well thank you jefferytitan for your input.
the 3 point in your suggestion point to "running simulation to check how it looks", well as i already said that is out of question as pointed
out in my "Some Points To Note :" section point no 3.
although your suggestion 1 & 2 looks good but i need "Striker Hit" type 2 shots(Indirectly aka Multi-level collision) also....without running simulation
I will have a think about how one would do type 2 shots analytically. Regarding type 3 shots... it is my opinion from reading a lot of literature that this is impossible without running a simulation. The traditional approach for physics engines AFAIK is iterative solvers. If there were an analytical solution the physics guys would be all over it. My suggestion is to accept the simulation and think outside the box. For example, run the simulation with increased velocities and reduced iterations. Add a "talking smack" component to cover while you calculate, e.g. "oh man, you really snookered me here!", "can I get the 7... no...", etc. A human-like delay could be turned into a feature rather than a bug.