Samcollins said:
Oh, there is still plenty of time for us to introduce new errors
However, I think when we have licked the vehicle damage scale issues and, by extension, ship scale as well, we will be pretty solid.
Point Defense
- Thread starter phavoc
- Start date
Oh, there is still plenty of time for us to introduce new errors
However, I think when we have licked the vehicle damage scale issues and, by extension, ship scale as well, we will be pretty solid.
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
msprange said:
Weapons, not turrets? So a double beam laser turret could attack with one laser and defend with the other? A missile/sand turret can launch a missile, and defend against incoming lasers? A triple beam laser can attack or defend (or split the beams, 2 attack 1 defense and so on...) ?
Basically, a turret may attack and defend, but a single weapon within the turret must choose one mode?
Nice
Samcollins
Mongoose
This would appear the case, but maybe Matt will clarify. Here is my understanding:
Firing on another ship: counts the turret itself, and each turret can only fire one weapon on another ship. (Of course, like weapons can be linked and fire together).
As a reaction, any weapons that have not fired in the turret against another ship would be available for point defense e or releasing sand. (Either the entire turret didn't attack or it had mixed weapons and one of them did not attack).
I like it. It adds a layer of strategy. The rulebook in my view should list a short example, as this is a big area for misinterpretation and a big element of strategy, and is very important when deciding how to outfit a turret
Firing on another ship: counts the turret itself, and each turret can only fire one weapon on another ship. (Of course, like weapons can be linked and fire together).
As a reaction, any weapons that have not fired in the turret against another ship would be available for point defense e or releasing sand. (Either the entire turret didn't attack or it had mixed weapons and one of them did not attack).
I like it. It adds a layer of strategy. The rulebook in my view should list a short example, as this is a big area for misinterpretation and a big element of strategy, and is very important when deciding how to outfit a turret
Annatar Giftbringer said:
Correct!
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
msprange said:
Beautiful, just beautiful. Simple, elegant and perfect - I can only agree with Samcollins and others, this game is gonna be great
Silly question time: what if I have a sandcaster/laser turret, can I use both for point defense in the same round, or just one? I'd guess both, but factoring in the cumulative -1 for multiple PD, so I'd best decide which one is more important and fire that first?
Remember, Point Defence and Disperse Sand are two separate reactions, but yes, you get an unlimited number of reactions in a turn. That said, if you go too deep with them, you will be useless for anything pro-active in the next round - nicely reflects 'going fully defensive!'
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
msprange said:
The DMs carry over to the next round? Yikes! Oh, of course they do, space combat is also combat, and any penalties apply to he next action, which is of course next round... Didn't think of it like that, for some reason I thought the cumulative -1 for every PD attempt was all that happened...
I might be the only one misunderstanding that, but maybe its best to add "which applies to any actions attempted during the following round" to the point defense (gunner) paragraph on p160?
Samcollins
Mongoose
It would be a -1 cumulative penalty for each reaction taken. I do not believe that the ever increasing minus one penalty is the penalty that would carryover. Rather, it would be the -1 reaction penalty that would carryover
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
Samcollins said:
So, reacting with one turret and shooting down 4 missiles in succession would mean to-hit DM of 0, -1, -2, -3 but they all count as a single reaction, thus -1 for the next round and not -3?
Whereas firing lasers and sand from a single turret is two reactions, -2 for next round?
Samcollins
Mongoose
this is how I understand it. Hopefully we can get confirmation from others on this
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
If you link the weapons, they'd be forced in one mode.
You could assume the gunner would be confused if he had to employ the same weapon system types for two different tasks.
You could assume the gunner would be confused if he had to employ the same weapon system types for two different tasks.
Annatar Giftbringer said:
Without coming down on one side or the other, I would be interested to know how many people read the text and think that is one reaction or many.
Samcollins
Mongoose
I just re-read it. now I'm not so sure. After reviewing it, I am thinking the individual shots all count as reactions. Is that the way it is supposed to be?
Again, PD is hugely important...I really want to understand this aspect of ship combat
Again, PD is hugely important...I really want to understand this aspect of ship combat
msprange said:
I would have to raise my hand or arch my eyebrow about the explanation now. It seems that there's still a lot of ambiguity here. It should be clearer, especially since you have both mixed weapons turrets and non-mixed weapons turrets.
It may simply be easier to put all weapons in the same conceptual bucket and leave it at that:
A weapon may fire once per turn, in either offensive OR defensive mode, or as part of a reaction. So if you have three lasers in a single turret you get three opportunities (1 attack, 2 defense, for example)
A turret may fire once per turn, in either offensive OR defensive mode. So if you have a laser and a sand caster you can fire the laser offensive, fire it defensively in point defense mode, or launch sand.
Point defense should follow the same logical rule - a gunner can engage ONE missile per unfired LASER, except when the laser was in a mixed turret that already had an action during the round. This may be a little harsh for some. So you might modify the point defense rule into stating that a laser can be fired EITHER offensively or defensively, once per round, and a ship may shoot X number of unfired lasers in point defense mode irrespective of mixed turrets or not. I would say that is a reasonable exception.
No matter how the rule comes out PLEASE make sure you put the explanation in the same place rather than jump back and forth. The mechanics for all offensive/defensive fire (along with point defense) should be in a single section. It's fine to put HOW point defense works in another section, but really they all belong together. Perhaps you could split things up by (1) explaining how offensive/defensive fire works and how often you get to shoot, then (2) speak to the things you can do offensively, and then (3) the things you can do defensively.
Since we are only covering turrets in this book, will HG expound upon this further (i.e. will barbettes and bays be involved for defensive actions like point defense, or is it exclusive to turrets only)?
To complicate further...
Make point defense a program. The system will automatically try to engage incoming missile fire with any unfired weapons in the turn. one laser = one shot.
Make it so that gunner SKILL allows you an extra shot - per turret. So a gunner two would have two extra shots over what the computer would get. But leave the rule for unfired weapons (or not.. depending on how you'd like to run that).
What this does is (a) makes it useful for ships to have gunners again. Having a human in every turret seemed like a waste of money. But now a skilled gunner is worth their weight in gold when the spooge hits the fan. It also leverages the innate advantage of a human/machine combo. A person shouldn't be able to engage missiles manually, that's kind of silly. You NEED a machine to do that (the program). However a human is capable of making leaps in logic and thought processes that aren't logical, thus man and machine are complimentary again.
And (b) it makes characters with these skills really useful again. Plus it provides more slots for Pc's to be hired on to ships that run in rough areas.
Make point defense a program. The system will automatically try to engage incoming missile fire with any unfired weapons in the turn. one laser = one shot.
Make it so that gunner SKILL allows you an extra shot - per turret. So a gunner two would have two extra shots over what the computer would get. But leave the rule for unfired weapons (or not.. depending on how you'd like to run that).
What this does is (a) makes it useful for ships to have gunners again. Having a human in every turret seemed like a waste of money. But now a skilled gunner is worth their weight in gold when the spooge hits the fan. It also leverages the innate advantage of a human/machine combo. A person shouldn't be able to engage missiles manually, that's kind of silly. You NEED a machine to do that (the program). However a human is capable of making leaps in logic and thought processes that aren't logical, thus man and machine are complimentary again.
And (b) it makes characters with these skills really useful again. Plus it provides more slots for Pc's to be hired on to ships that run in rough areas.
AndrewW said:
...Do not a human make. You are missing the entire point.
You conflate the ability to target and fire the weapons with the intuitive leaps a human is capable of (and/or luck). Otherwise no ship would ever have a human gunner, no ship would have a human pilot, and no ship would have a human navigator.
Samcollins
Mongoose
I was getting this. Now I am confused. We really need an example I guess. Or, at least I do.
I read phavocs post again and his suggestion makes a lot of sense
I read phavocs post again and his suggestion makes a lot of sense
Samcollins
Mongoose
Well, regardless, how do these point defense rules actually work ?
