This is my first message to the Full Thrust mail group, so forgive me if I am
covering already hashed over ground. I just bought the game and it's More
Thrust last night and I am having a problem with Beam Batteries.
Unless you only have 1-2 mass left on your ship, I can't see a time
where you would want to buy anything *but* A batteries. A Batteries are
clearly
superior in a cost/benefit analysis which I show below using the lowest
common denominator for mass (6):
Min Max Range Range Range
Arc Arc 0-12 13-24 25-36
Mass Weapons Cost Cost Damage Damage Damage
---- ------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------
6 2 14 26 6d6 4d6 2d6
6 3 15 27 6d6 2d6 N/A
6 6 18 30 6d6 N/A N/A
As you can see A Batteries are always cheaper and always do as much or more
damage out to much greater range. I feel that this should be rectified and the
More Thrust tried to do this, but fell short. I am thinking of amending
Battery point costs to be "A:4+4/arc B:2+2/arc C:1+1/arc". This would
change the above chart to look like the one below:
Min Max Range Range Range
Arc Arc 0-12 13-24 25-36
Mass Weapons Cost Cost Damage Damage Damage
---- ------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------
6 2 16 32 6d6 4d6 2d6
6 3 12 24 6d6 2d6 N/A
6 6 12 24 6d6 N/A N/A
With this new scheme A Batteries would still be clearly better, but would
cost between 33% and 50% more that B/C batteries (depending on the arc
of fire). I feel that B & C batteries costing the same per mass is OK as More
Thrust allows C batteries to act in point defense and I feel that
this balances B batteries advantage at ranges 13-24.
What do the rest of you think?
Thanks,
Dave.
> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, David Kendall Lewis wrote:
> This is my first message to the Full Thrust mail group, so forgive me
There have been multiple solutions to the problem. Some of the most common are
1) increase the mass of A batteries to 4 without increaseing cost. 2) as you
mentioned increase the cost of the batteries. 3) do both 1 and 2. 4) make A
batteries a higher "tech" level and thus only available to more advanced
races.
There are probably several other ways to deal with this but these are probably
the most common.
--Binhan
Date sent: 7-OCT-1996 10:22:30
As we are talking about ST, I thought I'd repost my idea about long range
beams and Disruptors.
LR-Beams.
Class |1-6" |6-12" |12-18" |18-24" |24-30" |30-36" |36-42" |42"-48"
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
C |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 | not able to use anti-fighter mode.
B |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 | |
A |2d6 |2d6 |2d6 |2d6 |1d6 |1d6 |1d6 |1d6
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Disruptors
Class |1-6" |6-12" |12-18" |18-24" |24-30" |30-36" |36-42" |42"-48"
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
C |2d6 |1d6 | | not able to use anti-fighter mode.
B |3d6 |2d6 |1d6 | | | | |
A |4d6 |3d6 |2d6 |1d6 | | | |
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
You'll notice that in both cases, C batterys roll more dice, but A have a
longer range. No weapon is 'better' than another, simply different.
> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, David Kendall Lewis wrote:
> This is my first message to the Full Thrust mail group, so forgive me
Well... I don't think it'll help very much just to change the cost, since
weapon costs are usually a rather small part of ship costs (... in my
experience the drive is the really big part). Increasing the mass,
however, works better - this makes it a choice between range and
firepower. Increasing the mass of an A battery, using your costs would give
the following table:
Min Max
arc arc Damage at range...
Type Mass Number cost cost 0-12 12-24 24-36 Notes:
---- ---- ------ ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------
C 8 8 16 32 8d6 N/A N/A Point defence
ability
B 8 4 16 32 8d6 4d6 N/A
A 8 2 16 32 6d6 4d6 2d6
Here, C-batteries swap longer range for a limited point defence ability
(from More Thrust) and higher durability - two A-batteries are far, far
more vulnerable to unlucky treshold checks than eight C-batteries! - the
B has no special abilities but has twice the range of the Cs, and the A has
longer range still but is weaker than either of the two close up. AA
batteries are more powerful and have longer range, but are limited to one arc
and risk burning out every shot.
Regards,
> Dave Lewis wrote:
> This is my first message to the Full Thrust mail group, so forgive me
Hi! Welcome to the list
> Unless you only have 1-2 mass left on your ship, I can't see a time
> common denominator for mass (6):
°table snipped§
> As you can see A Batteries are always cheaper and always do as much or
°second table snipped§
> With this new scheme A Batteries would still be clearly better, but
Yeah, dead right. We have been discussing this subject here for some time. The
best solution so far was supplied by Dave Brewer:
There are two "problems" here:
Firstly, A-batteries are better than B-batteries.
The problem doesn't lie with the *points cost* of the batteries. It lies
with the *mass* of A-batteries. You can play with the points cost all
day long, the equivalent mass of A's will be superior to B's. Either you set
the cost of A's so ruinous you drive them from the game, or you accept that
big ships will be stuffed with A's.
The alternative is to set the mass of an A from 3 to 4. Heresy. Now you
have to re-do all those ship designs.
Now the equivalent mass of B's is not better/worse than A's... It's
*different*. A's have long range, B's have short range. Call it a
calibre/ROF distinction. Mass is also the reason why non-FTL ships will
comfortably thrash FTL designs. They have more room AND they save points
not having FTL drives. Those points go into weapons.
Secondly, 3-arc weapons are better than 1- or 2-arc weapons.
Again, this is because there is no difference in mass, just in points cost. I
don't think that bumping up the mass numbers will work here.
A straight mass increase will not work, but a mass charge per arc will achieve
the desired effect (i.e. give people a reason to use 1 arc weapons) For
instance C batteries 1 mass includes 3 arcs.
B batteries 2 mass includes 2 arcs + 1 for third arc
A batteries 3 mass includes 1 arc + 1 for each additional arc.
The rationale being that larger guns require increasing amounts of hardware to
pivot through the larger arcs.
Hope that helps,
> On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, David K. Lewis wrote:
> >On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, David Kendall Lewis wrote:
> >experience the drive is the really big part). Increasing the mass,
Um - no, these are the original costs from the FT rules. The costs you
proposed in your previous post were (unless I seriously misunderstood
something) C: 1 + 1/arc; B: 2 + 2/arc; A: 4 + 4/arc, which gives the
figures I posted above for mass 1 C, mass 2 B and mass 4 A batteries.
> >Here, C-batteries swap longer range for a limited point defence
See above. Currently you're using the original FT rules and I use your rules;
of course you'd prefer your own variant <g> And, as I said; weapon cost isn't
very important. Size is, because size determines the cost of the drives and
the hull, and they are the most expensive system by far (... possibly with the
exception of advanced fighters (also from More Thrust)).
However, if you ever play with lots of missiles (from More Thrust) you really,
really want that extra point defence capacity. Also, it is far more likely
that an A battery will die from a treshold check than two Bs or four Cs; while
it will take a large capital ship some time to start losing systems to
treshold checks, it usually won't be able to stay away from the enemy for long
enough to make the difference between Bs and As
that important - and losing your main armament to one single treshold
check hurts a lot. (Of course, I usually lose all my firecons in the first
treshold check; in that way it doesn't matter what weapons I have :/ )
Cs are secondary weapons anyway (except on small escorts), but their new point
defence capability makes them useful on larger ships too, and not just as a
way to use that extra space.
> At 09:38 AM 10/7/96 +0000, you wrote:
Hi,
Would you use the FT costs for A/B/C bats when using these rules
or would you use other costs? If so, what numbers would you use?
James
> >You'll notice that in both cases, C batterys roll more dice, but A
> Hi,
> Would you use the FT costs for A/B/C bats when using these
> James
The whole beauty of it is that standard beams fit in the middle, so you can
cost all three sets of beams exactly the same.
> Binhan writes:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, David Kendall Lewis wrote:
Another option is to restrict firing arcs: A-bats can only mount 1 arc,
B-bats up to 2, and so forth. I think this makes more interesting ship
designs IMHO. Other people have suggested allowing A-bats only on
Capital ship.
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Gee, that photon torpedo was clo-#/&%*.. NO CARRIER
wrote:
> I propose a radical idea! A-batteries may ONLY be mounted on Escort
Better still - NOVA CANNON should only be allowed on Escorts! ... ehh?!
> Yeah, well, okay, so it's a stupid idea... :-}
Me too!:)
> But has anyone tried it?
Yes. The Capitals lost badly...
> I propose a radical idea! A-batteries may ONLY be mounted on Escort
It would make for some interesting design rules. The capitals would mount AA
batteries and fighterbays. And watch the horde of mass 18 escorts closing with
your fleet.
It almost sounds like a fun tournament scenario.
1. Propose a bizarre set of design rules and constraints. 2. Assign a set
point value for fleet design. 3. Design them 4. Fight them.
> The recent traveller writes:
I propose a radical idea! A-batteries may ONLY be mounted on Escort
ships, C-batts may ONLY be mounted on Capital ships.
Yeah, well, okay, so it's a stupid idea... :-}
But has anyone tried it?
Mk
I've been toying with some ideas for my Traveller/FT conversions,
and I've thought of some ways to disadvantage weapons with large
fire arcs - making them more vulnerable.
Basically, weapons with two or three fire arcs are assumed to be mounted on
turrets, and have less armour (I'm using armour as the primary means of
defence, not shields). Allowing fighters and maybe smaller weapons to pinpoint
weapon systems, makes single arc weapons tougher to take out, and almost
useful.
I'm also giving spinal mounted weapons (any beam weapon can be spinal mounted)
a 25% mass reduction.
This all means a few extra rule complications, but I intend to use it in a
roleplaying setting, where you'll only have a few ships involved in combat.
> Sam wrote:
Maybe the fact that they are typically larger than fixed mounts and have
motion would make them more vulnerable. Many warships have been fitted with
turrets that have equal or greater armor than the ship's hull.
Date sent: 11-OCT-1996 09:14:56
> Sam wrote:
> Maybe the fact that they are typically larger than fixed mounts and
But also, at least as far as Turn of the Century to 1960s design goes, turrets
are much heavier (more massive for you physics junkies) than fixed mounts. Not
by a little, but by a lot. This is the reasoning behind multi gunned turrets
such as the two 4 x 14" turrets on the KGV class.
This also supports David's idea of increased mass per arc. But I wouldn't
introduce multi-gun turrets in FT. I'd do that by class. eg 2 x 14"
would be B, but a 4 x 14" would be A.
In message <009A9ADE.855C7763.173@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam Delafield
writes:
> This also supports David's idea of increased mass per arc. But I
would
> be B, but a 4 x 14" would be A.
This was not my idea. I'm assuming you attribute it to me, because Mike Elliot
misattributed to me in his repost of what was mostly my
raving about mass numbers and the desirability of rating A-batts at
Mass 4. But the mass/arc idea was not mine.
Whose was it? Anybody know? Fess up!
> Adam Delafield wrote:
would
> be B, but a 4 x 14" would be A.
In FT you don't need to worry about how many guns per turret represent the
weapons in a beam battery since a beam battery is a generic weapon system. The
beam battery is more of an index of the firepower for a particular directed
energy weapon system. A battery can represent one three gun turret, 20 two gun
turrets, or even a combination of one gun turrets and
multi-gun turrets.
I know in conversions from games like Traveller, it is usually easier to
convert say a three gun turret battery and a two gun turret battery (same
weapon type and output) into two separate FT batteries. The common denominator
in a battery is the generally the weapon itself, say all "C"
class beam weapons that make up a C-battery due to like performance
factors.
> In message <009A9ADE.855C7763.173@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam
would
> be B, but a 4 x 14" would be A.
It was Brian Cantwell- a name I haven't seen in these parts for a while-
Are you still about, Brian?
> On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, David Brewer wrote:
> In message <009A9ADE.855C7763.173@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam
would
> > be B, but a 4 x 14" would be A.
Brian Cantwell, I, Mike Elliott (Hm. Spelling?) and others have proposed
different variants on this theme from time to time...
Regarding everybody's individual beam bat house rules--
How many people out there are using some sort of sliding mass scale
for beam battery arcs? We're presently allowing 1 mass single-arc B bats
and
2 mass single-arc A bats. My concern is that without some sort of
bargain on mass, there's really very little incentive to get a one arc weapon
but that if you allow weapons to have only 1 arc but at about half the mass
the players will only use 1 arc beam bats because they have twice the
firepower-to-mass ratio.
Please consider this a call for thoughtless (and even thoughtful) rambling.
James
> On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:
> Regarding everybody's individual beam bat house rules--
Bingo!
> My concern is that without some sort of bargain on
It depends on the sliding mass scale for extra arcs, really. While it does
make the mass 1 single arc beam battery one of the best broadside weapons
available, broadside designs can have problems keeping their enemies in arc. I
use the following scheme:
Battery: Mass if... 1 arc: 2 arcs: 3 arcs:
C 1 1 1
B 1 2 2
A 2 3 4
In my experience, broadside ships are lethal - if they manage to keep
the
enemy in the fire-arc of their broadside. Small attack ships (eg, a DD
with lots of forward-arc B batteries) are lethal - as long as they point
towards their target. In a single arc, broadside weapons will win out if the
ship fires into more than one arc simultaneously; but a ship with
three-arc weapons can concentrate more fire into one arc.
I think my arguments hold for the standard beam resolution too. Not sure,
though - 'twas some time since I changed them for Ludo's system (a
single die per battery, but with a die roll modifier for weapon class and
range).
Later,
Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se> said...
> I think my arguments hold for the standard beam resolution too. Not
Um, Could someone repost these rules for the new and uneducated?
> In my experience, broadside ships are lethal - if they manage to keep
Personally, I /like/ broadsides ships to have some sort of `advantage'
over just mounting everything 3-arc or forward. Using the right
tactics, broadsides convoys flanked with some quick-turning escorts
can lay down devestating fire over an area.
Mind you, this from someone that enjoys Leviathan.:)
> On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Matthew Seidl wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se> said...
Ludo's variant is available from his homepage (accessible from Mark Siefert's
Page); the address to the beam variant is
http://www.ping.be/~ping6568/beam.htm .
My modifications consist of cutting the ranges down a little (so an A battery
wouldn't cover my entire gaming table <g>) and to adapt AA batteries to this
system.
The end result is:
* Each A-, B- or C-battery rolls 1 die, regardless of range.
* The dieroll is modified as follows: A batteries add 2 B batteries add 1 All
batteries subtract 1 for each full 9 measuring units to the target
(Ludo uses -1 for each full 12 m.u. instead)
* AA batteries roll 2 dice, modified by +2 -1 per full 12 m.u.
They burn out if they roll a double '1'.
Each dieroll causes damage as per the normal FT beam rules; shields and armour
effects apply as normal.
The effect of this is that larger batteries have a greater chance of damaging
a protected target, but the potential maximum damage against an
unshielded target is the same for all batteries (AA excepted). If your
enemy uses well protected targets, large batteries are a must - and
preferrably fired from point-blank range! <g>
I have played a little with a final modification where a roll of 8 causes 3
damage points, but I don't know how good it'd be, and I haven't decided
on shield/armour effects on this result.
Later,
> On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Alex Williams wrote:
> Personally, I /like/ broadsides ships to have some sort of `advantage'
Using the right tactics, broadside weapons do have an advantage with the
modified weapon mass ideas. However, you have to use the right tactics to
get the advantage - and turreted ships, using equally good tactics, have
about an equal chance to win.
My point was that broadside armed ships won't automatically beat turret ships
just because they can mount about twice as many guns; if they
could, no-one would use turret ships. In my experience, the two options
balance about even.
> Mind you, this from someone that enjoys Leviathan. :)
<shudder><g>
Later,