Okay this is not likely to meet with any great approval but here goes anyway.
This is a completely different method of resolving weapons fire within the FT
system. Basic the weapon masses and points cost remain the same. Multiple arc
weapons mass cost is computed using:
basic mass + ((additional arcs * mass) / 2) truncated
i.e. 2 arc C, mass = 1 + 0
3 arc C, mass = 1 + 1
All weapons use a roll one die to hit and one die to determine damage. AA
Battries never blow up as a result of firing. Fighters, Missiles, PDAF and
ADAF use the same rules with no modifications. Armour costs remain the same
but but mass is also required in most cases.
Armour and Shield restrictions. Ship Mass Max Shield Mass cost per Armour
Level < 9 0 level no armour < 21 1 level 0 mass (max 1 level) ships of this
class drop purchased thrust rating by 2 (max thrust 6 for pts cost of 8) < 37
2 level 1 mass (max 2 levels) < 101 3 level 2 mass
> 100 3 level 2 + (1 for each additional 50 mass of
Weapons fire resolution uses
Weapon Range (roll D10 number indicates% chance to hit)
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
66
C 70 60 60 50 40 20
B 60 60 50 50 40 30 20 10
A 50 50 50 50 50 40 30 20 10
AA 30 40 50 50 50 50 50 40 30 20
10
Pulse Torp 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
Rail Gun 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
C batteries used as PDAF are -30%/-40% to hit and remove a single
fighter/missile.
Ship Mass to Hit Modifier Ship Thrust to Hit Modifier
< 11 -20% 8 -10%
< 21 -10%
Weapon Damage Table (D10 rolled)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2
B 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
3 3
A 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 4
AA 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5
Pulse Torp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
5 6
Rail Gun 0 0 0 0 0 0 rail gun class rail gun
class x 2
Shield and Armour -2 per level
Modifications for Stations Any station has one fewer damage track and one more
damage control party than a ship of equivalent mass. Stations normally have 2
properties, one there large and two there stationary. For these reasons they
are vary stable gun platforms. This stable platform results in two
significant benefits for the weapons fitted. All weapons receive +10% to
hit in all valid range bands. They may also fire at range against
fighters (-20%) and missiles (-30%) from the basic to hit table, if you
hit one fighter or missile is destroyed. These changes should remove the
achilles heal for the stations.
No play testing of the rules has been done yet. I know they arenÂt as simple
as the original rules but I was trying to cover three areas.
1) Addition of Tech levels (increase/decrease % hit or change damage
tracks) 2) Weapons classes 3) Ship classes
With these changes a Courier might be able to run a blockade.
Comments (or do I just burn)
> This is a completely different method of resolving weapons fire within
I'd like to play test this.
> Basic the weapon masses and points cost remain the same. Multiple
I can see the advantage of the roll table and the modifications you have
suggested. However, what is the significance of the relation between mass of
ship and the ability of its weapon to cover arcs? Since you have given much
thoughts to the meanings of the other areas you covered (station, speed and
agility), you must have a reason to impose this restriction.
> Comments (or do I just burn)
Hmm...
JP
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, JP & Val Fiset wrote:
> However, what is the significance of the relation between
None as such, really. What is important is that a manouvrable ship can
turn to bring single-arc weapons to bear much faster than a clumsy one;
and it is quite easy to lose some or all weapons covering one side of a ship
to treshold checks. (Nothing is more frustrating than having your
Superdreadnought picked apart by a light cruiser glued to its port side after
losing the entire port broadside to the first treshold check:( I started using
'roll' manouvers after that battle...)
Of course you _can_ build thrust 8 Superdreadnoughts... <g>
With the 'roll' manouver a three-arc weapon is worth a bit less (in
mass and/or cost) than two single-arc weapons (IMO, of course), both
because of increased vulnerability to treshold checks and because the
three-arc weapon can't engage more than one target at a time. Without a
'roll', the three-arc weapon gets a bit better than two single-arc
weapons due to the difficulties to get your strongest broadside to bear.
Regards,
As an alternative means of encouraging the use of B- and C- batteries we
tried the adoption of minimum ranges for each class: C Battery unrestricted B
Battery minimum 6 inches A Battery minimum 12 inches AA Battery we didn't try
this but 18 inches would seem about right do you really want to try using it
at this sort of range anyway!
This means that if you close against a ship with only A batteries it is
helpless against you and means that lower batteries become essential ( or
possibly those escorts will have to live up to their name and provide close in
fire support for the heavy guns fitted on the larger ships. The rationalle
behind this being that the heavier the beam the more beam ( and heavier)
projectors that must be focussed on the target and each may only be depressed
by so much. I haven't considered whether minimum ranges would be appropriate
for pulse torps ( probably or possibly allow a backwash of the plasma
explosion to hit the firing ship) or rail guns (probably not as this is a
solid slug). We tried the above ranges in a couple of sessions and they
certainly altered tactics with a closing against the larger guns with the
smaller ships rather than long range sniping. How do other groups feel about
these ranges? (Or possibly even increasing them to 0,9,18,24 inches for
C,B,A,AA batts
- or
are these too long. I haven't tried these but I feel the ideal would be
between these two levels)
> CMitch5046@aol.com writes:
@:) As an alternative means of encouraging the use of B- and C-
@:) batteries we tried the adoption of minimum ranges for each class: @:) C
Battery unrestricted @:) B Battery minimum 6 inches @:) A Battery minimum 12
inches @:) AA Battery we didn't try this but 18 inches would seem about right
@:) do you really want to try using it at this sort of range anyway!
We did something somewhat similar:
range -> 0-12 12-24 24-36
dice| C 2 0 0
V B 2 1 0
A 0 2 1
I think - we may have made the Cs do 1 die at short range (can you
tell we don't play often enough?).
@:) We tried the above ranges in a couple of sessions and they
@:) certainly altered tactics with a closing against the larger guns @:) with
the smaller ships rather than long range sniping.
We have also seen some altered tactics, but more altered ship design. Since
that was the point, the new preponderance of C and B batteries is nothing to
complain about. Anyway, what's happened is
that ships now tend to circle each other at range 12-24 (actually more
like 18-24) which has the advantage of making some other weapons like
needle beams and pulse torpedoes more effective. On the other hand,
it's not clear that the long-range sniping ability of A batteries is
really worthwhile since it's quite difficult to maintain a range of
24-36 when your opponent wants to close it. So we have seen a lot of
B batteries popping up. Actually I guess there have been a fair number of As
still left on the ships so I really shouldn't complain. It's worked out pretty
well for us.
So were you just going to move all the ranges out by the minimum range, or
what? If you shorten an A battery's short range by 12", it doesn't have any
short range left and therefore it can't deliver 3 dice of damage anywhere.
That's basically what we chose to do with them and we've been fairly pleased
but I think a lot of people are less annoyed than we by the typical popcorn
noise of FT battles and they will want to keep their three dice per battery of
damage.
@:) I haven't considered whether minimum ranges would be @:) appropriate for
pulse torps ( probably or possibly allow a @:) backwash of the plasma
explosion to hit the firing ship) or rail @:) guns (probably not as this is a
solid slug).
I would say yes to the torps but make it pretty short, 6" maximum. You're
probably right about the rail guns.
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 14:42:41 -0500
I guess I just don't understand the idea of a minimum range when the distances
measured are in the 100s or 1000s of kilometers to the inch.
> @:) I haven't considered whether minimum ranges would be
Again, 100s or 1000s of kilometers of back-splash from the weapon?
That's the size range of a small solar flare!
> >>
It depends on how you visualize space combat. Those like myself prefer the
"Star Wars" look with capital ships blasting each other at not much more then
spitting distance. For those who prefer the massive scale with planets
represented by a circle a couple of inches across these minimums would seem
odd.
I personally have been experimenting with various other changes in beam mass,
ranges, etc as well as rate of fire. C's fire 2 times per turn, B's once, A's
every other or perhaps
C's at rof 1, B's rof 1/2, A's 1/3 or something similar.
> [quoted text omitted]
*****************************************************************
I'm A saxon dog and just can't help it.
> Tracy Hale wrote:
I prefer the realism of long range combat myself.
> I personally have been experimenting with various other changes
I've thought of using different ROF as well, but this usually involves more
record keeping, especially with fleet engagements. ROF seems appropriate for
individual weapon systems, but batteries may make up several weapons of the
same clustered together. With this in mind, a battery might be designed such
that when some components are recharging, others may fire, leaving no gaps in
fire support.
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:) I prefer the realism of long range combat myself.
Not this topic again!!
@:) ROF seems appropriate for individual weapon systems, but batteries @:) may
make up several weapons of the same clustered together. With @:) this in mind,
a battery might be designed such that when some @:) components are recharging,
others may fire, leaving no gaps in @:) fire support.
That makes a lot of sense - and immediately leads me to suggest that
the player should be able to decide (either at construction time or during
combat) whether to fire a weapon at full strength infrequently or at partial
strength constantly. For example, one might choose to either fire an A battery
as a C battery on any given turn, or one might choose not to fire for two
turns and on the third fire the weapon as an A battery.
This would again require some bookkeeping but it wouldn't be too bad,
especially if you were using some kind of erasable SSDs, either grease pencils
or transparency markers.
> joachim wrote:
My explanation of the beam batteries ROF was supporting existing gameplay,
simply that the weapon system delivers a constant output. Your option to
allocate portions of the battery for varying degrees of fire would definitely
be interesting for some scenarios.
> This would again require some bookkeeping but it wouldn't be too
Ugh! More bookkeeping! How about allowing a beam battery to fire at any
level below its designation(An A-batt can fire at A, B, or C levels)
without requiring the recording of charge level. An example of its usefulness
would be to try to disable a target vs. obliterating it for possible boarding
actions, etc.
> Craig Mitchell wrote:
This could be true if we looked at the beam weapon with a close resemblence to
todays turrets cannons, but the actual mass of the weapon might be
allocated as follows: 90% in non-moving mass(barbette containing energy
generation/storage, etc.) with only 10% used for the actual turreted
weapon. I don't think gun elevation will make a difference in FT unless the
weapon
is quite huge(or your playing wet-navy).
Mike Miserendino wrote
> This could be true if we looked at the beam weapon with a close
My intention for this sugestion was as a means of encouraging the use of
smaller beams and not any attempt to reflect reality. The rationalle I gave
was wholly that and many more are plausible (perhaps the beams are streams of
plasma or of matter and anti matter particles and it takes time for the
containment fields to decay to the stage where the beam will interact with the
matter of the ships hull destructively rather than drilling a small hole in
the hull which could be rapidly sealed by automatic hull rupture
equipment or even by slamming a patch over the breach manually! - before
you try pointing out that most damage is caused by explosive decompression
remember tou have to hit a pressurised compartment for this to occur and most
of a ship isn't (Oxygen is expensive and heavy to waste in unoccupied sections
of a ship not to mention making it vulnerable to such damage) and we have
obviously progressed beyond chemical drives) or the damage is caused by
tracking the beam over the hull and so the inertia of tracking the larger
beams with sufficient accuracy at short range is beyond the tecnology of the
time.( the engineers are of course working on the problem!) or maybe God
prohibits it!!!
- There are , I am sure umpteen different explanations beyond these 3 in
any event if I want to closely reflect reality it would reqire too much
book-keeping for my liking.
Craig Mitchell wrote earlier:
:
> in fire support for the heavy guns fitted on the larger ships. The
> Craig Mitchell wrote:
No problem. You provided rationale for using restricted battery fire. I
provided rationale for not restricting beam battery fire. Take it or leave it.
> - There are , I am sure umpteen different explanations beyond these 3
How about a nifty explanation instead?;)