A fictional after action inquiry into the results of a 10K pt KV force
meeting about a 9K+ NAC force.
It probably doesn't say in the AAR, but we used vector movement, Schoon's KV
rules, Schoon's KV designs, mostly FB designs for NAC ships (I did my own
ortillery monitors, assault ships, and escort cruisers for the Israeli CVA but
otherwise it was standard). Used Indy's fleet lists and a battle of Jutland
book for ship names. The Israeli ships mostly came off the Brigade website.
I let fighters screen fighters. I resolved mass fighter dogfight fire
simultaneously rather than conga line fashion. We used random card draws for
firing order, including some admiral's priveledge mixed into the deck. I think
the admirals were KV: level 3 (3 cards extra in the deck), a level 1 and a
level 2. The humans were an even (no cards), a level 1, and two level 2s.
We used ship morale (I think the Haifa was trying to hyper out as a result of
morale failure when it went up) and fighter morale (which hurt after the
scatterguns). We used core systems and most of the standard
game rules. We wimped out on sensors and lock-ons given the scale of the
conflict. Fighter types were off of Indy's list (hence no torpedo fighters,
much lamented by the NAC).
Anyway, the accounting, in a reasonable format I hope, is presented as a piece
of fiction. Their is an OB at the end. I think it fails to mention the KV's 13
groups of KVish heavy fighters, but otherwise should be accurate. I think at
the last minute we left out the 2 Shafrir's on the Israeli side, but they were
just assault landers.
Let me know what you think, and if you want you can email me offlist...
don't want to be a worse list clutter-er than needed.
BTW, Happy Y2K! Hope the listserv is Y2K compliant....:)
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/Gaming/GZG/AAR-OperationFuriousRiposte.htm
> The Barclay writes:
[...]
> conflict. Fighter types were off of Indy's list (hence no torpedo
You do know that while I have listed very few/almost no *exclusive* torp
fighters, I did make the caveat that the configurations could be changed,
since I view many/most-if-not-all GZG fighters as being modular in
design.
So you coulda brought some torps into the fray - just woulda had to pay
for them (not that the NAC was hurting in points ;-)
Thanks for the AAR read. Sad day for the NAC.
Mk
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> A fictional after action inquiry into the results of a 10K pt KV
Nice report :-) It did confirm my opinion about the Schoon/Dean KV
rules, though :-(
[snip]
On the "initial thoughts" from the web page:
> Railguns have limited arcs, but fought under vector (their really is
The real irony here is that if the NAC had been concentrated, many of
those side-mounted KV guns probably wouldn't have had anything to shoot
at :-/
> They do damage out to 30" even in their crappiest incarnation (unlike
While this is true on a per-weapon basis, it is not true on a per-mass
basis (except for 3-arc Class 3 beams). I do think that the Schoon/Dean
RGs are underpriced, but they should be reasonably OK at 5*Mass (instead of
the current 4*Mass).
> And the huge hull of the KV make them just gross to kill.
This, and their super-duper-stops-everything armour, is what really
makes the Schoon/Dean KV unbalanced :-(
> Some suggested fixes:
Or make them deduct 1 from the die per X mu of range to simulate scattering of
the slugs (missiles and fighters that attack the ship itself are assumed to do
so from range 0; fighters attacked by ADFCs are attacked at the actual range).
> Manoevreability: People thought the KV designs which could thrust 8,
> Hull: Less of it.
Or pay its real worth. Note that it is perfectly possible to get almost
exactly the same ratios between hull boxes and weapon mass by using
Human Strong or Super hulls (and much larger ships) :-/
In general, I think that the Schoon/Dean KV rules underprice the KV -
not as badly as MT did, but still. The engines are OK at 3*Mass, but the hull
should be 6* or even 7*Mass, the RGs 5*Mass, and the armour
should probably also cost somewhere around 6-7*Mass (to account both
for its ability to reduce the damage of *all* weapons rather than just
screens, and for the fact that it can't be lost in threshold checks).
All in all, IMO most of the example KV designs should cost an extra
amount roughly equal to their Mass - ie, in reality the NAC/IF weren't
outnumbered 9:10 but more like 3:4 odds or worse.
Regards,
> All in all, IMO most of the example KV designs should cost an extra
The IF wasn't outnumbered at all, not being present. : - )
(I know, you meant the New Israelis, and it's hard to tell one
desert-dwelling monotheistic Semite from another from your
perspective).
IIRC, Lancaster's Law (Lanchester? Limburger? Something like that) says that
two forces of equal quality should square their quantity and use that as their
ratio, so you were outnumbered 16 to 9. The only way to win in that situation
is either a) incredible luck, or b) catch him dispersed and defeat him in
detail.
> Nice report :-) It did confirm my opinion about the Schoon/Dean KV
Depends. Which version of the RG rules were used (there are a few out there)?
My personal opinion differed with the accepted set of rules in the level at
which 2x damage was applied with RGs. I had wanted the threshold to be higher
(less chance of 2x damage).
For those who may hae missed it, I'll include the rules I preferred...
Railguns
Railguns roll a number of dice equal to the class of the weapon.
The dice are scored in the same manner as Pulse Torpedoes:
Range 0-6" - 2+ hits
Range 6-12" - 3+ hits
Range 12-18 - 4+ hits
Range 18-24 - 5+ hits
Range 24-30 - 6 hits
For each hit, a second die is rolled, the railgun's class is added to the
roll, and the target's armor level (Kra'Vak type, not human) is subtracted.
1-5 - 1 x Railgun Class damage
6+ - 2 x Railgun Class damage
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 3 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 6 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
> Schoon wrote:
> >Nice report :-) It did confirm my opinion about the Schoon/Dean KV
The ones linkes from Indy's page; RG masses 2, 3 and 5 for classes 1, 2 and 3
respectively. Good balance between all RGs of classes 2 and
higher; the RG1 is 2-arc to compensate for its lower damage/Mass ratio.
However, at a cost of 4*Mass they're a bit too cheap compared to Pulse
torps in particular (P-torps have the same to-hit numbers and similar
damage effects on armour and screens, but have a considerably lower
damage/Mass ratio); 5*Mass should be OK.
> My personal opinion differed with the accepted set of rules in the
Apart from the weapon Masses and costs, this is identical to the
version I've seen. However, these Mass values make the Class-1 railgun
considerably better than the others (approx. 30% higher average damage per
Mass than the RG2 *and* two arcs instead of 1), and makes the
Class-3 RG inflict less damage per Mass than the Class-2 against all
levels of KV armour (one RG3 inflicts on average about 85% the damage of two
RG2s).
Regards,
> Apart from the weapon Masses and costs, this is identical to the
Actually, I'd been thinking of modifying the rules set I'm using to make the
Class 1 RG a one arc weapon as well.
The two arc thing hadn't been working out.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
The date on your posting appears as
Mon, 27 Aug 1956 06:18:39 -0800
> Oerjan wrote:
> > >Nice report :-) It did confirm my opinion about the Schoon/Dean KV
When we originally debated these RailGun rules, we used the Pulse Torp as a
base and according to my figures, per cost, the Pulse Torp still has a slight
edge when the RGs cost 4xMass. Here is what I have for an unarmoured target.
Dmg/Cost Mass Cost 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30
RG1 2 8 0.139 0.111 0.083 0.056 0.028 RG2 3 12 0.208 0.167 0.125 0.083 0.042
RG3 5 20 0.208 0.167 0.125 0.083 0.042 RG4 7 28 0.218 0.175 0.131 0.087 0.044
Pulse Torp 4 12 0.243 0.194 0.146 0.097 0.049
If anyone wants to see the original debate on the RGs and the KV conversion to
the FB, check out the list archives for 1998, the last week in November and
the first week in December.
Looking back of what was createded, I like the idea of Integrated Armour like
the KV had in MT. I know Oerjan and others do not, and think that they should
just have more hull boxes. Personally I don't think the KV should get both the
IA and the extra hull boxes but this was a small group effort and I pushed
other things so I had to give in on this point.
On a side note, I have revised some of the Fleet Book Reserves designs posted
on Star Ranger's page after feedback from the list and Oerjan, and I finally
finished updating all of the ship status displays, now I just have to change
the web pages. So maybe tonight I will get the NAC designs up and revise all
of the rest, I'll let you after it is done.
Dean, Is the chart in error? It shows RG2 and RG3 having identical statistics
except for Mass/Cost.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> When we originally debated these RailGun rules, we used the Pulse Torp
[snip]
> Dean Gundberg
> Brian Bell wrote:
I checked my figures again and they seem correct. The average damge for both
the RG2 and the RG3 ends up equal to the mass resulting in the same amount of
damage mass and per cost. Here is the table again but with a new column for
average damage so you can calculate it yourself.
Dmg/Cost Mass AvDmg Cost 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24
24-30
RG1 2 1.33 8 0.139 0.111 0.083 0.056 0.028 RG2 3 3.00 12 0.208 0.167 0.125
0.083 0.042 RG3 5 5.00 20 0.208 0.167 0.125 0.083 0.042 RG4 7 7.33 28 0.218
0.175 0.131 0.087 0.044 P Torp 4 3.5 12 0.243 0.194 0.146 0.097 0.049
To calculate Average Damage when a hit is made, there is the damage roll
+RGclass -IntegratedArmorLevel where a result of 1-5 is damage =
RGclass, 6+
= double RGclass so here is another table showing the resulting damage by RG
for the unmodified damage roll, then the average damage calculated for targets
without Integrated Armor.
Unmodified Damage Roll Ave 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dmg
----------------------------------------------------------
RG1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.33 RG2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.00 RG3 3 3 6 6 6 6 5.00 RG4 4 8 8 8 8 8
7.33 P torp 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.50
Once Integrated Armor is added into the equation (for KV civil wars,
inter-clan battles, etc), then the RG3 starts to get a better average
damage per cost.
On how to deal with the problem of the KV and their added power when using
vector movement instead of cinematic, use the PSB that the KV ships use a
gravatic type of drive instead of the normal reaction drives common with human
ships. Thus the KV, like the Minbari in the EFSB, will always use cinematic
movement while the human ships may be using vector. Gravatic KV tech can also
explain how their RailGuns work.
> Dean wrote:
> The ones linkes from Indy's page; RG masses 2, 3 and 5 for classes 1,
On a damage/cost comparision for the weapons alone, this is correct.
When you add in the cost of the hull and engines to carry those weapons
as well, it no longer is. The pulse torp loses ground - it balances for
human ships which use 50% of their TFM for hulls and engines (which
corresponds to KV ships using 40% of their hulls for same), but is worse than
the RGs on ships using more Mass than this for hulls and engines.
None of the KV example designs on the Homestead page use that little of their
Mass for engines and hulls; even the capitals use 50% (and since they're KV,
this corresponds to human ships using 60%).
This is why I prefer the damage/Mass ratio for quick weapon
comparisions
rather than damage/weapon cost - the latter obscures the wider impact
the Mass of the weapon has on a ship's cost when it accounts for the impact
the Mass has on the weapon itself, and since the wider impact is, well, wider,
the end result is often a bit misleading..
The KV armour would be fairly priced at 5xMass if it only protected against
beams - that's how much invulnerability to threshold checks would be
worth to screens. However, that'd make its ability to reduce damage from
virtually all weapons (EMP missiles and Needle beams are the only current
exceptions) completely free, and such a powerful ability can't be free without
damaging the game balance.
Finally, the KV hulls... looking at the KV designs linked to from the rules
page (no, I still don't have the URL handy :-( ), I can build ships
with the same number of hull boxes, the same engines, and the same Mass used
for
systems (give or take 1 Mass) using the standard, "human-style" hull
strengths.
The big KV discussion broke out just when I was moving house, so I didn't
manage to keep up with it :-( Otherwise I'd have brought these points
up for
discussion then instead of now :-/
> On a side note, I have revised some of the Fleet Book Reserves
I'm part of the list too, but a rather vocal part of it :-)
> and I finally finished updating all of the ship status displays,
Hooray! :-)
Truth to tell I didn't have much constructive feedback on Dean's NAC
reinforcements (not nearly as much as on the ESU ones, anyway <g>). They're
very good examples of the FB1 NAC design doctrine... it's just that that
doctrine includes what I think of as using too small ships built to
tackle too many tasks (the Furious-class is a prime example of this,
but there are several others), with the result that few of their ships do any
single task really well. My standard reaction to Dean's NAC designs was
basically "<argh> Yes, that's the way the NAC would have built it... poor
crews :-(" <G>
Dean has done an excellent job of capturing the design doctrines of the four
major powers. If you haven't looked at his FB Reinforcements, do it ASAP.
> http://www.homestead.com/star_ranger/index.html
Later,
One thing that I wish Jon T had done in the design system is to have split the
Thrust from the Rotation in engine design.
I would have suggested:
MD mass = (T+R) (Round Up)
T = Thrust rating R = Rotation rating And do away with Pushes.
T = 2% of Ship Mass per Thrust rating (no rounding) R = 3% of Ship Mass per
Rotation rating (no rounding)
This way you could build really fast ships that turn like pigs, nimble ships
that have low acceleration, or ships that split the difference.
For cinematic movement, a ship may use the full T rating for thrust and
R/2
(round down, minimum of 1) for turning.
This formula could still be applied to all existing designs (assume same
thrust and turn ratio).
Kra'Vak could use an altered formula: T = 3% of ship Mass per Thrust Rating R
= 2% of ship Mass per Rotation Rating
% of ship Mass for Engine
T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 1 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 2 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 3 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27
0.29 4 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 R5 0.17 0.19 0.21
0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 6 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34
0.36 0.38 7 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 8 0.26 0.28 0.30
0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 9 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43
0.45 0.47 10 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50
For Kra'Vak switch T/R
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> On how to deal with the problem of the KV and their added power when
Gravatic KV
> tech can also explain how their RailGuns work.
For the non-telepaths out there, here is the part I left out:
Vector: No longer get "turn any amount for 1 Thruster Point". Instead may
change facing by 1 for each R. No Puches.
Cinematic: No longer "may turn 1/2 MD". Instead, may turn 1clock face
per 2 R (round down minimum of 1).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
> -----Original Message-----
Gravatic
> KV
My memory of this was that they were going to get +50% hull for the same
mass; but then I wasn't happy with that either. The early discussion involved
only the change in KV armour, not the hull; that came up later.
Personally, I found the old railgun rules too unbalanced. The current Schoon
RG rules I'm not happy with for various reasons, including
damage/mass breakpoints (which have been mentioned in the last few
posts). Schoon followed the garbage can PSB theory, whereas I followed the
shotgun PSB for a different railgun ruleset.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Schoon's KV: http://www.homestead.com/fullthrust/files/kv_fb_design.html
My KV: http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/ft/kravak.htm
> -----Original Message-----