> Laserlight wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is a deliberate attempt to limit the size of
1-arc K-guns:
K3 = 5 mass
K4 = 8 mass (+3)
K5 = 11 mass (+3)
K6 = 14 mass (+3)
and from FB2, pg. 9, right column, "Kinetic Guns (K-Guns)" Section, 2nd
to last paragraph:
"Larger classes of K-gun are possible, and the mass required rises by 3
per additional class."
So K-guns increase their mass linearly at a rate of +3 mass/class.
From FB2, pg 36, left column, "Plasma Bolt Launcher" Section, 14th paragragh
(2nd to last): "A Plasma Bolt launcher system takes up a MASS of 5 times the
class of the launcher."
So PBL's increase their mass linearly at a rate of +5 mass/class.
From FB1, pg. 7, left column, "New Beam Battery Designations" Section, 5th
paragraph: "Basic MASS requirements of a given battery starts at 1 for a
class1, and DOUBLES for each class increase..." and 6th paragraph: "Class 3
batteries and above have only 1 arc fire (60 degrees) at their base MASS cost;
adding additional arcs of fire requires 25% of the base MASS of the battery
per additional arc covered..." Note that caps are part of the quoted text, not
mine.
So Beam Batteries increase their mass geometricly, and for B3+ they all
have the same arcs.
J
Correct. But remember that increases in size to K-guns and PBLs do not
increase the range at which they can fire, a factor that does change with
larger classes of beams.
Humor me, I'm trying to reacquaint myaelf with math, correct me if I get any
of these wrong:
> --- Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1-arc K-guns:
Specifically M=5+3(K-3)
Where M is Mass and K is the class of the K-gun.
> From FB2, pg 36, left column, "Plasma Bolt
M=5P
> From FB1, pg. 7, left column, "New Beam Battery
M=2^(B-1)
Expanded to the below for mass 3 and above:
> and 6th paragraph:
M=2^(B-1)+[(A-1)*2^(B-1)]/4
The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but neither does
the expected damage or the range. A battlecruiser with, say, B5 and thrust 8
will kill or drive off any KV ship and never get scratched.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick those
> B2-armed ships apart from outside their range? If you did, you might
4' x 6' scrolling with cinematic movement and 1 MU = 1".
For ST:TOS and ST:movies based games, we routinely use class 4-6
phasers/disruptors & class 8-12 phaser cannon (on the Reliant / Knox)
with 1 MU = 1/2" and 6" (12MU) range bands for both beams and P-torps.
But these ships are not built with the FB system, rather converted from
semi-official and fan-based publications.
One thing though, most of our setup falls into one of three general
categories: Side A in center of table, Side B starts from narrow table edge at
med
(10-30) or high (30+) speed
Side A and Side B start on adjacent table edges at right angles to each
other (+/- 30 degrees)
Side A and Side B start in adjacent corners with parallel courses (+/-
30 degrees)
Usually one side has a mission e.g.: exit opposite table edge to bombard
planet or escape system ambush and destroy enemy fleet
destroy enemy flagship/carrier/convoy
By "exit" I mean "a full table-length from nearest pursuing enemy" with
a scrolling table.
We specifically do not set up "line up at opposite table edges and
joust"-type games.
So you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10?) table that:
1x 3-arc B4 = 2x 3-arc B3 = 6x 3-arc B2?
I do believe that B1s and B2s are balanced vis-a-vis each other, it is
the larger ones that I am not sure about.
> But yes, there's a deliberate attempt to limit beam batteries to size
J
On Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:26 AM, Jared Hilal
> [SMTP:jlhilal@yahoo.com] wrote:
The bigger the table and the higher the speeds, the more play balanced the
B3-B4+ become.
I play games on 60x60 tables at speed 12-24 games. This biases the
usefulness of systems down to the B2/B3/Pulsetorp systems.
Some players (hi, Oerjan!) play with floating tables at speed 50-60.
This
makes B1-B2 almost useless as offensive weapons, and can generate more
long range sniping.
The only game I've ever had reach speed 50+ was myself as Kra'vak vs
Phalons
on a 6' table in cm scale. And how I wished I had class-4 or class-5
beams
instead of K-guns in that game! B2s would have been wasted systems.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Commonwealth policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Finally, please
do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware of these
restrictions.
> Brian B wrote:
> Humor me, I'm trying to reacquaint myself with math,
<snip reduction of simple explanation to convoluted basic algebraic equations>
Yep. :)
J
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> Correct. But remember that increases in size to K-guns and PBLs do not
> increase the range at which they can fire, a factor that does change
But it does affect other things, like the persistence of the PB, for such
purposes as AF and AM uses
J
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> The bigger the table and the higher the speeds, the more play balanced
So, 5'x5'. Okay.
> Some players (hi, Oerjan!) play with floating tables at speed 50-60.
This
> makes B1-B2 almost useless as offensive weapons, and can generate more
So, in general, what is the breakdown of how people tend to play (speed,
table & MU size)?
Is this a result of personal preference or of starting conditions? I.e.
if you started at V10, would you always end up at V40+, or is it a
matter of always starting at V50?
Does Vector vs. Cinematic have an effect of how fast people tend to play?
J
Correct, these are affected. Basically, for all other weapons except beams,
the only factor modified (in the end) is increasing the damage done by the
weapon when it is increased in size. For beams, not only is the potential
damage done increase, but also the range at which it can do damage. (I realize
this has been said several times before) If beams only increased in damage,
their cost to balance would likely be more linear like other weapons are. For
all weapons that increase only their damage potential, costs run similar (not
the same) as adding another weapon of the same type that has the same damage
potential
(there are some differences of course - noteable K guns for the way
they compute damage with the possible doubling).
Example: PBs increase at a cost similar to adding another PB of the
appropriate dice cost - A PBL of size 2 is 10 mass, while a PBL of size
4 is 20 mass. Choosing which to purchase for a ship is mainly a matter of
design and combat philosophies since both do about the same amount of damage.
Beams could be as simple to balance, however the range issue messes things up.
Currently 4x Beam2 are the same price as 1x Beam4 IIRC. The Beam2 group always
has the damage potential at the ranges they can
shoot (especially at 0-12 MUs where their damage potential is twice the
Beam4. But with twice the range, the Beam4s are much more likely to get some
fire in on the Beam2s at times when the Beam2s don't get to fire at all.
I realize that everyone probably realizes this already. But for the sake of
the discussion, I wanted to make sure this base is covered.
In a number of online and TT battles, especially with floating tables, the
range of the weapon has been critical. Even battles where the fleets make
shooting passes, long ranged weapons are highly useful for hurting escorts and
cripples. In some battles, long ranged weapons accompanied by the threat of
deploying area effect weapons which can cause the enemy to come in less than
direct angles, have a more telling effect.
Replying to several posts at once here:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> class 3 etc. However, this is NOT done with other open-ended classed
> per additional class."
The mass increases *linearly*, but it doesn't increase at the same rate as
the expected damage of the weapons. From class-3 and up, the Mass
increases
faster than the weapon's expected damage; and from class-6 and up the
larger classes' increased armour penetration isn't enough to compensate for
this. This is a deliberate feature of the K-guns, and it works to
restrict
K-gun use to size classes 1, 2, 3 and 5; there are occasional uses of
size
classes 4 and 6 as well, but class-7 and larger are very rare indeed.
In other words, "it" IS done with the open-ended K-gun sizes - not quite
as blatantly as with the beam batteries, but it is done nevertheless.
> From FB2, pg 36, left column, "Plasma Bolt Launcher" Section, 14th
This one is trickier, but there is actually a "restriction" of sorts for
PBLs as well.
The PBL *itself* increases linearly... but unlike virtually every other weapon
type, you need one active FCS for *each* PBL you fire. IOW, in order
to fire 5 class-1 PBLs you'll need 30 Mass of equipment (5 PBL1s and 5
FCSs) whereas if you fire a single class-5 PBL you only need 26 Mass of
equipment (1 PBL5 and 1 FCS), so there is a mild but deliberate incentive to
use the largest PBL you can fit into the hull instead of using multiple
smaller PBLs. (The reason for this is of course that a single large Plasma
Bolt is both easier to degrade with point defences and able to cover a smaller
area than the same total Plasma Bolt strength split up into multiple smaller
bolts.)
***
> Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick those
> B2-armed ships apart from outside their range? If you did, you might
48 x 72 mu is a small table regardless of whether or not you scroll it,
since even moderately-ranged weapons like B2s can cover a very large
percentage of it (particularly if they're close to the middle of the
table). No wonder if you haven't found long-ranged weapons particularly
useful.
As a comparison my old gaming table (prior to moving house half a year ago)
was 80 x 120 mu; when I finally build a new one it'll probably be 100 x 200 mu
or thereabouts.
> For ST:TOS and ST:movies based games, we routinely use class 4-6
with
> 1 MU = 1/2" and 6" (12MU) range bands for both beams and P-torps. But
In which case you won't see the effects of the FB ship design system; and once
again you have weapon ranges which cover most of the table allowing
little or no manoeuvre outside the enemy's weapon range.
> One thing though, most of our setup falls into one of three general
Nice to see people flying at least reasonably fast :-) (Though I'm not
*quite* as much of a speed freak as Brendan implied; for example I don't
think I've never flown thrust-2 ships faster than speed 36... <g>)
> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
It is in pursuit battles like this the long-range beams really excel -
*if*
the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. Sure, it takes
them a long time to whittle the enemy down... but if he can't reply, they
usually have all the time they need.
> So you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10 ? ) table that:
Yes. Depends a bit on how you use them, of course - eg., I've never
found
putting 2-arc B4s on a thrust-2 ship (the ESU Komarov) to be
particularly
effective in Cinematic - but in the Cinematic battles on my 80 x 120 mu
gaming table the ranges usually average 20-30 mu (including occasional
short-range passes, but they usually only happen after several turns of
long-range shooting). Short-range slugfests - multiple consecutive turns
at range 12 or less, ie. where B1s and B2s have the biggest advantage over
longer-ranged beams - only occur when *both* sides want to close the
range or when the side that wants to close has at least 2 pts better turning
ability than the other (eg. Kra'Vak vs. FB1 humans or FB1 NAC vs. FB1 NSL or
ESU heavies).
Because of this, Cinematic battles between B2- and B4-armed ships on my
relatively large table usually see the B2-armed ships taking enough
losses at longer ranges that when they finally manage to close the range the
B4-armed ships are almost able to match their firepower up close - and
since the B4-armed ships usually haven't taken much damage at this point
in the battle, the minor firepower advantage the B2 ships may have is
countered by the B4 ships' higher remaining hull integrity :-/
***
> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
Doesn't matter.
> A) the only ship in either FB, except the SV, with T8 is the ESU Scout
So? There's no ship armed with a B5 at all in either of the Fleet Books, so
you're obviously talking about a custom design here.
> B) the expected damage increases much faster with a K-gun (up to class
The expected damage per *weapon* is irrelevant; what is important here is the
ratio between the expected damage per Mass at the range you're fighting and
the expected damage per Mass your enemy can inflict on you at that same range.
If the enemy can't close the range and your weapons outrange his,
this ratio is zero to infinity in your favour.
> C) FB1, pg 12: Battlecruiser = TMF 80-110
Why are you wasting Mass on an Average hull? With those engines there's no
way any FB2 KV ships are going to get into K-gun range unless you let
them.
Try this ship instead - it isn't quite what Laserlight had in mind, but
this is what I'd use:
TMF 61 NPV 209 Hull integrity 6 (Fragile)
Thrust-8
FTL FCS
1x B5-3 (AP/A/AS)
On a large enough gaming table and given enough time, this ship can wipe
out any FB2 Kra'Vak fleet which lacks sufficient fighter cover (more on this
below). It is too fast for the FB2 KV to catch (their fastest ship is
thrust-6A) and it has twice the weapon range of any Kra'Vak ship; if the
KV attempt to pursue it it'll simply fall back before them shooting at them as
it goes until they run out of ships, and if they don't attempt to pursue it
it'll flit around their formation shooting at them until they run out of
ships. Either way, the Kra'Vak will eventually run out of ships :-/ IOW,
if the KV fleet doesn't want to get wiped out and can't accomplish its mission
before dying a death by a thousand cuts, it has no other option than to
withdraw. In my book at least this qualifies as "kill or drive off" the
Kra'Vak.
If the KV have enough fighters to cover all areas from which this
B5-armed
ship could attack the fleet - IIRC you need at least 8 squadrons for
this
in Cinematic; in Vector you shouldn't need more than 2 - then they'll be
able to hold the B5-armed ship at bay since it can't risk getting too
close
to the fighters. They won't be able to *destroy* the B5-armed ship
(unless it screws up), but it isn't able to harm them either. If the Kra'Vak
build
high-thrust ships of their own (thrust-10A armed with K-1 batteries, or
something like that) then they might even be able to hunt the B5-armed
ship down, but those pursuit ships would take fairly high losses in the
process.
Regards,
> way any FB2 KV ships are going to get into K-gun range unless you let
> this is what I'd use:
I was thinking of MD 8A (so you can make a 6-point turn and roll) and a
couple of port-broadside mounted weapons, but yeah, this looks good too.
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> Beams could be as simple to balance, however the range issue messes
> shoot (especially at 0-12 MUs where their damage potential is twice
Actually, 6 x class 2 batteries = 1 x class 4 battery if they have the
same fire arcs, because the B2 doesn't come in a 1-arc version, but I
get your point.
However, for those of us who actually play with scenarios, rather than the GW
"line up your figs and charge" method, even with a scrolling table it is easy
for one side to disengage by turning opposite to the turn of their opponent
and forcing the range to be greater than the size
of the table. This is even more true as the velocities increase.
In other words, the actual sizes of the table limits the usefulness of
longer range weapons (a ship armed with class 2s can cover 2/3 the area
of a 4x6 table).
J
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
< snip OO's stern-chaser CL >
> I was thinking of MD 8A (so you can make a 6-point turn and roll) and a
A) You said T8, not T8A, in your original post.
B) AGD not allowed to human ships in FB or GZG-verse, just in your
custom background.
J
> >I was thinking of MD 8A (so you can make a 6-point turn and roll)
and a
> >couple of port-broadside mounted weapons, but yeah, this looks good
> B) AGD not allowed to human ships in FB or GZG-verse, just in your
I could do it with a T8 or a T8A. My copy of FB2 seems to be AWOL, would you
mind quoting the passage that says that human ships are never going to be
allowed Advanced Drives?
> Laserlight wrote:
> I was thinking of MD 8A (so you can make a 6-point turn and roll)
FB2, pg. 3, left column, "Combining Different Alien Technologies" section:
"As soon as some players get their grubby little mitts on this book, they will
start wanting to design ships based on a mixture of some or all the different
races' weapons and systems."
[ Mr. Tuffley knows you personally, does he? : ) ]
"Now, there is nothing inherently wrong in this, but please be aware that we
have gone to great lengths to try and ensure that all the alien races
presented here have a different feel from each other in game terms
- they are not just 'rubber suit aliens', with the same ships and same
weapons using different names...."
"The simplest way round this is to just say 'sorry, you can't do it' and
back it up with some PSB... Rather than do this, however, we accept that it'll
happen and thus need to lay down a few guidelines for those people who just
can't resist."
[Yep, he must. : ) ]
. . .
"We would also suggest that mixed-tech designs not be used when playing
with people... who are not part of your regular gaming group."
. . .
[printed in italics] "(As far as our published 'canon' universe
background is concerned, mixed tech ships do not appear in any forces within
the time period of the First Xeno War;..."
No, not "Never" (everybody chorus!) Never say never (I couldn't help that)
but not within the time of XW1 and not for a challenge / examination of
differences like this one.
J
> grubby mitts
That's a definite case of the pot calling the silverware black. :-)
I see:
> "Now, there is nothing inherently wrong in this
and:
> [printed in italics] "(As far as our published 'canon' universe
But I'm working on the period right after XW1, when advanced drives are
becoming to available. And
> not for a challenge / examination of differences like this one.
Not that I said anything about advanced drives (or the lack of them) in my
initial comment. A T8 battlecruiser with Beam 5's can beat any FB2 KV ship, if
no fighters are involved, regardless of whether it's an advanced drive
battlecruiser (which I happened to be thinking of) or not.
> Laserlight wrote:
> Not that I said anything about advanced drives (or the lack of them)
A) If you meant AGD, you should have said T8A.
B) Really? Any FB2 KV ship w/o fighters? Under * any * game
conditions? Start position, V(i), Cine vs. Vect, table & MU size? Not just
80x120 MU scrolling?
Your nose is growing.:)
J
> B) Really? Any FB2 KV ship w/o fighters? Under * any * game
Not
> just 80x120 MU scrolling?
No, if you want to play in a 1x2mu box and the battlecruiser starts out with
its drives shut down and its crew off the ship and the KV has antimatter rail
gun rounds, that still qualifies as "any conditions" and the battlecruiser
will lose.
> Laserlight wrote:
> B) Really? Any FB2 KV ship w/o fighters? Under * any * game
Once again, you have been reduced to a sputtering, spurious, sarcastic straw
man argument, because you know that your premise is faulty and you
cannot find a way to express yourself coherently. To say that the next step
below 80x120 MU is 1x2, as opposed to 72x96, 60x96 or 48x72, is so
absurd as to proclaim your lack of confidence in your own assertions. Perhaps
you should read some more of Mr.Ohlson's posts. He, at least,
makes an well thought out attempt to explain his views in a reasonable manner
without resorting to such ridiculous embarrassments.
J
> Once again, you have been reduced to a sputtering, spurious,
If it comforts you to believe that, go right ahead.