In my search for a BFG Lance look-alike, at the suggestion of several
here, I checked out the Skunkworks, and found two items that may fit. The
Cutter Beam, and the Meson Gun. I noticed that no balancing notes appeared on
them. Anyone using them currently?
I also came up with my own ideas, and tried to balance it against a class 3
beam. The thing to note is that in BFG, the Lance does consistent damage all
along its range, yet cuts through armor very easily.
Two ideas I'd like to bounce off the list:
Lance: 1d6DP, -1 damage for each screen level, -1 damage for each full
6"
of range to target. Half Damage (round up) is applied to ARMOR, the
reminder to HULL. MASS 4 +1 / extra arc. COST=MASSx3.
Lance (v2): 1d3DP to 36". -1 Damage for each screen level. Only first
damage point comes off armor, the remainder to HULL. MASS 4 +1/ arc.
COST=MASSx3.
The math indicates that against unshielded targets, both versions will do more
damage on average than a class 3 beam, against class 1 shields the averages
are even, and against class 2 shields, the lances are less effective than
beams. Also, the first version of Lance does much more damage at closer
ranges, then falls off behind the Class 3 beam past
24".
So, on paper, they appear balanced, but I would like some other opinions.
Thanks!
The first one works (effectively thats identical to EFSB Heavy beams). The
second could be a problem, as it is an autohit/damage weapon over it's
entire range.
How about making it a K-gun (kravak railgun) (FB2)? (Just remembered
you don't have MT or FB2).
Range & to-hit is as per Pulsetorps. Damage is equal to the class; roll
a die, if it is equal or less than the class, the damage is doubled. The first
point is applied to armour, the rest to hull.
Mass per class is 2/3/5/7/9.
BTW, the cutter beam is one of mine and is an extremely deadly special weapon
(causes coresystem checks!); the numbers are good, but hasn't been extensively
used.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> stranger wrote:
> Two ideas I'd like to bounce off the list:
Extreme degradation of damage with range, so has a quite different feel from
the BFG lances. Mass and cost are a bit high considering the massive impact of
screens (this weapon is degraded vastly more by
screens than normal beams are); I'd make it Mass 3+1/extra arc instead.
Maybe make it cost 4xMass, but probably not.
Note of caution: many players feel an intense dislike for weapons which
hit automatically (which this weapon does at range 0-6).
> Lance (v2): 1d3DP to 36". -1 Damage for each screen level. Only
Very difficult to balance this one. *Extremely* powerful against unscreened
targets due to its very high average damage at long range,
similar to B3s against level-1 screens, and virtually powerless against
level-2 screens - this would be the weapon of choice to destroy enemy
escorts, not the battleship-killer the BFG Lance is.
Also, this weapon hits unscreened targets automatically at *all* ranges. The
"note of caution" above applies in triplicate to this version.
> The math indicates that against unshielded targets, both versions
This depends entirely on how you calculate the averages, see below.
> against class 1 shields the averages are even, and against class 2
Average damage vs 0/1/2 levels of screens:
Range: B3 Lance-v1 Lance-v2
0-6 2.4/1.9/1.4 3.5/2.5/1.67 2/1/0.33
6-12 2.4/1.9/1.4 2.5/1.67/1 2/1/0.33
12-18 1.6/1.27/0.93 1.67/1/0.5 2/1/0.33
18-24 1.6/1.27/0.93 1/0.5/0.17 2/1/0.33
24-30 0.8/0.63/0.47 0.5/0.17/0 2/1/0.33
30-36 0.8/0.63/0.47 0.17/0/0 2/1/0.33
Avg: 1.6/1.27/0.93 1.56/0.97/0.56 2/1/0.33
The averages in the last row are just "straight" averages, giving each range
band the same weight.
By looking at these averages, the Lance-v1 seems to be slightly worse
than a B3 against unscreened targets (outgunning it considerably at
range 0-6, being very slightly better at range 6-18, and considerably
worse at range 18-36), but if the target has any screens at all the
Lance-v1 is plain outclassed by the B3. The Lance-v2 seems to be
considerably better than the B3 against unscreened targets, but again its
firepower drops very quickly against screened targets.
However, all range bands *don't* have the same weights. In most battles
you don't get to fire nearly as many shots in the 0-6mu band as you do
in, eg., the 18-24mu band (unless you and your opponents all fly very,
very slowly). This makes the Lance-v1 rather weaker than the above
"straight" averages suggest (which is why I'd make its base Mass 3
rather than 4), and improves the Lance-v2 correspondingly.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> How about making it a K-gun (kravak railgun) (FB2)?
The K-gun ignores both armour (mostly) and screens (completely). BFG
Lances ignore armour completely, but are stopped by screens just like any
other weapon.
[Most of K-gun description snipped]
> Mass per class is 2/3/5/7/9.
Um... not in my copies of FB2 :-/
Regards,
> The first one works (effectively thats identical to EFSB Heavy beams).
The
> second could be a problem, as it is an autohit/damage weapon over it's
I don't have MT, I do have FB2. I actually thought the Sa'vasku Lance Pod was
closer to a Lance than the rail gun, but can't figure how to convert it to
something usable.
> BTW, the cutter beam is one of mine and is an extremely deadly special
It seems to match the idea of the BFG lance fairly well, but I think the Core
system hits are a bit initimidating!
> > Very difficult to balance this one. *Extremely* powerful against
I agree. I never quite saw the BFG Lance as a BB killer though, unless
employed in numbers and as the follow up for a 1-2 punch. Now, the
Eldar Lance is another story.....and I think the EFSB HB works for that one.
The question is, How do you get essentially a heavy beam type weapon, that is
affected by shields and unaffected by armor that does consitent damage all
along its range?
Perhaps a modified v2 Lance. Does 1d3 damage, hit based on range bands,
shields add +1 per level to hit chance:
0-6 1+
6-12 2+
12-18 3+
18-24 4+
24-30 5+
31-36 6+
So that to hit a level one shielded ship at range 13 would require a 4+
on the dice. This weapon should also only lose the first DP from armor, and
the remaining penetrates to HULL.
Comments?
> Also, this weapon hits unscreened targets automatically at *all*
I agree. Waht weight did you assign to each band?
In message <00c001c092a6$0198ee40$8050fea9@stranger>
> "stranger" <stranger@cvn.net> wrote:
> > The first one works (effectively thats identical to EFSB Heavy
Hmm.. how about a modified pulse torpedo, as follows:
Use Pulse Torpedo range bands and hit probabilities
Damage is 1d6, level 1 screens negate rolls of 6, level 2 screens negate rolls
of 5 & 6.
First damage point is scored against armour, the rest against hull (as
k-gun & lance pod).
MASS/COST - well, it has an advantage over pulse torps- better armour
penetration, and a disadvantage - its affected by screens - so MASS and
COST should be _similar_ to that of a Pulse Torpedo, depends a bit on
how often you use screens and armour in your game.
> > BTW, the cutter beam is one of mine and is an extremely deadly
> stranger wrote:
> Very difficult to balance this one. *Extremely* powerful against
You've never fought Imperial fleets which insist on pointing their prow
armour towards you, then? Lances with their "always hit on 4+" are
invaluable in this situation... particularly since you have to beat the
*armour* value of a BFG ships simply to knock down its *shields* :-/
> Now, the Eldar Lance is another story.....and I think the EFSB HB
Agree.
> The question is, How do you get essentially a heavy beam type >weapon,
This is how I might do it:
I want consistent damage all along the range, so can't base the
to-hit number on the range. Instead I use the same to-hit number at all
ranges, but modify it for the target screen level - if possible I'd
like screens to have the same effect against the lances as against normal
beams. One way to achieve this is:
Target has... To-hit roll:
No screen 2+
Level-1 screen 3+
Level-2 screen 4+
The effect by level-1 screens is almost identical for beams and lances.
The lance is slightly better against level-2 screens, so it is better
to use your lances against enemy capitals than against escorts, but it's close
enough that I only need to look at the effect against unscreened targets for
balancing the lances against the standard beam weapons.
Lances come in varying ranges, but I'll stick with the long-range
version used on the capital ships - 36mu in FT terms, so the B3 becomes
the baseline for balancing the lance. The 1D3 damage and K-gun-style
armour penetration sounds OK (the armour penetration won't have a very big
effect unless the targets use *very* heavy armour, but it gives some extra
flavour).
Using the 1-2-3 band weights discussed below (OK, I'm writing this on a
computer but don't want to zap from one program to another <g>), the B3
battery has an average firepower of (2.4*1+1.6*2+0.8*3)/3 = 2.67. (I
use the term "firepower" instead of "damage" to remind myself that it isn't a
real damage.) The lance has an average firepower of
(1.67*(1+2+3))/3 = 3.33, or 25% more than the B3 (against unscreened
targets; slightly more against screened targets as well because of the
to-hit mechanic). The other range weights give slightly higher results,
putting the lance at 27-30% more than the B3.
So now "all" that remains is to choose a Mass and cost/Mass ratio such
that the lance does cost 25% more than the B3 including the cost of the basic
hull and engines for both systems. (I posted the formulae for the total cost
of systems some days back, but it's easy to derive. If I go
with the B3 Mass rating (4+1/extra arc) the lance needs to cost
somewhere between 4.5xMass and 5xMass to be balanced - by the numbers
alone 5x should be on the high side, but the lance is a little better against
both screens and armour which makes it more valuable. Besides,
I don't like fractional points costs :-/ I could also make the Lance
bigger and lower the cost/Mass ratio, or make it smaller but extremely
expensive per Mass - or I could change the damage per hit.
Now repeat the procedure for the shorter-ranged lance versions used by
escorts and cruisers <g>
(I'm not saying that this is a good or original representation of the
lances - the end result feels rather similar to the FB2 Pulser-L,
although the actual mechanics used are very different. It should be reasonably
well balanced though.)
> Also, this weapon hits unscreened targets automatically at *all*
Several different sets. No matter which of them I use, I use the B1 as the
"norm" (ie., it has an average firepower of 1 no matter how I weight the range
bands).
The "correct" band weights depend on several things, foremost of which are the
size of your gaming table and whether or not the fleet which wants to close
the range has higher thrust ratings than its enemy. It
also depends on what weapons both sides have - eg., if neither side has
any weapons able to fire further than 12mu, of course no shots will be fired
in the outer bands!
My gaming table is large (120x80mu), and my weighting of the outer
bands reflect this. For quick analyses I use 0-12: 1, 12-24: 2 and
24-36: 3 etc.; the 0-12 band further splits as 0-6: 0.3 and 6-12: 0.7.
This is a rough rule of thumb only; it overvalues the 24-36 band
somewhat and breaks down beyond range 36, but it catches the bigger
balance features - and I can do the maths in my head rather than resort
to paper or computers :-)
In theory, the bands "should" be weighted in proportion to the area
covered by each band (so the 0-6 band gets a weight of 6^2 = 36, the
6-12 band gets 12^2 - 6^2 = 108, etc). Unfortunately practise only
follows this theory if all maneuvers are completely random <g>, so when I have
a computer available nowadays I tend to use a
somewhat-less-than-square relationship instead. Range^1.75 seems to
give the best fits to my recorded data so far, though I don't have
enough recorded data that I'd dare to trust it too much :-( Recording
the range at which each and every shot was fired slows the game down *lots*,
and my local opponents don't think it is very fun... they're not prepared to
make any sacrifices in the name of science <g>
Later,