I'd like to see a game cludge removed.
The specific situation where two ships in the same hex facing each other and one launches seeking weapons, and the other passes THROUGH them without damage forcing them to het "not move" and the target ship, if it can maintain speed, gets away or even WWs.

I can live with a ship side slipping(to the side not through) and getting away, but not passing THROUGH the weapons and getting away.

Could we have a new rule where if such a situation occurs that if the taget of seeking weapons passes though a same hex launch so that it leaves the hex in the direction of the launched weapons they strike the ship on that facing shield and damage is resolved on completion of the movement. The launching ship WOULD take the 25% feedback even if it's own movement would have carried it into another hex. (Maybe apply the 25% feedback from Drones an SS too?)

E.g.
Ship1 in hex facing A, Ship 2 in same hex facing D. Each ship is facing the #1 shield of the other ship. Ship 1 launches plasma, drones and or SS at ship 2. Ship 2 moves D through the weapons is struck, completes movement, and takes damage on the #1 shield. Ship1 takes 25% feedback on his #1.

If Ship 2 moves A,B,C,E,F standard rules of seeking weapon movement apply.

If Ship 2 was facing C #2 shield facing opponnents #1 and he side slippes D through the weapons, they strike and 25% feedback occurs etc..

This is perhaps the biggest most annoying anti intuitive game mechanic there is in SFB, other than the Tractor rotate through seeking weapons cludge.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 06:45 am: Edit

Less.


You're not thinking three dimensionally.


If the two ships are in the same hex, imagine one is about 100 metres ahead of the other and yet one is about 500 km above the other.

The drones go DOWN ( or UP ) whilst the escaping ship goes FORWARD.

Thus the drone will fall in beind the vessel ( assuming it was fast enough to leave the hex).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:20 pm: Edit

This is a 2D simulation of a 3D environment. Funky stuff will occasionaly be nessasary. I have to agree with Michael.

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Your explaination is silly.

http://sfb1701.topcities.com/0101.htm
Use this graphic to represent a hex.
Say the ships are at 49, 58. I can see the ship being able to turn or side slip and not have the weapons hit because the ship can have a shorter distance to reach the next hex. I can even see the ships coming in transverse to one another say 19 and 88 allowing this to happen because on some pathways the ship will have a shorter distance to get out of the hex than the seeking weapon because of the seek towards the target nature of seeking weapon movement.

However for the ship to travel from either 28,38,48,58,68,78,88 and travel to any of 19,29,39,49,59,69,79,89 before seeking weapons starting in ANY of that hex line can hit it before leaving the hex is silly, even IF you think in terms of 3D.

By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Less,

Remember that the first movement of the seeking weapon is always straight ahead, as if it doesn't start seeking until the second hex of movement. Thus a ship that is close enough can slip around a seeking weapon that is essentially on a straight line course for 10,000 kilometers.

If the target doesn't move in that time that means it is still in the seeking weapon's original path and it can be hit without the seeking weapon making any course corrections.

If the target does move, too bad, the seeking weapon must wait until after 10,000 kilometers of movement before it can adjust its course to follow.

Nick

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Nick I'm talking about the target actually moving through the detonation radius of the weapons.

It's NOT true that the 1st movement of a seeking weapon must be FORWARD, it can be an HET.

It's not a matter of the fresh launched seeking weapons not being able to move yet either. On the impulse where the target ship is moving through this detonation radius both the ship and seeker are moving, supposedly simultaneously.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 05:50 pm: Edit

I just consider it a limitation of the seeking weapon's tracking ability shortly after launch. The things simply can't lock on quick enough to hit a ship that is coming at them dead on from inside their launch hex.

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Yet if that ship were NOT to move then at the SAME TIME INTERVAL they WOULD hit. They seem to track them just fine then.

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 06:41 pm: Edit

lesss:
aside from the gameplay reasons (same hex seekers would be much harder to avoid), a reasonable "science" explanation is already part of the game.

On the seeking weapons first move it must go straight, on a nearly ballistic course, (this is a limitation of the targeting system, which needs time to successfully steer the seeker) seekers can only avoid this limitation by using all of their movement capability to face in another direction instead (while probably remaining very close to point of launch, say ~30km).

Seekers are launched directly towards their target, so if the target does NOT move, impact will occur. If the target DOES move, all it has to do to avoid the basically ballistic trajectory of a seekers first movement is move off the line of bearing by say 100km (a trivial amount). further, a ship entering the seekers hex, on or before the seekers first move, gives the seeker a much more favorable targeting situation, by being closer to the line of bearing and giving 10,000 kms of trajectory for intercept.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 07:31 pm: Edit

I dont see the problem. Either the target ship doesnt move so he gets hit, or he does move and the seeker must fall into place behind him.

As someone said, a unique feature of a 2d system simulating 3d movement. And I dont mean that the 'kludge' is a result of this, but rather an attempt to simulate the former (3d in a 2d game).

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 10:30 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Yet if that ship were NOT to move then at the SAME TIME INTERVAL they WOULD hit. They seem to track them just fine then.

---

By L.LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Jon we are not talking about moving AWAY from the weapons but Toward then THROUGH them, coming out the other side.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Less:


If you had a hex grid on paper you could make an outline "hex" ( it'll have wavey sides ) on the grid with a radius of 3 ( diameter 7 hexes use R3 ESG diagram if you must ).

If the ships enter the same hex as each other, lay an upsidedown counter main map and use the small hexed hex to resolve the same hex issue.

Let ships turn once if their turn mode is fulfilled and not if it isn't and let them side-slip

Then break the impulse up using the 8 impulse chart ( in the cadet training manual if nowhere else ) and move the impulse counter of the game if the ships are still in the same hex.

Divide the ships speed by 8 ( rounding off ) to yeild the speed you'll use on the eight impulse chart.

When ships leave the outlines hex, look at the hex-sides they left through and move the ships to the hexes that corrispond on the main map.

If the two vessels still get into each other's hexes when they fire, resolve as usual.


If after a year of playtesting this system, you come to the beleif that it mitigates the majority of the same hex combat probles then write a letter to both Steves asking for a module ( possibly Rsomething ) to have new rules E1.___.0 Same Hex Combat and map, and maybe they'll go for it.


You don't suposse that the rules I'm putting forward were published in CL1 and dropped from Dooms day because, hardly anybody has a problem with the R0 combat as it currently stands.


You see.

If a vessel were to launch it's drones ( or other seekers ), at a target at range zero, it would be able to FACE the drones in any direction at the time of launch ( most likely the same facing as the target vessel ) and then on the next impulse even though the target has moved out of the hex, it will still be in the FA of the drone and thus there is NO HET required and the ship is unlikely to escape.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit

I wonder if anyone noticed that...

A) 8 Fragments to cross 7 hexes is bad tesselation.

B) That since ships move from the middle of hexes to the middle of hexes, the Fragment table should start at impulse 5 and go through 8 then 1 to 4 for each impulse.

Probably not.
Besides, making uneveness to eliminate uneveness is a legitimate rule making activity.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 02:22 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Jon we are not talking about moving AWAY from the weapons but Toward then THROUGH them, coming out the other side.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 02:51 am: Edit

We could of cause go through the whole any sheild can be hit from R0 method of damage allocation.

That is roll D6 for each shot and apply it to a random sheild. Drones launched in the same hex would have the same die roll, unless the ship escaped.


unfortunately this lays the ground work for...!!!

Changing the rules reguarding shield boundries.


Back to the fragments and mini hexes, you should have some point where all the weapons finally come to bear, say when the ships are in adjacent mini-hexes.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 10:26 am: Edit

Lesss,

I may have an answer for you, but I'm not sure about my sources. As I understand it, when two ships enter the same hex, facing each other, they are still in an area of some 10,000 kilometers across. Say you enter this hex together. You fire your seeking weapons, which must travel the 10,000 km forward before it can lock on. During that time, it moves one hex forward. The target moves one hex forward as well, in the opposite direction. During that time, the seeking weapon and the target move away from each other. The seeker will "lock on" shortly thereafter and turn and chase the target. That about right?

For a seeking weapon to be able to turn 180 degrees like that and retain a lock on is pretty good, IMHO. I can't find any fault with that system.

Now, an option for you; isn't there a rule about "dumb firing" drones as a direct fire weapon? If you were to do that at range zero, you'd almost certainly trash the ship you were firing at. I don't remember the rules precisely, but that seems an option you could use. It even makes sense; with no need to lock on, the drones can be fired right in the face of the target. I don't remember if plasmas can do this or not; I wouldn't think so, but you never know.

Anyway, that's about the best explanation I can offer. I know it probably isn't very satisfying, but it's the best I can think of.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 11:05 am: Edit

I'm reminded of certain submarine torpedoes that don't start to seek until they are X distance away from the launching ship. If the target can close to within X distance from the launching ship before the torpedoes can start seeking, the torps can actually pass by the target without hitting it...and then start seeking and turning a few seconds later.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 11:07 am: Edit

Jessica,

I believe that's the Mk 48. One reason (I think) that the torpedoes have that "safe distance" is to keep them from locking on to the firing ship. Not sure how that would apply here.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 12:43 pm: Edit

OK, let's put it like this: until the seeking weapon is a certain distance away from the launching ship, or has had a certain amount of time to adjust it's limited sensor gear, there is a risk that it will be adversely affected by the very large electronic signature of the launching ship. In the case of launcher-controlled drones, said interference may cause temporary lack of the kind of fine guidance control needed for an accurate hit. In the case of self-guiding drones (ATG, Type III) and plasma torps, there may be a delay circuit built-in specifically to prevent the relatively primitive sensors from locking onto the aforementioned very large electronic signature of the launching ship (and all that that implies).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 01:46 pm: Edit

If not locking then a delay in arming or both. I'll bet SVC has an answer already. In the deep reaches of my memory I seem to remember this issue being addresed. Long ago. (Could have been a debate in my own group. I'm reaching pretty far back.)

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Again, Mike Rapers explanation works for me.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:08 pm: Edit

It may have something to do with the "snap-roll" booster than droens use to orient their facings. When launched, they are effectively HETing into the proper facign when they are placed on the board. One can easily imagine that this is a non-warp one-shot thruster, which boosts the drone free of the ship and kicks it into the proper orientation before the warp engine cuts in. You can't direct fire as 1) the rack may very well not have LOS and 2) the booster doesn't provide enough thrust to be used as a weapon, and the warp engine activates with the drone guidance, so it tracks and engages like a drone is supposed to.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:18 pm: Edit

The're no minimum arming distance.

Other wise an R0 launch on a ship that DIDN'T move wouldn't strike the forward sheild and wouldn't strike the NEXT impulse.

The Hexes are 10,000 kilometres big and ships can't ram each other, so the simple fact is that two ships in the same hex wont fill exactly the same space, they could be hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of metres away from eachother, we don't know.
But what we do know is that, that IS enough room between the vessels that a ship could just move straight and not run through the drones.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 09:42 pm: Edit

I think it is safe to assume that on the impulse of launch the drone is still in close proximity to the launching ship. Say, within 1 KM? That would seem to allow for a minimum arming distance. I like Alex's definition for the non-warp snap roll for initial orientation. As a side note: Imagine the visual on that. This drone pops out of the ship and whips around in blinding flame, then zipps off at the speed of light and faster. Would really give you the feeling that some ones in trouble.

That just gave me another thought. The initial orientation must take place inside the launching ships own warp field, else it would be left behind in a hurry while at high speeds. Maybe thats irrelivant.