[FT] Advanced drives and beams

11 posts ยท Jan 27 2004 to Jan 29 2004

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:20:05 -0000

Subject: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

Hi all,

I am experimenting (in a non-tuffleyverse background I hasten to add)
with advanced drives and beam weapons (cinematic movement). I am limiting
class 3 and 4 beams to 1 arc, class 2 beams to 3 arcs and using class 1 beams
as they come.

In doing this am I in danger of exploiting any design/weapon/mass loop
holes
which will result in the vessels' I create being uber-nasty or
uber-weak?

For the record, in the gaming group I belong to we restrict vessels with
advanced drives to single arc primary weapon systems, hence I am only using 1
arc class 3 and 4 beams.

Regards,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:08:56 -0500

Subject: RE: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> I am experimenting (in a non-tuffleyverse background I hasten to add)
with advanced drives and beam weapons (cinematic movement). I am limiting
class 3 and 4 beams to 1 arc, class 2 beams to 3 arcs and using class 1 beams
as they come.
> In doing this am I in danger of exploiting any design/weapon/mass loop

If the rest of your group does this, then you'll all be
over/under-priced
together, so it's a wash. Otherwise, it depends on how much drive you've got
and what tactics you prefer.
--  With Thrust 6 advanced drives you can turn to face any direction you
want, so a single arc B3 is a lot more viable than it would be with, say, a T2
standard drive.
-- If you like to get to knife-fighting range, a single-arc weapon is a
bad idea. If you have the speed and inclination to keep your target at long
range, then single arc can work out.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:23:20 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Matt Tope wrote:

> I am experimenting (in a non-tuffleyverse background I hasten to add)
with
> advanced drives and beam weapons (cinematic movement). I am limiting

None that I'm aware of, and I've been using ships like that for the better
part of ten years now (ever since I got MT). Doesn't necessarily mean that
there aren't any, but considering some of my opponents over the years it

doesn't seem too likely :-/

FWIW I've never found it necessary to artificially limit longer-ranged
weapons to a single arc on Advanced-drive ships; when you're able to
make
4-pt turns or more you don't really need wide arcs anyway.

Later,

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:39:43 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> FWIW I've never found it necessary to artificially limit longer-ranged

> Laserlight wrote:

We ristricted the arc's on the weapons on advanced drive ships as we felt
it might otherwise penalise those using K-Guns and advanced drives, who
are
obviously limited to 1 arc with K-3's and above. However if this is not
a "real" problem, and having multi arced weapons on advanced drives (other
than the savasku/bioships) does not cause any kind of disbalance, then
in that case I think I foresee some serious redesigning in my groups corner of
the galaxy. But just to be sure, having advanced drives with 3 arc B3's is
ok if your opponant is using advanced drives and single arc K-guns?

> -- If you like to get to knife-fighting range, a single-arc weapon is a

Knife fighting range is good, it's always served me well...

Regards,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:27:52 -0500

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

Matt said:
> Knife fighting range is good, it's always served me well...

Then instead of single-arc B3's I suggest you take a couple of B2's.
See
the Islamic Fed or Oceanic Union designs at http://quixnet.net/~deboe --
just say "these have advanced drives" and see how they do

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:52:46 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Laser light wrote:

> Matt said:

> Then instead of single-arc B3's I suggest you take a couple of B2's.
See
> the Islamic Fed or Oceanic Union designs at http://quixnet.net/~deboe

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:09:22 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Laserlight wrote:

> See the Islamic Fed or Oceanic Union designs at

Think I will steal the Hattin outright, (well, I'll drop 2 pds and 2 points
of armour to bring the hull upto 26, and stick two C3-1's in the mass 8
bay, and upgrade to advance drives), it being perfect for my purposes!

The tyrannical forces of the Sol Republic thankyou...

Regards,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:44:58 -0500

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

Matt said:
> Think I will steal the Hattin outright, (well, I'll drop 2 pds and 2

I think you'll find the armor is more valuable than the extra hull.

> and stick two C3-1's in the mass 8 bay, and upgrade to advance

The friendly, peace-loving forces of the Sultanate say "you're welcome."
I'd be interested in hearing feedback on the designs.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:12:04 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Matt Tope wrote:

> We ristricted the arc's on the weapons on advanced drive ships as we

There are two reasons why K3s and larger don't get more than one arc:

1) Their base Mass ratings (derived from their average damage per hit) meant
that the mass per additional arc becomes a rather nasty fraction for most of
them (the only real exception being the K4, which could use the
same Mass progression as the B4 ie. +2 Mass per extra arc), and

2) They're used by the Kra'Vak who have Advanced drives and therefore don't
really need the extra arcs anyway. If the KV hadn't had Advanced drives,

then we would've had work a lot harder to come up with balanced costs for
multi-arced K-guns - or even come up with different game mechanics for
them :-/

The only real caveat is that ships with single-arc weapons - including
single-arc P-torps and Standard drives, like the FB1 NAC - need a large
enough gaming area to use boom'n'zoom tactics instead of turn'n'burn ones. If
the table is too cramped, then the battle will almost inevitably become
the type of point-blank range dogfight where the wider-arc weapons
really
shine. However, if you're measuring in cm or half-inches you should have

plenty of space to manoeuvre in.

Regards,

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:15:01 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Laserlight wrote:

> Matt said:

> I think you'll find the armor is more valuable than the extra hull.

I meant to drop the ADFC not the armour (d'oh!), the armour will stay as it
is. As will the hull (my various enemies favour pulse torps, B-2's and
K-guns, so I kind of need screens, armour and a stronger hull integrity.
Thus the advanced drive beams designs work well for me, as I can give the
vessels good protection and maximise my firepower with the remaining mass with
the use of smaller beams and single arc heavier ones. At least this is the
theory...)

> and stick two C3-1's in the mass 8 bay, and upgrade to advance

> The friendly, peace-loving forces of the Sultanate say "you're

No worries on that score, thanks again.

Regards,

From: Matt Tope <mptope@o...>

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] Advanced drives and beams

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> There are two reasons why K3s and larger don't get more than one arc:

> 1) Their base Mass ratings (derived from their average damage per hit)

> 2) They're used by the Kra'Vak who have Advanced drives and therefore

> The only real caveat is that ships with single-arc weapons - including

Thanks for the clarification on this, I can now be assurred that my new
designs are fit to be let out of the barn.

Regards,