooseMatt]

This means 11+ needed to hit or ALL missiles miss.

Here is a question... What is wrong with all missiles missing? They are all (effectively) travelling in a pack, using the same 'firing solution', and if they are all in the wrong bit of space at the wrong time (think of the speeds involved), then they are very likely to all miss.

All hitting is a bit of of a stretch - however, we are averaging the damage, so it can be presumed some missiles get good hits in while others miss completely or are duds.

I think my issue here is that with a clutch of missiles you can more or less guarantee hits - and that does not seem so good.

Someone argue against me

Infact if you want Matt - with this system, you can remove the bonus for missile salvos.

Every fibre in my designer being is screaming that the DM bonus for number of missiles needs to stay (though they are also telling me that the DM should perhaps be scaled not linear, which could potentially allow for this system to be used 'as is' in capital/fleet combat). Again, someone argue against me...

 

[Nerhesi]

Here is a question... What is wrong with all missiles missing?

Someone argue against me

Argument 1) We were guaranteeing damage anyways Matt. If you fired 100 missiles, and lets say the bonus is a +20 or so, you were hitting and you were hitting wit 100 missiles, none dodged no matter how great the pilot and the ship
Argument 2) You make EW and PD superflous if they take out, lets say 5 missiles each, but your evasion had to deal with the remaining 90 at +18 to-hit. Basically, forget EW and PD at that point.. May as well just be evading 100

Infact if you want Matt - with this system, you can remove the bonus for missile salvos.

Every fibre in my designer being is screaming that the DM bonus for number of missiles needs to stay (though they are also telling me that the DM should perhaps be scaled not linear, which could potentially allow for this system to be used 'as is' in capital/fleet combat). Again, someone argue against me...

Argument 1) Don't worry Matt - The DM bonus of missiles is staying, but in a more intuitive form. Rather than having a flat bonus to an all-or-nothing evade roll, You are basically adding the # of missiles as a bonus to the roll. Basically, The to-hit roll becomes:

2D -pilot evasion - evasion software +smartTLdifference +# of missiles in salvo. EFFECT = # of Missiles that hit.

In essence Matt, the above systems simulates some missiles hitting, and some missiles missing when dodging. Under both systems, the giant salvo would always hit, but this way, when fired upon by 24 missiles, perhaps you can EW like 5, PD 6, Dodge 5 with some good rolls. Previously, it'd be EW 5, PD 6, and then... 13 either all miss or all hit.

 

[wbnc]

Here is a question... What is wrong with all missiles missing? They are all (effectively) travelling in a pack, using the same 'firing solution', and if they are all in the wrong bit of space at the wrong time (think of the speeds involved), then they are very likely to all miss.

I am not big fan of assured hits even when I loose off a few hundred rounds....it irks me to no end when it happens but it should happen once in a while, and it should irk you.

my reasoning on the possibility of a no hit salvo...
Missiles are fairly dim,and if a human is in the mix they can be absolutely moronic. If the gunner is supplying the initial fire solution, with the missiles later activating their own seekers to make the final attack. Then there is a real likelihood that the gunner could send them off on a wild goose chase. by the time they switch to internal guidance the target is beyond their ability to correct their flight path, or their limited seekers cant may not even be able to detect the target.

historically missiles have very weak sensors due to size and cost restrictions. Most have very narrow fields of view, and limited ability to search and acquire targets outside their path of travel. If you point them at empty space and send them off it would be very unlikely they would have systems smart enough to go "OH...he wanted e to attack that ship over there..not this patch of empty space." most will derp along and proceed to attack exactly what the gunner told them to attack, even if it's not what he WANTED them to attack. GIGO...

Now i know the idea of firing off 100 missiles and not even scoring a single hit would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth...but it happens Murphy is a big fan of combat, he loves to get in there and leave every one cussing up a storm as they waste a few million credits on empty space....But then again, even the Red Baron missed more than he hit.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So, the big question - which direction do we want to go in?

1. 2D -pilot evasion - evasion software +smartTLdifference +# of missiles in salvo. EFFECT = # of Missiles that hit, as Nerhesi suggests.

2. System as currently outlined at the top of this thread, but perhaps with a scaling on the DM to hit vs. number if missiles.

Gentlemen, get your votes in!

 

[arcador]

I like where @Nershi is going.

The original missile III proposition is good, but I agree that it doesn't simulate a swarm well, especially in the higher numbers given as example here.

The MG1 HG barrage rules were using a table, but accounted for this - the barrage could miss entirely, hit partially or hit effectively (more dmg). I am sure it's not very applicable for the missile salvo model, but indeed it seems to support where Nershi is going.

Another option, from the top of my mind, is having a table, as you suggested in previous posts, that would in essence limit the +to hit bonus based on number of missile, to a maximum. I mean, from a point forward number of missiles won't guarantee a hit. This maximum could be close to what otherwise be received as bonus by gunner skill (i.e. max ~4). But in this case a successful hit would need not to account so much the effect, but the number of missiles in the salvo.

edit: just saw 2 other posts are in. I suggest before we vote, we can simulate some examples with both proposed models.

 

[Nerhesi]

I'm voting for Nerhesi' proposal. 8) :twisted:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm voting for 1), but the original phrasing.

Have the attack roll effect remove X missiles on a failed roll. Where X is effect. That's it.

1a: 2D -Evasion -Dodge +Smart -8(Average) = Effect, positive effect adds to damage roll, negative effect removes missiles.

the new phrasing is not the same:
1b: 2D -Evasion -Dodge +Smart +#ofMissiles = Missiles hit.

Example:
fire 5 missiles:
1a: 10(good roll) -2(dodge) +1(smart) -8(Average) = 1, 0 missed, 5 missiles hit
1b: 10(good roll) -2(dodge) +1(smart) +5(#ofMissiles) = 14 missiles hit (out of 5 fired)

Here is a question... What is wrong with all missiles missing? They are all (effectively) travelling in a pack, using the same 'firing solution', and if they are all in the wrong bit of space at the wrong time (think of the speeds involved), then they are very likely to all miss.

If they all had exactly the same firing solution, traveling in a tight pack, they would all hit or all miss with exactly the same hit chance as a single missile. They would likely interfere with each other and all be destroyed by a single PD hit.
I imagine you are firing at where you think the target will be in 20 minutes. You are not sure exactly where that will be, so you spread the missiles out in a formation, like firing depth charges at a submarine. When they hit they come in from slightly different directions, some will hit, some will miss, but there is a great chance that at least a few will hit.

Every fibre in my designer being is screaming that the DM bonus for number of missiles needs to stay (though they are also telling me that the DM should perhaps be scaled not linear, which could potentially allow for this system to be used 'as is' in capital/fleet combat). Again, someone argue against me...

Interesting, every fiber of my wargamer past screams: Exploit! Exploit!

Again, firing many missiles should increase the chance (but as wince says, NOT guarantee) that some missiles hit, it should not increase the chance that ALL missiles hit.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sorry,
(but as wince says, NOT guarantee)
should be
(but as wbnc says, NOT guarantee)
Spell-checker fail.

 

[Nerhesi]

I'm voting for 1), but the original phrasing.

Have the attack roll effect remove X missiles on a failed roll. Where X is effect. That's it.

1a: 2D -Evasion -Dodge +Smart -8(Average) = Effect, positive effect adds to damage roll, negative effect removes missiles.

the new phrasing is not the same:
1b: 2D -Evasion -Dodge +Smart +#ofMissiles = Missiles hit.

Example:
fire 5 missiles:
1a: 10(good roll) -2(dodge) +1(smart) -8(Average) = 1, 0 missed, 5 missiles hit
1b: 10(good roll) -2(dodge) +1(smart) +5(#ofMissiles) = 14 missiles hit (out of 5 fired)

You forgot to subtract the -8(average) from the second roll, it would actually be 6 effect, not 14
Even though it is obvious to me that you can't logically hit with more missiles than those that are left making the attack, perhaps we should be explicit

Interesting, every fiber of my wargamer past screams: Exploit! Exploit!
Again, firing many missiles should increase the chance (but as wince says, NOT guarantee) that some missiles hit, it should not increase the chance that ALL missiles hit.

Agreed

 

[wbnc]

Sorry,
(but as wince says, NOT guarantee)
should be
(but as wbnc says, NOT guarantee)
Spell-checker fail.

Dont worry most people wince when they see me....

 

[phavoc]

So has anyone run some combat scenarios with these new rules? I haven't yet, but it seems like the complexity is increasing and getting through combat is gonna require checklists. Which, come to think of it, maybe the ship readouts need to include spaces for all the DM's that are going to be required?

 

[Nerhesi]

So has anyone run some combat scenarios with these new rules? I haven't yet, but it seems like the complexity is increasing and getting through combat is gonna require checklists. Which, come to think of it, maybe the ship readouts need to include spaces for all the DM's that are going to be required?

Several of us over the past 3 threads have run scenarios... I think we've finally come up with something that Matt likes and isn't broken in either direction (at least for core rules and ships)

 

[ErinPalette]

Missile salvos effectively have a Thrust of 10 and will reach their target a number of combat rounds after they have been fired, as shown on the Missile Flight table.

Missile Flight
Range Rounds to Impact
Short and below Immediate
Medium 1
Long 2
Very Long 3
Distant 5

I have a bit of a problem with this chart -- it doesn't match with the Ship Movement Table on p.156 of the 2e playtest.

Example 1
A missile is launched at a target at Medium range and moves at Thrust 10 for 5 rounds.
Round 1: Adjacent (1) + Close (1) + Short (2) + Medium (5) = 9 Thrust points. It ought to impact on the same round it is launched.

Example 2
A missile is launched at a target at Long range and moves at Thrust 10 for 5 rounds.
Round 1: Adjacent (1) + Close (1) + Short (2) + Medium (5) = 9 Thrust points.
Round 2: Long (10). It impacts on the first round after launch, not the second.

Example 3
A missile is launched at a target at Very Long range and moves at Thrust 10 for 5 rounds.
Round 1: Adjacent (1) + Close (1) + Short (2) + Medium (5) = 9 Thrust points.
Round 2: Long (10).
Round 3: 10 out of Very Long's 25.
Round 4: 20 out of Very Long's 25
Round 5: Impact. It hits on the 4th round after launch, not the 3rd.

Example 4
A missile is launched at a target at Distant range and moves at Thrust 10 for 5 rounds.
Round 1: Adjacent (1) + Close (1) + Short (2) + Medium (5) = 9 Thrust points. (But there's one left over; this is important.)
Round 2: Long (10).
Round 3: 10 out of 25.
Round 4: 20 out of 25
Round 5: finishes the remaining 5 thrust points for Very Long, spends the other 5 plus the one left over from round 1. It now requires 44 more Thrust points to reach Distant, but since it has been 5 rounds, it is now out of fuel and will never hit its target.

Missiles need to be held to the same standards as ships when it comes to crossing distance. Either the Ship Movement table needs its thrust requirements modified, or missiles need a boost to thrust and/or endurance.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Don't forget that the target moves, potentially as fast or faster than the missile. I like the idea, but if I have to track the movement of every missile I switch to a simpler combat system...

 

[ErinPalette]

Oh, that's an easy fix. Just give missiles Endurance 10 and change the chart to this:

Missile Flight
Range Rounds to Impact
Medium and below Immediate
Long 1
Very Long 4
Distant 10

Problem solved!