Hi All,
This will be my last post for a bit, as my weekend duty will consume all my
attention for the next 4 days. Changes sice last time:
[1] BPS power generation is now set at 1/2 capacity.
[2] MASS and POINT COSTs have been adjusted downwards to reflect this
reduction in efficiency.
[3] Threshold damage rules cleaned slightly, but essentially left
unchanged. No extra damage to the ship at the first threshold (stored EPs are
lost), but stored EPs are scored upon destruction.
The Heavy Beams "rules" as they stand now are remarkably simple. I like it
so far, but I'm sure they can still be improved - just as I'm sure that
you'll all let me know how... ;-)
Heavy Beams
Heavy Beams consist of two (or more) systems on the SSD: the Beam Power System
(BPS) and at least one Beam Emitter (BE).
The BPS is a combination of generator, capacitor, and discharger that can
store a number of Energy Points (EPs) up to twice its class rating. It can
discharge any number of stored EPs through any given Emitter.
The BPS generates power at the beginning of each turn, During Step 1: Write
Orders for All Ships. The BPS receives half of its EP capacity each turn. A
damaged BPS, having failed one threshold, receives a quarter (rounding down).
When taking damage and a BPS fails a threshold check, they are not
automatically knocked out of commission. Instead, they are treated in much the
same manner as drives. The first failed threshold halves the capacity of the
system, making it equal to, rather than twice, its class. Its power generation
is reduced as detailed above. A BPS failing its first threshold also looses
all stored EPs. The second hit destroys the system and inflicts an additional
number of damage points equal to the number of EPs currently stored in the
BPS.
Beam Power System: Class 1 3 MASS 9 POINT COST 2 EP Capacity Class 2 6 MASS 12
POINT COST 4 EP Capacity Class 3 9 MASS 18 POINT COST 6 EP Capacity Âetc.
EPs must be channeled through a Beam Emitter. Each BE is linked to a single
BPS, and may make use of any EPs stored therein, up to its emission limit. A
BE must be larger to handle a larger power load channeled through it. A BE may
use a number of EPs up to twice its class.
When firing, each EP assigned to a BE allows one die roll. Subtract one from
this die for each full 6 MU of range, and the result is the damage done to the
target. For example: A ship allocates 3 EPs to a BE, firing at a target 15"
away. The 3 dice roll 2, 4, and 5. The dice are scored 0,
2,
and 3, resulting in 5 damage points to the target. Emitters are affected
normally by threshold rolls. Emitters fire though only one arc.
Screens and Kra'Vak type armor affect heavy beams the same way. Each level
subtracts one from the roll for each EP. Heavy beams are affected by Human
type armor in the same manner as normal beams.
Beam Emitter: Class 1 1 MASS 3 POINT COST Class 2 2 MASS 6 POINT COST Class 3
3 MASS 9 POINT COST Âetc.
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> When taking damage and a BPS fails a threshold check, they are not
the mechanism here seems fine (although i would suggest that the first hit
causes some hull damage, either from the EPs which can no longer be stored, or
from all of them, also causing a total discharge of the capacitor; i think
this option has been rejected already, though).
however, i query the intent: how do you justify BPSs taking two hits like
drives, rather than one hit, like every other weapon system? a BPS-3 is
9 mass, the same as a hangar, and that only takes one hit. even a nova cannon
dies with one critical. this may be how it works in EFSB, but does it truly
fit into the philosophy of FT2.5 weapons?
> When firing, each EP assigned to a BE allows one die roll. Subtract
iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU. i disagree very strongly with
this. could we have -1 for each '6 MU or part thereof' of range instead?
that would chop 6 off the max range, but would get rid of auto-hit
(except at zero range, but i can live with that:)). perhaps the range
increment could be made 8 mu to compensate; max range goes from 36 to 40.
> Screens and Kra'Vak type armor affect heavy beams the same way. Each
how is damage split between armour and hull? given that this is supposed to be
a deeply gouging weapon, i suggest half on each, in the manner of PTs.
tom
> however, i query the intent: how do you justify BPSs taking two hits
This could, in theory be fixed by upping the MASS and reducing the POINT COST.
> iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU. i disagree very strongly
I think that arc restrictions under 6" are their own penalty.
> how is damage split between armour and hull? given that this is
Yup.
> From: Tom Anderson <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk>
> [Two step BPS Damage]
> However, i query the intent: how do you justify BPSs taking two hits
Because it has the extra vulnerability of 2 systems on the SSD. The better
comparison is the SML+ Magazine, and that's so subject to random factors
as to be hard to compare with confidence.
> When firing, each EP assigned to a BE allows one die roll. Subtract
> iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU.
You Betcha. Anyone careless enough to get in that close and inside the single
arc deserves what they get.
> i disagree very strongly with this. could we have -1 for each '6 MU or
Bleagh. Makes 'em weaker _and_ more expensive than Ptorps.
As is, HBW is only superior, per die, to P-torps below 12". A Ptorp is
superior to _2_ HBW dice at 18-24" with your system. Cripples it with
the restricted arc and double system on the SSD.
Even with cost/mass adjustments, why not go for torps?
> ... perhaps the range increment
Still don't like it. Still weaker and more expensive than Ptorps in almost
all ranges P-torps can fire in. Is 0.167 points of damage per die
average at
range 32-40 compensation? I don't think so.
> Screens and Kra'Vak type armor affect heavy beams the same way. Each
> how is damage split between armour and hull? given that this is
If it's a gouger, then once it gets past the armor, it should all be hull. I'd
say first point from each die is armor, the rest are hull, or simplified,
Armor up to number of dice thrown, the rest hull. I'll settle for half and
half as long as it's rounded in favor of more hull damage.
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> >From: Tom Anderson <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk>
like SML + mag, as you say ...
> The better
really? does anyone [1] think the SM(L+M) combination can be analysed?
in any case, you haven't answered the question: you say two hits is
appropriate for the HB but not the SM, and then say you can't explain why
because the SM is too random. if there's extra vulnerability, make it lighter
and cheaper to balance it, don't mess about with the basic patterns of the
game.
maybe we should say that HBPS are knocked out like every other weapon system,
but that the KO represents damage to the connector; it can still charge up,
but not use any of the stored power, and when it is fixed, the power becomes
usable. that would soften the blow somewhat, and be analogous to SMs in a
damaged magazine being usable once the mag has been fixed.
> >> When firing, each EP assigned to a BE allows one die roll. Subtract
uh? so it's okay for rules to be unbalanced, because if people fall foul of
them, its their own fault for being so stupid? besides, with multiple
emitters, it's not single-arc, is it? and, as Kr'rt said, 6 mu is not
that hard to do (for some people, anyway).
you still have to account for the fact that there is *no* other weapon system
which does guaranteed damage and which doesn't require movement guessing (i'm
thinking of the the nova cannon and the SM) (correct me if
i'm wrong - certainly no major weapon systems).
> > i disagree very strongly with this. could we have -1 for each '6 MU
so make them lighter/cheaper.
> As is, HBW is only superior, per die, to P-torps below 12". A Ptorp is
cost/mass adjustments?
> Even with cost/mass adjustments, why not go for torps?
i suggest shifting the range increment, so they're useful at longer
ranges. then they become less of a close-in weapon than the PT, and more
of a general-purpose one.
> >... perhaps the range increment
i'm not claiming to have number-crunched any of this; i'm just saying
that two details of the HB proposal make unprecedented changes to the game.
now, that may or may not matter, but i'd like to see a convincing argument as
to why the coherence of FT needs to be broken.
> >> Screens and Kra'Vak type armor affect heavy beams the same way.
Each
> level
another new mechanism. otoh, i quite like this one:O.
> I'll settle
i'd say use half-half exactly like other penetrating weapons myself -
KISS.
tom
[1] Oerjan :)
> The better
> really? does anyone [1] think the SM(L+M) combination can be analysed?
As you note, Oerjan may, but me as a mere mortal who dislikes SM's to begin
with....
> in any case, you haven't answered the question: you say two hits is
Back of the napkin: Max damage of the SM is 36 at all ranges (minimum mass=6
for ER mag). Average is 12.25 minus 2.6 per PDS. Subtract some for placement,
add some for experience.
Max dam of HB2 with emitter 3 at 0-6" is 18 (minimum mass=9). Average is
10.5 minus screens (at shortest range only).
MyOp: SM's don't deserve the break, HB's do (plus I like the PSB that makes
them both behave the way they do.)
> if there's extra vulnerability, make it
Why not? The SM does just that. ;-). In fact, so does each unique
weapon system (Beams, torps, missiles, fighters...)
> >iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU.
> You Betcha. Anyone careless enough to get in that close and inside
> uh? so it's okay for rules to be unbalanced, because if people fall
No. My argument is that they are not unbalanced. And (but this is obvious)
that you should be aware of your opponent's strong and weak points.
> besides, with multiple
Multiple emitters is more expensive in mass and cost. Balances in my book, but
I'll defer to Oerjan.
> and, as Kr'rt said, 6 mu is not that hard to do (for some people,
Bloody KV can turn on a half-pence, kiss your sister and be home before
you can say "Hey!" As usual it depends on your style and group.
> you still have to account for the fact that there is *no* other weapon
I think it's still a guessing game. you've got a single arc out to 6" -
a small piece of game real estate. if you've got more arcs you've paid for
them. And if the opponent has screens, "guaranteed damage" goes away,
> >... perhaps the range increment
> Still don't like it. Still weaker and more expensive than Ptorps in
> i'm not claiming to have number-crunched any of this; i'm just saying
Not for EFSB veterans. And I'll hazard to say FBII will make the mods of the
HB look like a spit in the rain.
> now, that may or may not matter, but i'd like to see a convincing
I don't see how this "breaks" the system any more than KV (or SV or god knows
Phalon) weapons do. It creates a new dynamic and new weapon metric to test and
balance. Gives a different feel for a different system. That's not breaking,
that's adding variety and color. Even in a KISS system, variety is both
available and desirable.
> and, as Kr'rt said, 6 mu is not that hard to do (for some people,
<<Very Big Tusky Grin>>
-=Kr'rt
I accidentally saw my name mentioned:
> Noam wrote:
> The better comparison is the SML+ Magazine, and that's so subject
Sorry, no. I can't analyse the SMs properly - not if I have to include
the probability that they are on target, anyway, and that must be
included if you compare them to non-template weapons. Template-weapon
hit probabilities depends entirely on player skill, and I have too
little data on how good players are to get any meaningful results :-/
I haven't followed the HB discussion at all because of other projects -
too many posts in too short a time while I had too much else to do :-(
Will try to catch up some day, but it won't be this weekend.
Later,
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> I accidentally saw my name mentioned:
sorry!
> Noam wrote:
this is true. might it be possible to work out what the damage per mass is
assuming 100% hit rate, and then figure out what the hit rate would have to be
to make them balance with HBs? if it'a 0.9 or 0.1, then there's
clearly some unbalance, but if it's in the 0.3-0.7 range, it's probably
okay.
tom
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> >> The better
it seems he'd rather not (a wise man does not attempt the impossible). i'm
writing as a mere mortal who likes HBs, but would like to be sure we're not
creating a power weapon. for the record, i don't like SMs much, either
:).
> > in any case, you haven't answered the question: you say two hits is
okay; under your conditions (no screens, shortest range), HBs do 0.86 times
the damage of SMs. thus, they break even if SMs hit in 86% of cases
or better - i would say that hit rates amongst mere mortals with SMs are
substantially lower than that myself. factor in screens and longer ranges,
and the break-even ratio gets lower, to the region where it becomes
reasonable. this shows that HBs aren't overpowered at all ranges - but
that's not my complaint. i take issue with the auto-hit and the two-step
knockout.
> MyOp:
if they need a break, i say do it with mass or range (i'd like to see HBs
have a better useful range, leaving PTs to handle close-in stuff). as
for
PSB - i'm sure we could cook up some delicious explanations for why it's
a
single-hit knockout.
> > if there's extra vulnerability, make it
<lol/> yes, that's true, of course. i hadn't really looked at it like
that!
> >> >iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU.
i think it's this i disagree with, then. i don't believe in auto-hits.
> And (but this is obvious)
naturally.
> > besides, with multiple
another end-user variable, like SM placing. curses.
> > you still have to account for the fact that there is *no* other
- a
> small piece of game real estate. if you've got more arcs you've paid
well, screens are less common with FB; it still leaves small fry (up to CL in
some cases) at the mercy of the beam.
> >> >... perhaps the range increment
true, but i'd like this to be a system for generic players too.
> And I'll hazard to say FBII will make the mods of the
really? i'll bet it will be mostly a tidying-up and filling-out of
FT2.5. of course, i am generally completely wrong about this sort of thing:(.
> >now, that may or may not matter, but i'd like to see a convincing
That's not
> breaking, that's adding variety and color. Even in a KISS system,
agreed. i'm just not convinced there *needs* to be a difference here. if
HBs could be made distinctive without auto-hit and two-hit knockout, why
shouldn't we do that?
anyway, i get the feeling i'm arguing over two exceedingly trivial points with
people who are keen to see as much of the EFSB flavour of HBs
preserved as possible, and thus, charging up a cul-de-sac. i think i
shall stop!
tom
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> > As you note, Oerjan may, but me as a mere mortal who dislikes SM's
Actually I'd rather, but I have to admit at least temporary defeat in
this case :-/
> Tom also wrote:
> might it be possible to work out what the damage per mass is
Apart from the hit problem with the hit probabilities (not to mention the
probabilities to hit the target you want it to, rather than a BJ <g>), the
average damage per Mass from an SM also depends on the number of PDSs
defending against it and the launcher (SMR or SML, and if SML the number of
salvoes per launcher). The SMs are the only weapons in
FB1 which vary in size for the *same* number of fire arcs :-/
So, all in all I'd prefer to balance the HBs against beams and pulse torps
rather than against SMs. The increased chances of threshold
damage for a two-component system isn't too hard to calculate :-)
Later,
> At 9:15 AM -0500 2/4/00, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
I don't see FT as a game with automatic hits, certainly not for a full die
worth of damage, even without rerolls.
> > i disagree very strongly with this. could we have -1 for each '6 MU
here's my take on lasers from my B5W conversion:
Laser Weapons The base system for all Laser weapons from B5W is the Pulse
Torpedo and all normal PT rules apply
Additional Range: +1 mass per +3" of range
Extra damage: +1 mass per +1 damage
Anti-Fighter capability: 1 Mass, fires as PDF
Examples:
Medium Laser (1 Arc, Mass 4 + 1/arc, PV = 3 x Mass)
EA/Narn Heavy Laser
+3" range, +2 damage
Base mass =7 + 1/arc
Centauri Battle Laser
+6" range, +2 damage
Base mass = 8 +1/arc
Minbari Neutron Laser and Improved Neutron Laser
+6" range, +2 damage, anti-fighter
Bass mass = 9 +1/arc
Quoting Tom Anderson (Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:03:43PM +0000)
> > The better
It can, but the range of variables is much extended, since the speed of the
target has an effect on hit probability. I wouldn't even want to think about
the effectiveness of SM(L+M) configurations when analysing with banzai
jammers:) (hitting a BJ with more than one SM being less than efficient)
> Colin Plummer wrote:
> really? does anyone [1] think the SM(L+M) combination can be
It does indeed. However, player skill - and player knowledge about the
opposing player - is even more important.
Similarly, most weapons vary in effect depending on the design of the target,
but the SMs' effect depends both on the fleet compositions of the two opposing
fleets as well... Neither player skill and fleet composition can be nailed
down well enough to make the analysis really
meaningful :-(
> I wouldn't even want to think about the effectiveness of SM(L+M)
Correction: hitting a BJ with even one SM is considerably less than
efficient since a well-designed BJ costs less than the SM and its
supporting engines and hull... and even a poorly-designed BJ - eg the
FB1 scouts - only costs about as much as the SM does.
Regards,