> How about doubling or tripling the cost of the third arc?
I believe that FT3 will impose both cost and mass for additional arcs.I can't
remeber what the progression is. These are not the right numbers, but each arc
is x2-1 would work:
# arcs 1 2 3 1 2 3
- - -- - - --
A Beam 5 9 17 Mass: 4 7 13
B Beam 4 7 13 2 3 5
C Beam 3 5 9 1 1 1 (1x2-1=1)
> On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Brian Bell wrote:
> I believe that FT3 will impose both cost and mass for additional arcs.
I agree, there should be additional mass involved. Otherwise it will
ultimately boil down to "I'm already paying 700 points for this battleship,
and adding full arcs to all weapons is only X points more? Load 'em up."
> > I believe that FT3 will impose both cost and mass for additional
I thought the FTIII design system was going to be mass only. No more points. I
do hope so.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.971209112242.19801A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
An FT2 bolt-on that I suggested some while back (and I wasn't the
first to think of it, it transpired) is to rate battery mass at
n+(n/arc) where n = 0.25 for C's, 0.5 for B's and 1 for A's.
This leaves the familiar 3-arcers at the familiar 1, 2 and 4 mass.
The 2-arc A's beloved of official GZG designs come in at GZG's
official 3 mass. Nippy little ships get the option of 1-arc B's @
1 mass or 1-arc A's @ 2 mass.
A mini-survey on the list had repondants fairly evenly divided
between preffering 6 1-arc A's, 4 2-arc A's and 3 3-arc A's for a
thrust 4 cruiser.
Having said that, I really don't mind if all batteries are 3-arc
weapons. It makes a change from all the 1-arc special anti-shield
weapons...
In message <199712100842.XAA04055@dns.kunsan.af.mil>
> campbelr@dns.kunsan.af.mil writes:
...but then Battletech got rather bloated with super new technology items. GZG
games are mercifully free of suplements full
of new gosh-wow killer-tech items to part fools with their money.
There must be something wrong with JMT...
I'd, personally, go with a mass-free, points-only system. I still
recall the design system from Dirtside (One) where you just wrote down the
stats of a vehicle and worked out a points value.
"Steve Pugh" <mafb90@pop.dial.pipex.com> said:
> I thought the FTIII design system was going to be mass only.
I'd hope not, having dealt with the Battle Tech, "tonnage" only system for so
long. Even they went to a "point" system, to better balance out the fights....
Randy "It's Not Fair!" "You say that so often, I wonder what's your basis for
comparision?"
...Snip...(JTL)
it will
> ultimately boil down to "I'm already paying 700 points for this
...(snip...(JTL)
Mikko, I hate to bring this up, but that is already the case with the average
capital ship.
Bye for now,
> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, John Leary wrote:
> ...Snip...(JTL)
Eh, that's my point: The current system does not produce results I'd like to
see, thus IMHO it needs to be changed to include mass (or
work on a mass only bases -- heck, that's almost the case anyway, most
systems already follow the 3pts=1mass formula).
Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple throwing in a few
more points. It becomes a question of what you can fit in the hull.
> Stephen Pugh wrote:
> I thought the FTIII design system was going to be mass only.
I hope not. I need a point comparrison to build my FT/DS
campeign system from... Mass translation is cimply not enough... Gort, Klaatu
barada nikto!
> Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple throwing in
> a few more points. It becomes a question of what you can fit in the
That's what our group does. I developed a spreadsheet in excel computing the
AVG damage, 12 MASS of C, B, and A Batts does based on range, screening and
number of arcs. I tweaked the mass cost of extra arcs for each of the Battery
types to get a performance curve I liked.
I've noticed a great variety of designs using all three Battery types in
various configurations now. Each design has it's own strength and weaknesses.
Pete
> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, John Leary wrote:
This is exactly what we're doing in the FTIII test material right now.
On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:20 PM, PCARON [SMTP:Pcaron@cris.com] wrote:
> > Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple throwing
If I were redesigning the arc mass system...
I must admit I fail to see why you should pay a mass cost for a specific extra
arcs
If you take a WWII battleship turrent as a baseline. Most of these had a three
arc field or fire, but you payed the one off mass cost of the turret once. A
more fixed mount weapon didn't pay for the mass cost of the turret but had a
more limited field of fire.
So I would say any multi-arc weapon
pays a single mass cost, which is for the machinery to point it into the
multiple arcs.
As A beams are bigger than C-B then
the mass/cost of the A turrent should be
significantly greater.
Specific backgrounds can relax these rules
the phaser strips/arrays in STTNG being an
obvious example.
sincerely
> On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:20 PM, PCARON [SMTP:Pcaron@cris.com]
I am not sure as to what you are saying....There are currently separate masses
for each size of beam weapon weather they shoot in multiple arcs or not. I
think this is what you just described unless
you meant a mass for non-turreted weapons and a different
mass for turreted weapons turreted weapons.
How about this. Have turreted weapons and fixed weapons. The turreted weapons
cost more in mass. It doesn't matter how much the weapon can turn. The size of
the mechanism is what is important. Fixed weapons are 1 arc weapons. No
turret. No mechanism for turning and so naturally less mass (and cost for that
matter).
Two arc weapon. Obviously has a mechanism for turning the weapon around. But
something stops it from being able to spin into the third arc. Perhaps a
superstructure or another turret is in the way. It has more mass than the
fixed weapon for its added mobility and costs more to boot.
The three arc weapon is even better. Probably not significantly more in mass
than the two arc weapon. So mass is the same but the cost would still be more
than the 2 arc weapon to reflect the greater care in designing the ship so
that the turret can cover all three arcs.
Just my two cents....
John
Somewhere in the world there is defeat for everyone. Some are destroyed by
defeat, and some made small and mean by victory. Greatness lives in one who
triumphs equally over defeat and victory.
John Steinbeck -- The Acts of King Arthur and His
Noble Knights
[snip]
> It's possible to build a 2 arc (really 3 arc) weapon in a turret system
That's only necessary if you consider each "beam system" (such as a
single C-battery) to be a single barrel (or equivalent). If it's a
coordinated system of barrels, it does not have to have a 6-degree
turret; it could, instead, have a set of 3-degree (or some-such)
turrets, each covering one arc of the system coverage. The local
fire-control system is only capable of tracking and firing in one
arc at a time. This would correspond to wet-navy parlance, where a
"battery" may be a *set* or *system* of guns. With this conception, the FCS
(or multiple FCSs) of the ship ship handles target identification and
designation, and the local FCS of the weapon system handles fine targetting
and firing. If the ship's primary FCS system is knocked out, the local FCS no
longer receives target designations, and can only engage close targets,
if appropriate for the type of weapon (e.g., a C-battery in PDAF role).
[snip]
- Sam
Various comments by a number of people,
> > > > Should extra arcs take mass, it's not a question of simple
> > I must admit I fail to see why you should pay
> How about this. Have turreted weapons and fixed weapons. The
John, I basiclly agree with your thoughts, I dont think that will change
anything, but I do agree. Perhaps what is needed is to consider the shape of
the
ship to decide the number of 3/2/1 arc weapons systems on board.
Or perhaps limit the number of three arc systems by mass of the ship? At
present the 'A' is simply not that much better than 3 'C' batteries at short
range to justify an increase in mass. (Caution: Big Guess follows) Or perhaps
I should ask, is one three arc 'A' better than 12 one arc 'C's. The one game I
was in with something close to the new mass rules was a really extended battle
with ships of mass 80 to 160 in the majority. The mass increse of the ships
coupled with the reduction in firepower made it a five hour battle.
Bye for now,
Greetings,
I think that all involved in the mass/arc discussion are
stuck in WWII with the big gun battleship. The (personal)
problem I have with this is that our ships are armed with (charged) particle
beams and the turrets being talked about are (more than likely) a manipulated
energy field thru a
series of surface mounted emitters. All of the directional
changes would be handled thru different levels of energy in the various
emitters to change target and control the field for focus (range) changes. The
wave and nova are the big guns of FT and are always left out of the
discussion, these would correspond to the 11 to
18 inch guns of the battleships. This means that the 'A'
moves to the cruiser range of guns (5.5 to 9.1") along with the
'B'.
The 'C' is all of the smaller and DD size dual purpose weapons.
Well, after having typed the above rubbish, perhaps a
suggestion/option is in order:
1) Handle the perceived problem with a points change in the a battery.
2) Change all beam batteries, (A/B/C) to only one die and
allow the B to penetrate one and the A to penetrate two
screens without penelty. Possibly change the base damage
for beams to: A=3, B=2, and C=1, in addition to the penetration.
Just some thoughts,
Bye for now,
> Brian Bell wrote:
> Or make A, B, & C beams 3d6 upto 12"
Snip
> and diversity to fleet design (firepower vs range).
Brian, yet another valid viewpoint.
Thanks,
> Brian Bell wrote:
snip
> I have not found this the case. Not only do you match the firepower of
Brian, Sorry, I did not state the exact rules in question. The comment
pertains to my (very Limited) exposure to what was presented as an FTIII ship
design rule.
Bye for now,
Another option, of course, is to have a turret mass = the mass of the weapons
it contains. Allow it to fire upto 3 arcs. Allow it to contain multiple
weapons. Count it as a seperate system for threshold rolls and needle attacks.
If a turret takes a hit all weapons it contains may only fire in the arc that
they last fired in. You could discount a turret that carries multiple weapons
by 1 ton (minimum mass of 1 for a turret) to encourage multiple weapons in the
same turret.
With this system for the same mass you could buy:
2 beams that can both fire but each in its own arc only OR
1 beam in a turret that can fire in any of 3 arcs.
> At present the 'A' is simply not that much better than 3
I have not found this the case. Not only do you match the firepower of 3 C's
with an A as close range, you get extended range and flexiblilty (more arcs of
fire without loosing concentration of firepower). And it costs less (13 vs 15
points).
> 2) Change all beam batteries, (A/B/C) to only one die and
Or make A, B, & C beams 3d6 upto 12"
A & B 2d6 at 12-24"
and A 1d6 at 24-36"
This would even out the costs between the weapons and add additional tactics
and diversity to fleet design (firepower vs range).
> John Leary wrote:
This is true enough, however, almost all table top (that is in two
dimensional) games involving "Fleets" of anything is going to be based on the
WWII model. Besides, paint the table blue, scratch FTL and the obvious SF
stuff (like Wave guns, Nova Cannons, and shields) then Kazam! you have a
pretty good WWII navel simulation.
> The (personal)
Whoa! Star Trek Physics. Is that a quote right out of the ST writers
guide? The nice "look" of the Enterprise multi-emitter would take an
order of magnitude more energy than a traditional turret. Energy radiates from
a source, it doesn't flow. Adjacent emitters would not have any effect on each
other. Sure you can affect the path of the radiant particles with magnetic
fields or (reflective surfaces) but the strength of the field would likely
crush any ship near it. I would rather see all that energy dumped into my
targets. Put the energy (all of it) in the bottom of a reflective cone (or
tube) and point it at the target. Simple. Now you could make a lot of low
powered mini turrets and point them all at the same spot on the target. Think
of 10,000 flashlights on spindles. The first one is harmless. 10 starts to
burn your eyes. 100 is painful. 1000 is blinding. etc.
Admittedly we are taking about a SF system in which energy is unlimited and
magnetic field could be used in the manner suggested. But the ST
motto "I don't care how it works -- as long a it LOOKS cool" needs to
stay on TV.
> The wave and nova are the big guns of FT and are always
I disagree (Who would Guess):
The wave and nova guns have no "real world" match. The closest that might
qualify is a tactical nuclear missile or a tomahawk with a bomblett dispenser.
The "A" battery is the equivalent to the 18" Gun. Other deck mounded guns
match "B" & "C" batteries. The "C" batteries are a perfect match for the dual
purpose guns if used against fighters.
The smaller guns (which were often assigned an anti-fighter roll)
correspond to PDAF and ADAF.
> Well, after having typed the above rubbish, perhaps a
Ok. Bump up the cost of an "A" battery by a couple of points then rework all
the ships. But that is the original point of the thread.
> 2) Change all beam batteries, (A/B/C) to only one die and
Ok. Reducing the dice of the batteries will result in longer combats. The
penetration will make buying anything less than an "A" battery even more
undesirable. That is until people start leaving shields out of their designs
since they become obsolete. Then a fast ship with a lot of "C" batteries
becomes the optimal design.
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Tim Jones wrote:
> If you take a WWII battleship turrent as
I basically agree, but I think you have made an important omission in your
reasonings:
Most of the dreadnought era battleship PRIMARY turrets had 3-arcs. The
secondary and tertiary turrets more often than not DIDN'T (the Yamato design
is a notable exception, placing 6" secondaries on top of primary turrets for
best possible field of fire).
Why?
For the same reason none of the ships have a "tank-style" 4-arc turret:
You can fit only so many turrets on a ship before they start interfering
with each other.
3 or 4 centerliners with "3 arcs" for main guns with secondaries littered
where they happened to fit was just found to be the best choice (though
the WWI-era experiments were very interesting and neat looking ships --
by WWII everyone's battleships looked pretty much alike). After that point,
people started widening the turrets or mounting bigger guns. 5 or more turrets
just wasn't optimal anymore.
Sky Galleons of Mars has a nice simple system to show this effect, but
it's best suited to gunship -level. Ironclads & Ether Flyers had a
considerably more cumbersome system to allow multiple turrets.
Yeah, space is 3D even if your board isn't and so on. But still there's a
limit to how many full arc mounts you can fit on a hull.
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Thomas Corcoran wrote:
> John Leary wrote:
Already done, its known as Flank Speed. Conversions are available
somewhere on the web and if not I can E-mail them to interested parties.
--Binhan
> John Leary wrote:
Having designed and worked with antennas and electromagnetic radiation
for many years, and designed a number of phased-array antennas, I must
comment here. Adjacent emitters would not "have any effect on each other", but
the statement is deceptive. The EM radiation from adjacent emitters *would*
combine, destructively and constructively, in "free space" once
radiated by the emitters. Otherwise phased-array antennas would not
work. This applies for *any* form of EM radiation, including RF, IR, UV,
visible light, x-rays, etc.
> Sure you can affect the path of the
But your flashlights, as non-coherent light, will add incoherently, so
the increase in power would be on the order of square-root(number of
lights). If they were coherent (lasers), and the phase were controlled to make
them
arrive in-phase at the target, the increase would be on the order of
(number of lights). Oh...and it's a phased array of lasers. Which could be
built today (albeit at lower powers and larger size than would be useful
in ship-to-ship combat, but we don't have star cruisers yet, either).
Back to SF: I envision the ST phaser system (a la Voyager) as a massive plasma
generator with smaller trigger plasma projectors for the various fire
quadrants. The plasma generator builds up a "shot" of plasma, which is drawn
off to the target "pickaback" on the smaller projected
plasma bolt. As good a PSB an any I have heard. ;-)
[snip]
- Sam
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> Back to SF: I envision the ST phaser system (a la Voyager) as a
Samuel and Friends, While I did enjoy the discussion on radio antennas, I
would
like to get back the the problem. Bottom Line: It seems that
a number of people do not think an 'A' Beam should be on an escort or cruiser
class ship. The reason: The 'A' Beam is
equated to the 12-18 inch gun of the battleships.
It is now time to ruffle some well aligned feathers! Fifteen inch guns were
mounted on ships that displaced less than eight thousand tons in WWII. This
may come as a shock to many, but it is a fact.
Part of the problem is the way the ship classed are divided, The size
relationship between the destroyer and battleship was not maintained, and the
cost was not considered as a factor at all. This is a way to ignore reality
and use the navy terms
in a sci-fi setting and not be bound by constraints the ship class
titles impose. The game designer is then free to allow his and his players
imaginations run free to design to the ships they feel will best suit the
needs of the situation.
Bye for now,