The basic beam weapons within the game seem to force the selection of the A
battery over the B and C due to the range and die advantages. Has any tried
using different die for the different batteries.
Battery Basic Damage
1 2
A 4,5 6 B 5,6 7,8 C 6,7,8 9,10
Shields Level 1
A 5 6
B 6,7 8 C 7,8 9,10
Shields Level 2 A 5,6 B 6,7,8 C 7,8,9 10
Shields Level 3
A 6
B 7,8 C 8,9 10
The C Battery would still use a D6 when used as PDAF.
Using these rules the ship designer then has definite trade offs as to which
battery type to mount for the ship. The point cost for the systems would
remain the same.
Just an idea.
> At 03:43 PM 11/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I want to add different die
types to FT as it would slow things down.
I use B and C batteries by mandating their use in my game universe. A's are
only allowed on capital ships, B's are the largest available to cruisers, and
C's are used on escorts. What's more, in my Age of Iridium background C's are
the secondary mount. If a capital ship has A's, they can only have a maximum
of 4 with any other beam batteries mandated as C's. Cruisers can have up to 4
B batteries, but the rest must be C's.
Actually, I go a bit further than that by dictating the ORDER in which ships
mount batteries. For instance, if a capital ship mounts an A battery for the
fwd/port/stbd arc and an A battery for the rear/port/stbd arc (I allow
rear arcs), the ship must mount 4 C batteries before it is allowed to mount
anymore A batteries. Also, I only allow a certain "pattern" of beam placement.
This is because my universe is roughly equated to
pre-dreadnought
warfare.
If anyone is interested, I'll "publish" the full AOI ship design criteria.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Has
> >any tried using different die for the different batteries.
A's are
> only allowed on capital ships, B's are the largest available to
I realize that there is a time element introduced by the use of different die
but manidated class restrictions seems to put Escort class ships at an even
bigger disadvantage.
Ok another thought, all batteries use a D10. A batteries base 30% hit 8,9 (1)
10 (2) B batteries base 40% hit 7,8,9 (1) 10 (2) C batteries base 50% hit
6,7,8,9 (1) 10 (2)
> If anyone is interested, I'll "publish" the full AOI ship design
Sure, you can either send it to me personally or post it to the list.
> At 03:43 PM 11/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
No, instead we give the A batteries a mass of 4. Mass affects design decisions
more than cost. This simple fix forces players to mount the lighter
("commercial") B and C batteries without changing the combat die rolls.
> At 09:32 PM 11/23/96 -0500, you wrote:
> I use B and C batteries by mandating their use in my game universe. A's
This seems quick and effective and you can justify the modification using
energy considerations. However, it seems a bit stifling and assumes all
technologies are the same.
> Actually, I go a bit further than that by dictating the ORDER in which
Huh? Is this a Union rule, Government regulation, or Corporate Mandate?
;)
One could consider energy requirements versus 3 power plant sizes (escort,
cruiser, capitol) in terms of power output, capicitors, weapons recharge, etc.
Using this, it would be easy to come up with some REASONABLE design rules.
However, such an addition to the rules would be like adding a fifth limb, an
useful but unneccessary complication.
Mike, when is GZG gonna make the A batteries mass 4?!?
I just wanted to ask people on this list...
What is the rationalization for each battery type ect? As in STARFIRE, I have
always assumed that power requirements, personnel living space, lifesupport,
etc was implicit in the "modular" design. I consider this game modular due to
the fact that you do not need to create an "energy" unit to power weapon
batteries, nor do you need lifesupport for the number of people, nor
staterooms... ect. By making the cost for mass go up to four per "A" battery,
you make the design sequences a little more balanced. In general, that might
be the better fix, but for now, I can't see limiting the ship to only X number
of any one type of weapon based upon hull sizes. Why? Because you have to have
a ship that is twice the size, minimum, of the weapon system you will put into
a ship. This means that the smallest ship capable of handling an "A" battery
will be a size 6 ship. In a recent battle, I just saw two cruisers with two
destroyers, take on an identical force. Force Agressor took a terrible
pounding, and lost on the cruiser, two of it's forward firing batteries (out
of 3) as a result of taking two threshold checks. The defender, lost a like
amount of forward firing batteries with only a single threshold check! As
happens in battle, sometimes it is better to have redunancy built in rather
than heavy firepower. Imagine the frustration of a ship's captain, when the
targetting arrays are shot out from under him, and all he has is one, coupled
to an
"A"
battery. Larger ships, with more fire control, can afford some minor damage,
but the "A" battery is expensive enough weight wise, to make for a "balanced"
enough weapons over all. I don't have a problem either way, what size the "A"
battery finally ends up being...
> At 05:47 PM 11/28/96 +0000, you wrote:
I don't know about this being unnecessary. If we combine this idea with Robin
Paul's idea of extra mass for "inappropriate" sized weapons, for one thing, it
explains where that extra mass is going (larger powerplant, larger capacitors
to hold the charge for the weapon, etc.) but it also opens up the possibility
of including enough extra mass to fire the weapon but not
as often so you could install a large battery like an A-bat on a smaller
ship but only fire it every other turn. Frankly, I think a powerplant
size/capacitor/weapon recharge design system would be utterly cool. It
would certainly open the options up a little and further distinquish players'
designs from each other.
> Mike, when is GZG gonna make the A batteries mass 4 ?!?
This is certainly something I agree with. With all the talk about
balancing A-bats it certainly would be very reassuring to get an
OFFICIAL solution so that we can all be using the same fix.
James
Date sent: 29-NOV-1996 09:00:13
> The basic beam weapons within the game seem to force the selection of
Has
> any tried using different die for the different batteries.
> No, instead we give the A batteries a mass of 4. Mass affects design
> Joe
My favourite solution is to produce a set of 'stock' ships that everyone can
agree upon, that fit the background. That way you can have balanced designs
that reflect the background and eliminates the need for any 'fix' for
batteries.
It works on the principle that a ship is more than just the sum of it's parts
(a common failing with many points systems). Something you can't really
include in a comprehensive design system.
Note: Since removing Cloaks as a mass factor in my ST background, I've found
that I no longer need to differentiate between disruptors and phasors, as the
klingon and romulan ships can now pack enough firepower to make it worthwhile.
And as only specific ships can carry cloaks (and the cloak is a very
vulnerable system, usually the first thing to go) it isn't too unbalancing.
> James Butler wrote:
> designs from each other.
> Mike, when is GZG gonna make the A batteries mass 4 ?!?
> This is certainly something I agree with. With all the talk about
Funny you should say that....
Jon and I were chatting the other day and one of the things that came up
was this beam weapon thing for FTIII (as you may know, we are thinking about
producing a new version of FT). Jon is quite keen on the idea of getting rid
of the points system (shock, horror!, what will the tabloids
say?) in favour of a single parameter for ship design, i.e. MASS.
Secondly, we have recognised the problem with beam weapons inbalance and
the latest idea is to distinguish between "casemate" weapons (i.e. single arc)
and "turreted" (i.e. 2 or 3 arc):
MASS
C battery (turretted only) 1 B battery (casemate) 2 B battery (turret) 4 A
battery (casemate) 4 A battery (turret) 8
What do you all think??
As fas a "fix" for FT II is concerned, I think the simplicity of the A battery
is MASS 4 is fine, and would recommend its adoption as a house rule. That's
probably as "official" as you're going to get.
Date sent: 29-NOV-1996 09:18:21
> Mike, when is GZG gonna make the A batteries mass 4 ?!?
> This is certainly something I agree with. With all the talk
> James
Am I the only one who disagrees with this? All it needs is a little common
sence to create designs that 'feel' right. As has already been pointed out,
while a ship with a longer reach might be better at maximum performance, once
those threshold checks start taking effect, or if someone is using needlers,
that single A can be a liability.
Besides the jump from C to B to A is the best way of displaying increased
technology as well as better weapons.
Adam wrote:-
--Am I the only one who disagrees with this? All it needs is a little
--common sence to create designs that 'feel' right.
No I agree with you, the obsession with points etc has never appealed to me Im
with the feels right camp. I'm very happy with the rules as they stand, if
they changed them, I'd complain.
I play with set ship types that are balanced (like the one in FT & MT) or fit
the background or scenario (Kobyashi Maru was never balanced on points!)
Do you have your full finalised Star Trek background available yet...
Date sent: 29-NOV-1996 12:29:48
> Adam wrote:-
> --Am I the only one who disagrees with this? All it needs is a little
> No I agree with you, the obsession with points etc has never appealed
Start complaining then 8-)
So long as they don't change it to a FMA system, I'll be happy. I quite like
the idea of Mass being the only balance. Perhaps drives will take up mass
points. One thing is sure, the ships will need more capacity, what with the
growth in weapon size, additional equipment and drives all to be fitted into
the hull.
> I play with set ship types that are balanced (like the one in FT & MT)
or fit
> the background or scenario (Kobyashi Maru was never balanced on
> Do you have your full finalized Star Trek background available yet...
Not even close. I keep changing my mind on details 8-)
I have put my Klingon ships on my root web page (The first set to be done.)
They are ziped and in Word 6 format.
Note klingons don't get damage control, but get extra capacity.
> Tim Jones
Date sent: 29-NOV-1996 12:36:58
> I have put my Klingon ships on my root web page (The first set to be
That's http://www.acs.bolton.ac.uk/~ad4/
> On 29 Nov 1996 M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote:
> Jon and I were chatting the other day and one of the things that came
> about producing a new version of FT). Jon is quite keen on the idea of
> getting rid of the points system (shock, horror!, what will the
Hm... yes and no. I like the idea of having two parameters to play with
-
otherwise (at least in campaign games) I'll determine which weapon gives
me most bang per buck (or, in this case, bang per mass!) and stick to that
(...giving boring designs...). If I have two parameters (like cost and mass,
or energy and mass), the analysis gets harder;)
> Secondly, we have recognised the problem with beam weapons inbalance
single
> arc) and "turreted" (i.e. 2 or 3 arc):
The basic idea is sound, but I think that the bigger weapons are far too
big. (I certainly wouldn't use a mass 8 A turret! It's awfully hard keeping
the range open long enough for it to wear down the enemy...)
If a 'roll' manouver is introduced (ie, swap left and right sides), a turret
weapon isn't as powerful as two casemate weapons. Although it can
cover one extra arc, it can only engage a single target (while the two
casemate weapons can engage up to two) and is more vulnerable to treshold
checks. If the 'roll' isn't introduced the turret weapon is probably about
even, since if the casemate ship loses one broadside it'll take it
a looooong time to turn around.
I've used the following weapon masses:
Weapon: Mass:
C battery (casemate) 0.5 (but only in Renegade Legion-inspired
games) C battery (turret) 1 B battery (casemate) 1
B battery (turret) 2-3 (I've tried both; mass 2 seems to
work well if C batteries have point defence capabilities)
A battery 1 + 1/arc (ie, single-arc is mass 2,
triple-
arc is mass 4)
Of course, these have mainly been tried out using the '1 (modified) die per
battery' variant Ludo Toen proposed, but it seems to give somewhat fair
results with the standard system too.
Regards,
> At 09:27 AM 11/29/96 +0000, you wrote:
I want a system balanced well enough that I can turn the players loose on it
without worry. Players don't always worry about what "feels"
right. Most of the players I know are ex-Star Fleet Battles players who
would hack their way into the Pentagon computers to try and optimize their
designs if they could.
As for C's to B's to A's being the best way of displaying increased technology
and better weapons I guess you've got a point here, but better weapons was
never what I was looking for. I was looking for equally good differing
weapons. If the different batteries are supposed to reflect
advances in weapon tech than it makes sense to use nothing but A-bats
but I'm looking for a system with a lot of different weapons that all work in
different ways (tactically, not technologically) but are all balanced against
each other.
James
> At 09:15 AM 11/29/96 +0000, you wrote:
single
> arc) and "turreted" (i.e. 2 or 3 arc):
I think this is extremely cool (we've been using half mass for single arc
weapons for a while now) but have a question. With a turreted
A-bat at 8 mass, are you going to increase the mass available to capital
ships?
> As fas a "fix" for FT II is concerned, I think the simplicity of the A
Good enough for me. Thanks.
James
> On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, JAMES BUTLER wrote:
> I want a system balanced well enough that I can turn the
Vivat! Yes, I fully agree. Especially when most of my battles are either
one-off or in a homegrown universe...
> I was looking for equally good differing weapons.
Once again Vivat! If the Railguns and various plasma weapons can be balanced
too we'd have lots of (generic) variation without balance problems... which is
IMO a Good Thing (tm).
Regards,
> MASS
Shock, horror, I like it!
> At 10:41 AM 11/29/96 GMT, you wrote:
or fit
> the background or scenario (Kobyashi Maru was never balanced on
It was not point obsession that drove me to make my A batteries mass 4. I
wanted to alter the character of the ship designs so as to bring in more ships
with B and C batteries and, at the same time, satisfy the "accountants" who
want to provide their own designs.
> At 10:41 AM 11/29/96 GMT, you wrote:
> It was not point obsession that drove me to make my A batteries mass 4.
I
> wanted to alter the character of the ship designs so as to bring in
I prefer the term "engineer" btw I have almost completed a ship construction
program if anyone is intersted in trying it out. Right now it is very crude
(it is only a DOS based program without windowing support). Let me know if
anyone is interested.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> At 09:47 AM 11/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
A's are
> only allowed on capital ships, B's are the largest available to
That's actually the point. The game universe is an allegory for the
Russo-Japanese war. As such, the technologies are SUPPOSED to be the
same. I'm not suggesting that this should be a specific change to the FT
rules. This is just a campaign specific special rule. I mentioned it as an
example of specific rules that can be created for FT campaigns.
> Actually, I go a bit further than that by dictating the ORDER in which
No. Once again, these are campaign specific rules. I postulate that the ships
are long and thin, meaning that there is a limit to the number of
fwd/port/stbd and rear/port/stbd batteries that can be mounted on a
ship.
They aren't all that complicated and I only use them for my Age of Iridium
campaign background. They could be used in other backgrounds, or something
similar could be used. For instance, if one side always uses spherical ships,
require that all of the batteries are two arc batteries or three arc
batteries. "Borg" like ships could be forced to have single arc batteries.
It's not necessary, nor is it always a good idea, to allow all sides in a
campaign to have all of the flexibility available in the rules.
> At 09:27 AM 11/29/96 +0000, you wrote:
> Am I the only one who disagrees with this? All it needs is a little
I actually like the mass of the A batteries at 3 as it allows my Age of
Iridium ships to hold 4 A batteries and a large enough number of C batteries.
If I pushed the A batteries to a mass of 4, I'd have 4 less C batteries on the
ships. On the other hand, I've been thinking of changing the ship designs so
that they have 2 A batteries instead of 4. It would make the capital ships a
bit less overpowering. If the A batteries had a mass of 4 I'd have been forced
into this decision originally. Still, I don't have to change the rules in
order to mount 2 A batteries instead of 4. I don't HAVE to use every available
mass point from a ship.
I think an A battery mass of 4 would be a good thing for players who play
competitive games with "all out" ship designs. A mass of 3 makes for a more
flexible game, but if you really want flexibility you could just ignore the
mass point rules altogether.
> At 11:15 AM 11/29/96 +0200, you wrote:
Getting rid of the points system wouldn't bother me. The current point system
isn't bad, but it's flawed.
> Secondly, we have recognised the problem with beam weapons inbalance
single
> arc) and "turreted" (i.e. 2 or 3 arc):
Hey, I like it! I was coming to the same conclusion in my Age of Iridium
background, though I hadn't worked out the points. The only problem is that
the A battery turret seems a bit high in cost. Are there any other mass point
changes?
Date sent: 2-DEC-1996 09:18:43
> Do you have your full finalised Star Trek background available yet...
> Tim Jones
Did a quick playtest or two last weekend (Saturday Night) and found a problem
that I fixed as follows.
> It was not point obsession that drove me to make my A batteries mass 4.
I
> wanted to alter the character of the ship designs so as to bring in
The Klingon ships were nigh on invincible. They were shooting too much and not
causing enough damage.
Solution, add 1 dice for all beams (C do 2d6, Bs 3d6 and 2d6 etc) and 6 dice
for photons. This not only ups the damage, but it also accidently fixes the
beams.
OK, since everyone else has thrown in their $0.02 on this topic, here's mine.
The idea is that smaller beams can be turretted at no additional mass cost,
but larger beams cost additional mass.
All costs remain as in FT.
C-bats:
1 arc => 1 mass 2 arc => 1 mass 3 arc => 1 mass
B-bats:
1 arc => 2 mass 2 arc => 2 mass 3 arc => 3 mass
A-bats:
1 arc => 3 mass 2 arc => 4 mass 3 arc => 5 mass
Instead of having appropriate size weapons per ship class, you could say
there is an appropriate number of firing arcs: 3-arc C-bats, 2-arc
B-bats and
1-arc A-bats. You can still mount 3-arc A-bats; they just take up more
space.
Scott
ALCOHOLIC: Clinical term for a tippler in an age that no longer smiles at
tippling; graciously enables the sufferer to exchange a personal vice for an
incurable disease.