Ok, after doing various maths that gave wildly varying results, I have this
proposal:
Genre category weapon. The 'Shockfront' area effect energy field weapon
(SFAEEF) (I'm trying desperately to avoid any use of the word 'wave' in this
weapons
name :-)
Prototype #1 - low power/short range varient.
This weapon has a single fire arc, and fires an expanding energy field that
strikes all targets within the fire arc that are in range (doesn't necessarily
do damage though, read on...) When fired, any ships in the fire
arc of the weapon (friend -or-foe, it's indescriminate) may take damage,
for each ship, roll a number of dice equal to the class of the SFAEEF, reduced
by 1 for every full 6 mu of range, and score them _exactly_ as beam
damage,
counting screens, armour, etc. as usual. (If you _must_ use reflex
screens -
they're nasty - each ship gets to reflect separately, so the attacker
could take several times the damage it rolled!)
Alternatively, just roll one lot for the weapon, then figure effects on
ships on a case-by-case basis, when reducing the number of dice as you
cross
range bands, discard the _largest_ dice result. (you _might_ want to cut
the MASS/COST down if you use this option)
Example, fire SFAEEF-3 at 3 ships, two at 5 mu (one unscreened, one
screen-1), one (unscreened) at 7.
rolls: 3, 4, 6 (re-roll of 4).
unscreened ship at 5 mu takes 4 hits screened ship at 5 mu takes 3 hits ship
at 7 mu takes 1 hit.
I can't decide if you need a firecon to fire this monster :-(
Ok, the bottom line: Class MASS 1 10 2 30 3 90 every additional class is
triple the MASS of the previous. COST is MASS x4
Prototype #2 - high power/short range
Much nastier - treat the dice Plasma Bolt dice (ie. damage = number
rolled,
screen-1 negates '6's, screen-2 negates '5's).
Always damages unscreened targets!
MUCH more expensive. Class MASS 1 44 2 132 3 396 every additional class is
triple the MASS of the previous. COST is MASS x4
Prototype #3 - low power/long range
As Prototype #1, but use 12 mu range bands Class MASS 1 20 2 60 3 180 every
additional class is 3x the MASS of the previous. COST is MASS x4
Prototype #4 - low power/long range/'slow'
As Prototype #3, but the 'arc-o-death' moves at a speed of 24 (only
relevant
if Class-3 and above) - c.f. Nova Cannon.
Claas MASS 1 20 2 50 3 125 every additional class is 2.5x the MASS of the
previous (round to nearest). COST is MASS x4
Prototypes #5 and #6 high power versions of #3 and #4, with a similar increase
in cost.
These weapons actually fire an expanding _plane_ of energy - for a true
'arc-o-death' weapon I would say either:
roll to hit (use k-gun/pulse torp table) against everything in arc (use
12 mu range bands for the long range varients)
or - weapon can only hit _one_ target, chosen by fireer, in each range
band
- divide MASS/COST by 5 (say).
The LEXX gun would be a Prototype #6 with an obscene amount of dice :-)
Ok, I based the math on a lot of beams and firecons, does anyone think these
things are any use? if so, are the costs right? or wildly off? (won't get a
chance to playtest them myself for a while :-( )
Well, hope someone likes this :-|
I think I should give up designing silly weapon for the moment - but
from the threads ATM 'the stars are right...'
> Genre category weapon.
I'd go ahead and use "wavefront." It's a better description. Perhaps Wavefront
Energy Field (WEF) would be far less ungainly.
> Prototype #1 - low power/short range varient.
I like this so far. Simple but different.
> Alternatively, just roll one lot for the weapon, then figure effects on
IMO, a bad idea. A separate roll for each ship is far better.
> I can't decide if you need a firecon to fire this monster :-(
I'd say "Yes."
> Ok, the bottom line:
I'm not going to do the math at the moment to figure if these are decent
figures or not.
> Prototype #2 - high power/short range
This one seems too over the top. I'd vote against it.
> Prototype #3 - low power/long range
Still like #1 best.
> Prototype #4 - low power/long range/'slow'
[snippage]
Too complex. Too much of a hassle.
> Ok, I based the math on a lot of beams and firecons, does anyone think
Like I said, no idea about the cost, but I like the mechanic far more than the
existing Nova and Wave weapons.
Date sent: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 17:00:52 -0700
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Area effect 'arc-o-death' weapon idea
Send reply to: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> >Prototype #1 - low power/short range varient.
Agreed. All ships have at least some degree of variation in it's protective
factor. And the energy of the effect might not be purely constant. If it
diminishes on range, that might have an effect, as might space debris in the
path weaken the wave to some effect.
> >I can't decide if you need a firecon to fire this monster :-(
I'd say yes too. I'm not sure if this is intended as a 'spinal mount' (being
new to the list), but if being used in multiples, I would suggest a FireCon
for each.
> >Ok, the bottom line:
Just from a mathematical POV it would be easier if you used the 'square'
principle. Instead of using your current system, go with (Mass^2)*10. Instead
of the 10, 30, 90, 270 system you currently have, it would be 10, 40, 90, 160,
250. It's just easier from a mathematical POV. Then again, this is assuming
you have it as a spinal mount with no multiples.
With multiples, you find that two Class 2's are an improvement over a Class 3
at most ranges (Up to 6, 1 extra dice, up to 12, less Mass and Cost). You
might want to allow larger class weapons to
work on a bigger arc. Class 1 gets the traditional 11-1 facing. Class
2 gets a 10-2 facing. Class 3 a 9-3 (full front arc) facing. Allow the
larger devices to be fired in a narrower arc, but have it determined at the
point of firing. If this is deemed too powerful, reduce the Damage dealt at
each expansion. So a Class 3 firing on full arc gets 1D out to 6". A Class 5
firing on the Class 3 Arc would get 3D. Anyways, that's just the ramblings
I've come up with. Playtesting would be needed, across multiple games and
varying ship types, to figure if this is too powerful.
> On Sat 05 Aug, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Yup, I like that.
> >Prototype #1 - low power/short range varient.
In hindsight, I agree, this option existed simply to speed play.
> >I can't decide if you need a firecon to fire this monster :-(
My instincts agree.
> >Ok, the bottom line:
I based cost on about 10 1-beams, with MASS halved to represent half
size range bands, 10 PDS
and 10 FireCons - as it can hit multiple targets (I pulled the number 10
out of the air). I then munged the numbers to allow for things like the
weapons complete lack of discrimation, Then I rounded the numbers a bit.
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip variens #2 & #3]
> >Prototype #4 - low power/long range/'slow'
Designed to emulate LEXX main gun (toned down a bit :-)
> >Ok, I based the math on a lot of beams and firecons, does anyone
Thanks
> On Sat 05 Aug, Morgan Vening wrote:
Well, it does diminish with range (lose 1 beam dice per 6 mu - should
the 'range bands' be smaller,
with a reduced MASS and COST? anyone?) - but in hindsight I agree as
well.
> >
I visulise two applications for this weapon:
1) spinal mount
2) mount 6 of them, 1 per fire arc, all the same class, rule that they
all _must_ fire as one, to get a
'spherical energy wave' weapon, similar to the one on the Dreadnough cruise
missile (early ST: Voyger I'm afraid - but more like an Expanding Sphere
Generater than the system of that name in SFB :-).
> > >Ok, the bottom line:
Well, I based the cost progression on Beam Batteries, where the cost doubles
every time the beam battery class increases by 1. I used triples to represent
that each increase in weapon class increses both range and area of effect. I
did some maths on beams, and I think that, for high beam classes, a square
progression as you suggest might be better (does anyone think that 'high'
power
beam batteries, Class 4+, are too expensive?), in which case this weapon
should use a 'cube' progression, maybe?
> With multiples, you find that two Class 2's are an improvement over
> 2 gets a 10-2 facing. Class 3 a 9-3 (full front arc) facing. Allow the
> larger devices to be fired in a narrower arc, but have it determined
Comment about multiple weapons equally applies to Beam Batteries, I'm
interested in you idea
for handling higher classes of this weapon - maybe as an 'advanced'
varient.
> Morgan Vening
Thanlks