I've done some more experimentation with a concept I had for minimalist "Heavy
Beams". I've boiled it down to the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-------------
Mechanics:
Heavy Beams cost and mass the same as normal beams.
A Heavy beam rolls 1 less die than a normal beam at every range. So a class 3
heavy beam rolls 2 dice at 12MU, and 1 die at up to 24 MU.
Hits by a heavy beam do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points of damage, rather than
2,1,1,0,0,0.
That is, a roll of a 6 does 4 pts, and a re-roll, a roll of 5 does 3
points, and so on.
Re-rolls also do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points, not counting screens, with scores
of 6 causing
further re-rolls as do normal beams.
Screens are particularly effective vs Heavy beams, so just subtract the screen
rating from the damage of each die. So a Heavy Beam that scored a 4, which
would normally be 2 hits, would only do 1 against a target with screen
1,
and would do no damage against a target with screen 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---------------------------
PSB: These fire far fewer bursts, so have a smaller chance of hitting, and
thus have a lesser effective range. However, they have much larger capacitors,
so when they hit, they really hit. They are no more effective than normal
beams vs screened ships, less so vs heavily screened ones, but against
unscreened ships they are rather more deadly.
Usually Heavy beams are found as limited-arc "Spinal Mounts". Those
mounted on UN vessels came as a nasty surprise to the KraVak during the Siege
of Earth,
matching the firepower of the larger K-guns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--------------------------
Playbalance, Game aspects.
The most cost-effective Heavy Beams are those of Class 4 and above,
though some Class 3s are sometimes found. Class 2s are even rarer, and Class
1s cannot be constructed.
This is a solution to the following problems/requirements:
* It gives an incentive to have screens as opposed to nothing but lots of
armour. But not such a huge one as to disadvantage the NSL or KV unduly.
* It gives us a spinal mount - just try making a Heavy Beam that can hit
at range 48 with anything more than a single arc!
* It prevents "small boys", the ones that won't have screens anyway, from
carrying them vs their normal opponents, other small boys. So the current
I think that "Heavy Beams" have been established as the EFSB mechanic of power
source and emitter.
Just for kicks I'll include what I had as the latest revision (though I'm sure
there are many more):
Heavy Beams
Heavy Beams consist of two (or more) systems on the SSD: the Beam Power System
(BPS) and at least one Beam Emitter (BE).
The BPS is a combination of generator, capacitor, and discharger that can
store a number of Energy Points (EPs) up to twice its class rating. It can
discharge any number of stored EPs through any given Emitter.
The BPS generates power at the beginning of each turn, During Step 1: Write
Orders for All Ships. The BPS receives half of its EP capacity each turn. A
damaged BPS, having failed one threshold, receives a quarter (rounding down).
When taking damage and a BPS fails a threshold check, they are not
automatically knocked out of commission. Instead, they are treated in much the
same manner as drives. The first failed threshold halves the capacity of the
system, making it equal to, rather than twice, its class. A BPS failing its
first threshold also looses all stored EPs. The second hit destroys the system
and inflicts an additional number of damage points equal to the number of EPs
currently stored in the BPS.
Beam Power System: Class 1 3 MASS 9 POINT COST 2 EP Capacity Class 2 6 MASS 18
POINT COST 4 EP Capacity Class 3 9 MASS 27 POINT COST 6 EP Capacity Âetc.
EPs must be channeled through a Beam Emitter. Each BE is linked to a single
BPS, and may make use of any EPs stored therein, up to its emission limit. A
BE must be larger to handle a larger power load channeled through it. A BE may
use a number of EPs up to twice its class.
When firing, each EP assigned to a BE allows one die roll. Subtract one from
this die for each full 6 MU of range, and the result is the damage done to the
target. For example: A ship allocates 3 EPs to a BE, firing at a target 15"
away. The 3 dice roll 2, 4, and 5. The dice are scored 0, 2, and 3, resulting
in 5 damage points to the target. Emitters are affected normally by threshold
rolls. Emitters fire though only one arc.
Each level of screens subtracts one from the roll for each EP. Heavy beams are
affected by armor in the same manner as normal beams.
Beam Emitter: Class 1 1 MASS 3 POINT COST Class 2 2 MASS 6 POINT COST Class 3
3 MASS 9 POINT COST Âetc.
Come up with another name for these and I think you've got a winner.
Overcharged beams, turbo beams, disruptor beams, disintegration beams, focused
beams, etc.
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> I've done some more experimentation with a concept I had for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------------
In message <003501c0a7cb$f0cc62a0$d0468bca@avis>
> "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> I've done some more experimentation with a concept I had for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------
Does this mean that Class-1 Heavy Beams do _no_ damage? or am I
misreading?
If I'm right - couldn't you just say - 'Heavy Beams cost the same as
normal beams of a class 1 higher - and roll the same number of dice as
beams of the _same_ class'?
Effectively, they have twice the mass of a beam battery of the same class,
using the FB 1 beam battery MASS progression (which, IMHO and based on my
calculations, is too high for very large beam classes).
> Hits by a heavy beam do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points of damage, rather than
Hmm.. according to my calculation, and assuming that screens do not
apply vs. re-rolls (like with beam batteries), that averages to 2 damage
points (dp) per dice vs. unscreened targets, 1 1/3 dp vs. level 1
screens, and 5/6 dp vs. level 2 screens. That makes them 2.5 times as
effective vs. unscreened ships, 2 1/9 as effective vs. level 1 screens,
and 1.79 times as effective vs. level 2 screens. All for twice to cost
of an equivalent number of beam dice - they may be a bit on the cheap
side (only slighly).
> [quoted text omitted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------------
Well, its one option - I'm cureently tempted by Noam's 'beam bridges'
(in the weapons archive) linking the weapons mounted on the 'wingtips'
of many of the UN designs - once we bet beam bridges checked out, of
course (not for a while I think) :-)
> [quoted text omitted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------------
Hmm.. 3.75 as effective as beams vs. unscreened, 3.42 as effective vs. level 1
screens, 3.21 times as effective vs. level 2 screens, but rolls 2 less dice
(level 3 rolls dice as beam level 1) is equivalent to 4x
mass of beam battery of equal class - so I think they're a bit
_overpriced_ this time.
Oerjan will now point out what I've missed :-)
From: "Charles Taylor" <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> Does this mean that Class-1 Heavy Beams do _no_ damage? or am I
No, you're not misreading: you can't make a class 1 Heavy.
> If I'm right - couldn't you just say - 'Heavy Beams cost the same as
I did that initially in another post, but there was more verbiage explaining
that way.
> Hmm.. according to my calculation, and assuming that screens do not
That's right.
> that averages to 2 damage
Close enough - and remember that Class 2Hs are very short ranged, and
you're better off with 3 class 1's. A Class 3H is comparable in cost to 3
Class 2s with the same arc and range. It's only the BIG beams where they
become more effective vs lightly shielded targets. Where they come in to their
own is not when you're comparing a single
3-arc Class3H with 3x 3-arc Class2s, it's when you're comparing a
single 1-arc Class-3H with 2 Class-2s.
> > * Finally, the same principle could be extended to a "Super Heavy
I believe the author stated that there were no Class-1s of this weapon.
I guess that you could just state that they cost and MASS the same as 1 class
larger normal beams.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> Charles Taylor [CT] and Alan Brain [AB] wrote:
[AT]
> Mechanics:
[CT]
> Effectively, they have twice the mass of a beam battery of the
Only for the Class-4 and bigger. The Class-2 and -3 ones are *three*
times the Mass for the same number of dice and fire arc, thus a bit
underpowered compared to normal beams.
> (which, IMHO and based on my calculations, is too high for very >large
That's quite intentional :-) We don't *want* B5s and bigger to be as
effective as B2s or B3s, even in unlimited space... though some people
(eg. Mikko) think that we failed, and that the long-ranged beams are
too *powerful* instead. (Which was a major reason why Mikko stopped playing
GZG games completely some months back, BTW - IHO they're too open to
abuse.)
[AB]
> Hits by a heavy beam do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points of damage, rather than
[CT]
> Hmm.. according to my calculation, [...] that averages to 2
Almost. The real value is 2 2/19 as effective vs. level 1 screens :-/
> and 1.79 times as effective vs. level 2 screens.
ie. 1 11/14 <g>
> All for twice to cost of an equivalent number of beam dice - they may
See above. The class-4 and bigger are cheaper than the corresponding
firepower of normal beams, but the small ones (class-2s and -3s) are
overpriced compared to normal beams.
As for "without unduly disadvantaging NSL or KV", I'm not too sure of that.
The KV (probably) won't be unduly disadvantaged in Cinematic due
to the problems of aiming a single-arc weapon at a KV ship in the first
place, but they will undoubtedly suffer in Vector. Thrust-2 NSL
capitals are easy targets for spinal mounts even in Cinematic, so will suffer
heavily no matter whcih movement system you use.
Regards,
In message <200103121904.f2CJ4xB03263@d1o4.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor [CT] and Alan Brain [AB] wrote:
Hmm.. well, if you can keep the range open to about 48-60 mu then I
guess that a Cl.5 would be _infinitely_ more effective than the
equivalent mass in Cl.3's - the difficult bit is keeping the range open.
(One soultion, if necessary, would be to impose a maximum possible
targeting range - which probably brings us back to the hoary old topic
of sensors - lets not go there just now :-).
> [AB]
Ok, I used a spreadsheet to work things out, and didn't use very many
decimal places :-)
> >All for twice to cost of an equivalent number of beam dice - they may
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> That's quite intentional :-) We don't *want* B5s and bigger to be as
The difficult bit is keeping the range open *for long enough*. The weaker
your long-ranged weapon is, the longer you need to keep the range open
in order to win the battle. You need a significant edge in thrust rating to
keep it open indefinitely though - and even then you won't always
succeed, particularly if you have to chase your target down <g>
Later,