http://www.spacious.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=35
This one is to do with the screen ships idea.Although that is good,shouldn't screening ships also be able to use their point defense weapons against income missile/torps/fighters directed against the ship they are screening instead of just getting in the way?
most fleets in real life protect themselves aswell as the groupTitus
| QUOTE (Ted @ May 8 2004, 09:23 PM) |
| I like the proposed changes mentioned in the other thread. This one is to do with the screen ships idea.Although that is good,shouldn't screening ships also be able to use their point defense weapons against income missile/torps/fighters directed against the ship they are screening instead of just getting in the way? |
If the screening ship was targetted by the attacker then surely it's point defence would handle any missiles/torps that would originally be aimed at the screened target.
Personally I'm unsure what real effect screening will have on current tactics but its another option so I'm not against it.
Nic
What i'm not sure of is exactly what would be good in practice. The proposed change is easy to implement and can easly easily be expressed in the targeting. ie
You target X but Y was able to screen your attack.
By limiting screening to 1 ship you don't make it the normal case that an attack is screened.
The FEL and COH are formal allies, ie declared through the political position.
BUT when the DNA bases fell and became COH then the FEL kept pounding the base for days afterward.
It doesnt make sense really.
IF you have a large scale battle involving 5-10 people on one side, it can be very hard to get everyone the reset battleprogram and it would be nice if ships/gp's just stopped firing once the target position has changed TAG.
Gordon
I hate seeing the type of fleets in use today. Like Mica said, the GM is being inspired by modern day navies and modern day navies aren't composed of 100 battleships and 0 escorts.
"I propose we move back to WWII time, so that battleships are still the main combat vessel, otherwise they'd be scrap next to missile launchers and carriers"
I'd like to see main combat vessels (100 for Humans, 150 for FEL, DEN, etc, 200 for FGZ) to have a serious problem targetting fighters, missiles and torps. This would force people to rely on smallers ships, not to contribute to the general mayhem, but the protection of the CAP ships in the fleet.
Otherwise, we'll just continue to see an increased number of top of the line AFF ship, with the most armor and as many guns as possible and will never see diversification...I mean a battleship could sink a PT boat with just one shot of a secondary turret, but he had one hell of a time hitting. PT boat crews had to be courageous just be in the same ocean as a battleship, but if the captain was good and managed to send a few torps in the general direction of the enemy fleet, he could at least disrupt the the fleet formation.
Each time a ship system is destroyed there would be a small percentage chance (of perhaps less than 1%) that it will have a critical effect. As such the ships performance would be affected for several rounds of combat - with perhaps a cumulative percentage chance that the Damage control crew will get the ship back up to its current maximum operating efficiency
Examples
Knocking out 1 targetting computer/sensor has a temporary effect of shorting the rest of the ships sensor/targetting banks - so the ship operates with a lower to hit rating...or perhaps loses its target altogther
If a thrust engine is hit, the ship has problems with orienteering and acts with a penalty to its combat speed
If a shields/scint is taken out, the computer systems have problems readjutsing coverage
If a Magazine is taken out, perhaps loading systems for torps/missiles/phalanx become jammed
If a beam weapon is hit, perhaps the hit took place just as the beam weapon was firing itself - causing additional damage
These effects could be to varying levels ie; possibly the ship is at half speed, or possibly dead in the water or perhaps only slightly effected (though should probably be weighted so that if a critical is taken the effect will most likely be to affect performance by 40-60%). The chance that damage control will get the ship back to full running could perhaps be based on number of available crew hours against the size of the ship, and the amount the ship needs for normal running - possibly the officer rating could also influence the chances the ship is repaired. There should probably be a cumulative base amount so that there is always a chance the ship will be back up and running.
There could be other interesting effect added such as if a Jump Engine is hit, perhaps there would be a very small chance that it would cause an involuntary EJ...
Another thing I'd be interested in knowing is whether it may be possible to set an 'Engage if'/'Don't Engage if'. Ie; a fleet of 30 ships moves into a location - possibly expecting a target of equal/less than size, but instead comes up against a force of three times the size. I think the Admiral may decide that the odds are not what he wants them to be, and as such he will make an attempt not to engage the enemy and instead make an organised retreat. I guess there should be a chance that the other fleet seizes the initiative and battle takes place as normal, or perhaps the retreat becomes a rout. This would perhaps require ships in a fleet to be able to designate which ship are their Admiral
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ May 9 2004, 01:59 PM) |
| Currently ppl try to get 1 target for number of ships to wipe it out quickly, this would be much easier with the changes proposed so we need something to make it possible for the opposition to protect important ships. |
So recent changes (proposed) =
1) too many war ships, lets double the wages to make it more expensive
Vs
2) (proposed above) Lets not make it easier to blow warships up?
Why not just bring in the new changes regarding targetting and let that sort out the problem of too many warships?
The penalties for producing too many ships will then lie with the affs that wish to spend their time and resources slowly converting natural ores into degenerating debris.
Will one not balance out the other?
| QUOTE |
| Will one not balance out the other? |
Not really destroyed warships are easy to replace, so that does nt limit the number around.
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ May 14 2004, 09:06 PM) |
| Why not just bring in the new changes regarding targetting and let that sort out the problem of too many warships? |
This puts even more emphasis on requiring a gadzillion warships to prevent a surprize attack by a mere zillion destroying the heart of the fleet.