To vector, or not to vector...

[Whipsnade]

Small problem, Bill... later editions establish Sandcasters DO draw power...

Wil,

No problem at all actually because we're not talking about later editions at all.

Agility and Emergency Agility appear in HG2 so any discussion of them is constrained within the bounds of HG2.

We're not talking about HEPlaR or thruster plates or Fusion+, we're talking about two small rules which appear in only one of three CT ship combat systems.


Regards,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Dan,

Only black globes are excluded. So, no dampers, no meson screens.

Nope, unless I missed something, or you mean more of Don's clarifications. HG simply says "screens", plural, and definitely includes Dampers and Meson Screens, along with Black Globes.

 

[Whipsnade]

Nope, unless I missed something, or you mean more of Don's clarifications.

Dan,

Poor prose on my part. I meant Don's clarifications.

Black globes don't require EPs, so there's always been a question about whether "screens" in the HG2 Emergency Agility rule included them. The rule continually references EPs and even specifically removes one EP using system, computers, from the equation.

Over the years I'd heard and read people arguing on both sides although, like you, I always included black globes in the equation. IRRC, Don decided to err on the side of EPs.


Regards,
Bill

 

[jawillroy]

Vectors & Missiles

Here's a thought relating either to vector movement or range band movement: How necessary is vector matching to a) laser fire and b) missile fire?

Assume that our Intruder - a squadron of laser-armed fighters - is made aware of the location of a Native patrol cruiser elsewhere in a system. (For example, the fighter's carrier has launched passive drones throughout the system, and one comes up trumps, communicating the target location to the carrier, relayed to the fighters.)

Suppose next that the fighters accelerate constantly in order to perform a high-velocity flyby of the target, so as to be within detection range of the target for one, maybe two turns tops before snapping by; the Patrol Cruiser should only have one or two turns to change its vector to match the fighters as they flash by.

My gut reaction would be to say that laser fire in such a case would be unaffected by the mismatched vectors: the fighters get in their shots for two turns, the cruiser snaps off a shot or two with its lasers. No? Yes?

My gut would ALSO say that the patrol cruiser's missiles would be useless here: the targets would be long gone before the missiles had a chance to build up a vector. (This would be the whole point of the tactic: being able to hit and run, while erasing the cruiser's advantage in firepower by making the missiles useless)

By the same token, were the fighters carrying missiles instead of lasers, would the reverse be the case - that their extreme velocity in relation to the target would prevent their missiles from being able to adjust to reach their targets?

Anyone smoke-test this out yet?

 

[HG_B]

Here's a thought relating either to vector movement or range band movement: How necessary is vector matching to a) laser fire and b) missile fire?

Assume that our Intruder - a squadron of laser-armed fighters - is made aware of the location of a Native patrol cruiser elsewhere in a system. (For example, the fighter's carrier has launched passive drones throughout the system, and one comes up trumps, communicating the target location to the carrier, relayed to the fighters.)

Suppose next that the fighters accelerate constantly in order to perform a high-velocity flyby of the target, so as to be within detection range of the target for one, maybe two turns tops before snapping by; the Patrol Cruiser should only have one or two turns to change its vector to match the fighters as they flash by.

My gut reaction would be to say that laser fire in such a case would be unaffected by the mismatched vectors: the fighters get in their shots for two turns, the cruiser snaps off a shot or two with its lasers. No? Yes?

My gut would ALSO say that the patrol cruiser's missiles would be useless here: the targets would be long gone before the missiles had a chance to build up a vector. (This would be the whole point of the tactic: being able to hit and run, while erasing the cruiser's advantage in firepower by making the missiles useless)

By the same token, were the fighters carrying missiles instead of lasers, would the reverse be the case - that their extreme velocity in relation to the target would prevent their missiles from being able to adjust to reach their targets?

Anyone smoke-test this out yet?

Lasers are no problem either side. If your high speed fighters are inbound towards the enemy, the enemy missiles will hit you head on or side on depending on the exact relative vectors.

 

[jawillroy]

Hrm; I'm going to have to smoketest a bit before I'm sure one way or t'other - but if what you say is so, then a ship basically can't outmaneuver a missile: ECM or point defense lasers are the only defense, and any ship wanting to employ lasers offensively has to ride out a tsunami of missiles first (assuming long/military detection ranges here: shorter detection ranges all occur well within effective laser range.)

That being the case, one might as well be using range bands or something abstract like HG... and fast ships are only really valuable for their ability to force an engagement; LBB2 military ships are going to hang back and wail on each other with missiles, then close with lasers to mop up.

 

[HG_B]

Hrm; I'm going to have to smoketest a bit before I'm sure one way or t'other - but if what you say is so, then a ship basically can't outmaneuver a missile: ECM or point defense lasers are the only defense, and any ship wanting to employ lasers offensively has to ride out a tsunami of missiles first (assuming long/military detection ranges here: shorter detection ranges all occur well within effective laser range.)

Right, if a missile has an M factor of 10, how could the ship outrun or outmaneuver it in space? (Unless you were already moving AWAY from the launching ship at such a velocity that the limited fuel in the missile was insufficient.)

I don't know why you think that in order to use lasers (300k KM/sec) offensively, you have to wait until missiles (barely moving in comparison to light speed) reach your ship. ??

 

[jawillroy]

Right, if a missile has an M factor of 10, how could the ship outrun or outmaneuver it in space? (Unless you were already moving AWAY from the launching ship at such a velocity that the limited fuel in the missile was insufficient.)

Ah: there are widely varied assumptions about how fast CT missiles can go. HG missiles seem to be able to race hellacious distances in a single turn; LBB2 missiles are completely undefined; SS3 and Mayday Missiles vary; they give average missiles 6G or so, but SS3 can be user/abused to create missiles topping 18G, IIRC. A 10G missile ought to be able to tag just about anybody, long as it's got fuel... A 6G missile, though?

I don't know why you think that in order to use lasers (300k KM/sec) offensively, you have to wait until missiles (barely moving in comparison to light speed) reach your ship. ??

It's not about waiting for the missiles, it's about effective laser range in LBB2 combat. If the range is beyond 250,000 km, the better part of a light second, there's a -2 dm. if the range is beyond 500,000km, that goes up to -5.

 

[HG_B]

It's not about waiting for the missiles, it's about effective laser range in LBB2 combat. If the range is beyond 250,000 km, the better part of a light second, there's a -2 dm. if the range is beyond 500,000km, that goes up to -5.

Right, and waiting for the missiles to hit you BEFORE you shoot at the offending ship has nothing to do with that.

 

[jawillroy]

That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm trying to figure is if it's possible to do a flyby fast enough that the target's missiles won't be able to track you and hit you. Of course the target's lasers will work, as will yours, during the brief window you're in firing range. The goal is to reduce the value of missiles in the fight; a tactic like that could shift a fight's balance and make vectors make sense. Otherwise, you might as well scrub it and play high guard, which seems to assume that missiles can reach velocities that they can't in Mayday or SS3 constructions.

 

[Cryton]

Well, as the launched missles will start out with the same velocity and vector as the launching craft, and have VERY good propulsion systems (I forget their G rate at the moment) I'd have to say, a flyby that could make missiles a moot point wouldnt work unless its so fast that firing once and leaving is all you plan to do. And in that case I wouldnt want to return to the system it was performed in for fear of immediate arrest for performing a "Drive by" shooting on another starship.

 

[Whipsnade]

What I'm trying to figure is if it's possible to do a flyby fast enough that the target's missiles won't be able to track you and hit you.

jawillroy,

It's entirely possible in a vector movement combat system to "wrong foot" your opponent by leaving him in such a vector situation relative to you that his missiles can never make an intercept. In fact, the possibility of "wrong footing" an opponent is what makes a vector-based combat more attractive/fun in some situations than range band or other types of combat.

Of course, just what the details of that "vector situation" are will be completely dependent on the details of the game being played: i.e. missile acceleration, missile endurance, detection ranges, etc., etc., etc.

The goal is to reduce the value of missiles in the fight; a tactic like that could shift a fight's balance and make vectors make sense.

While missiles are powerful in both LBB:2 and Mayday, that power is balanced by the limited number of missiles fired each turn and the limited number of reloads available. I've seen many missile duels in either game result in no hits and empty magazines.

Otherwise, you might as well scrub it and play high guard...

HG2 is a completely different game designed to handle completely different aspect/level of starship combat. As such and even though they cover the same situation, neither Mayday/LBB:2 and HG2 can be judged in relationship to the other just Panzerblitz and The Russian Campaign which also cover the same situation cannot be judged against each other.

... which seems to assume that missiles can reach velocities that they can't in Mayday or SS3 constructions.

Again, HG2's assumptions regarding missiles are a design decision and not an attempt to perfectly describe the situation being modeled.

As for high velocity "drive by" tactic, it does work. Setting it up, however, takes time, produces a very limited engagement window; ie. one shot, and requires specific set of situations. Your opponent can also makes things rather difficult for you.

It's a tactic like any other, a little better in some ways and a little worse in others.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

one other thing to keep in mind: for ships inbound to a world, if one evades missiles, one may wind up missing planetary rendevouz... especially after the flip to decellerate.

Not a terrible big deal in CT, with unlimited maneuver while the PP is running... but a huge issue when using TNE, or some of the optional drives in MGT.

I've used that rendevouz issue to great effect in jump-masked systems.... and players have been upset with me for it!

Essentially, if you're an invader, you can only dodge missiles so long, or you overshoot the planet... and every turn not decellerating is 3 turns more ground-fire. So if there's a big gun (say a meson or defense laser system), and the defenders fire missiles at the invaders, even if the invader is higher thrust than the missiles, he becomes exposed to more ground fire by having to avoid the missiles, or risks missing and being hit if he instead choses to fire at them. Or he takes a suboptimal approach to be able to evade missiles, and is exposed to ground and defense fire for longer, anyway.

 

[hdan]

The miniatures gamer in me loves vector combat (actually I play more wargames that RPGs these days) but for RPG ship combat involving PC type ship and/or only two combatants, the "range band" combat works really well.

In vector combats between two ships, it generally comes down to one ship making a break for it at maximum acceleration and the other one chasing, exchanging fire all the while. Either the "mark" either gets away by damaging the pursuer enough to make pursuit impossible or unprofitable, or the mark deciding to give in and be boarded.

THAT'S when we break out the miniatures.

 

[DonM]

Saw my name mentioned a lot... if there's an errata point to be reviewed for HG, remember that a draft of the most recent HG errata was recently posted to NO comments at all.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but if you've got HG errata or clarifications to revisit, comment over there (in the CT topic). Please?

 

[the angle]

If only two moving bodies are involved, then vector-based movement is largely pointless and in fact, fairly deterministic. For any given starting configuration, the attacker either can catch the other guy and there's nothing he can do about it, or the other guy can fly out of range (barring damage and mistakes in maneuvering) and there's nothing the attacker can do about it except shoot until his victim escapes. In those cases, the range bands are simpler, faster, and sacrifice almost nothing in 'realism'. The situation doesn't get interesting until you insert three, four, or more bodies into the picture. A long-range missile duel can be quite interesting, if the missile accelerations aren't so much higher than the ships' that they make the ships' maneuvers meaningless.

Steve

 

[aramis]

The moment you add missiles, it's a three+ body problem

 

[the angle]

Yes, that would be the point. I've encountered players and GMs who avoid putting missiles on ships just because they 'complicate' combat, and because lasers feel more science-fictiony. I would tend to argue the reverse, that missiles are a much more reliable and efficient means of attacking a ship in space, but the Millennium Falcon didn't carry any, ergo ...

Steve

 

[aramis]

Yes, that would be the point. I've encountered players and GMs who avoid putting missiles on ships just because they 'complicate' combat, and because lasers feel more science-fictiony. I would tend to argue the reverse, that missiles are a much more reliable and efficient means of attacking a ship in space, but the Millennium Falcon didn't carry any, ergo ...

Steve

Actually, the Millennium Falcon DOES carry some... according to several LFL approved sources. 6 shots, 2 at a time. Mentioned in one of the novels (ISTR it heing Han Solo at Stars' End), and included in the plans in the SW Sourcebook for WEG SWRPG.

Which also means that, as the prototype free trader, it's got a solomani style fixed dual missile launcher and two quad lasers (or perhaps, those are dual pulse lasers...)

 

[bromdenlong]

missile acceleration

I haven't played any vector combat games, but feel compelled to make one point. The notion that missiles aren't able or "allowed" to accelerate far faster than ships is completely unrealistic. Off the top of my head, I'd say that missile M-ratings ought to range from 10-G to 60-G.

If someone knows how fast current-day surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles accelerate, perhaps that would give a better baseline for what maneuver-1 acceleration should be for missiles.

Anyone know?