Alrighty then...
Here's my first guess at how the proposed K'V armour would affect the various
weapons systems in th FT universe.
Beams (and weapons that do damage like Beams - are there any?)
Level 1 Armour - as Level 1 Screens
Level 2 Armour - as Level 2 Screens
Pulse Torpedoes (and weapons that do damage like Pulse Torpedoes)
Level 1 Armour - subtract 1 from damage roll
Level 2 Armour - subtract 2 from damage roll
Railguns (and... never mind)
Dean accurately points out that we don't want to have the "to hit roll"
affected, nor do we want to adjust the damage multiplier, which is too extreme
of a reduction (9 points to 3 for a Class 3 RG). He also points out
that the damage should be the only thing affected - and in that gives us
a potential answer.
By so aptly comparing RGs to PTs, we have our answer. Armour affects them in
the same way...
Level 1 Armour - subtract 1 from damage
Level 2 Armour - subtract 2 from damage
"Wait!" I hear you say. "Doesn't this mean that Class 1 RGs are ineffective
against armoured targets?" Yup.
Looking at K'V designs, however, reveals that they don't use Class 1s on any
ship not expecting fighters or smalls ships as opponents. All cruisers
or larger mount only Class 2+.
Beam 1s are just as ineffective against human armour unless they've had it
stripped down by other weapons, or get lucky on their roll.
All we have to do is make a minimum system size, just like for screens, that
prevents small vessels from using it cost effectively.
> Schoon wrote:
> Level 1 Armour - subtract 1 from damage
In that case I prefer the MT system. I don't really buy this.
Firstly Integral Armor is fundamental to all KV ships, those without it are
IMO a misnomer.
I don't believe they would mount weapons that aren't effective except againt a
class of ships they probably wouldn't build.
Nice try, though.
> Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Firstly Integral Armor is fundamental to all
I disagree. That Integral Armour costs money and takes up space. Economics
would indicate that they'd only include it in hulls that needed it. I don't
see armour as fundamental to the K'V any more than Screens are to the humans.
If we go with a minimum mass as I suggested, this becomes more true. If
it's not cost-effective to build it that way, they won't.
> I don't believe they would mount weapons that aren't
If we assign MASS 4 and MASS 8 minimums, respectively, then it doesn't make a
whole lot of sense to build it into a MASS 30 Destroyer.
Besides, if the Itegral Armour was inherent in EVERY K'V ship, then we should
have included it in the hull cost and downed the number of boxes to
compensate.
> I disagree. That Integral Armour costs money and takes up
Its fundamental in that MT said it was basic to KV ship design. You are
proposing to change that premise. I don't know how popular that level of
change is. From existing feedback on this thread people are reactionary and
want the KV as close to MT as possible. I suppose I do to.
> If we assign MASS 4 and MASS 8 minimums, respectively, then it
Having a MASS 30 destroyer with equivalent of Level 1 Screens were what made
the KV so feared. You just pulled some of their teeth.
> Besides, if the Itegral Armour was inherent in EVERY K'V ship, then we
Now there's a thought ;-)
> Its fundamental in that MT said it was basic to KV ship design.
I agree that we need to keep the new rules as close to the spirit of MT as
possible, while admiting that they were also very flawed in a balance
perspective (point wise).
"This hull armour provides the larger ships with significant protection
against..."
> Having a MASS 30 destroyer with equivalent of Level 1 Screens
Not all MT designs had armoured hulls. In particular, the Di'Tok Class
Destroyer did not. The Vo'Bok Class Hunter was the "lightest" ship to have
armour. So what we are proposing is not that unusual.
> Schoon wrote:
The subtracted damage is from total damage I assume and not per hit rolled
since you don't mention Class2 RGs not hitting. So for a Class2 to do damage
to a ship with Level 2 armour, both rolls would have to be hits.
> Looking at K'V designs, however, reveals that they don't use Class 1s
But in FT larger ships never had C beams either but in the FB they appeared on
almost all ships due to the increase in arcs and functionality changes.
A larger K'V ship in a 6-arc universe I think would mount Class1 RGs on
the sides and rear to give some weapons coverage in those arcs, especially if
the Class1 RGs are the only ones with more than 1 arc.
> Beam 1s are just as ineffective against human armour unless they've
Beam 1s still do damage to human armour and given time will destroy any other
human ship. Class1 RGs with the armour level rules you have above can never do
any damage to an armoured ships no matter how much time they have. I don't
think making an armoured ship totally impervious to Class1 railguns is a good
idea.
Keep coming up with ideas. This armour level vs railgun problem along with
the shotgun effect of the multiple to-hit dice for your railgun proposal
still doesn't work for me but this discussion is good;)
> The subtracted damage is from total damage I assume and not per hit
Correct.
> But in FT larger ships never had C beams either but in the FB they
I agree, but I'm working on existing designs as a basis for the "new rules."
Perhaps after we hash all this out, the designs can be modified for
a FB world :-)
> Beam 1s still do damage to human armour and given time will destroy any
I actually agree with you here, even though it pains me to admit it. I'll keep
thinking of possible ways to alter The armour effects.
> Keep coming up with ideas. This armour level vs railgun problem along
OK ;-)
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> Railguns (and... never mind)
Ok, I will step back in, This is not fully thought out yet, but here goes:
The Kra'Vak armoured hulls do not have anything special agaist missile, or
Railguns. What I have been playing with is moving the damage track to allow
the Kra'Vak to take the harsh damage from these systems..
Example 72mass (double MT mass) Va'Dok Heavy Cruiser.
Avg 'K' hull 40% Damage Track - 29 boxes.
Damage track looks something like this:
---------*-----
---------*----
Instead of
-----*--
----*--
---*---
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Dean Gundberg" <dean.gundberg@noridian.com>
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: [FT] K'V Armour Vs. Weapons
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:45:31 -0600
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Schoon wrote:
The subtracted damage is from total damage I assume and not per hit rolled
since you don't mention Class2 RGs not hitting. So for a Class2 to do damage
to a ship with Level 2 armour, both rolls would have to be hits.
Beam 1s still do damage to human armour and given time will destroy any other
human ship. Class1 RGs with the armour level rules you have above
can never do any damage to an armoured ships no matter how much time they
have. I don't think making an armoured ship totally impervious to Class1
railguns is a good idea.
> Beam 1s still do damage to human armour and given time will destroy
Well IIRC, the Iowas, like most later BBs, used an 'all or nothing' armor
layout of lots of armor where critical and nothing everywhere else. So the 5
inchers on the DD would not be able to penetrate the armored areas like the
armor belt along the water line, the turrets, the barbettes, or the deck.
Unfortunately the superstructure, and the hull other then the armor belt could
be pentrated by the 5 inch rounds (I think). Hits in these
un-armored areas would not do massive damage to the Iowas but eventually
they would be rendered a kill due to fires, flooding, and damage (if the Iowa
did not fire back;).
Yeah I'm splitting hairs but gamers are used to the single armor class system
that is supposed to represent the whole ship but reality is a bit different.
> Perhaps armor is able
I do see your point but I think escort ships (class1 railguns) should be able
to do some damage to cruisers (level 1 armor) if we follow the designs from
MT.
> At 04:40 PM 12/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
[snip]
This is the only post i read on this thread, so I may be off base but...
> Well IIRC, the Iowas, like most later BBs, used an 'all or nothing'
armor
> layout of lots of armor where critical and nothing everywhere else. So
I notice a key concept here. Namely, you mention waterline armour being a
heavily armoured belt. On a spaceship, you would be very hard pressed to find
an external part of the hull that would not be considered the equivalent of
"below waterline".
> Yeah I'm splitting hairs but gamers are used to the single armor class
Since a spaceship is akin to a submarine, armour may in fact be equal all
around.
Just a thought,
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> Alrighty then...
<big Kra'Snip>
If we decide to go this route, then just say, that any hit with a class1
railgun does, 1 point of damage allways. Or if we go with rerolls than any
unmodified roll of 6 will do 1 point of damage..This way Class1's will do
damage too everything..
Damage Level 1 Level 2 Class1 1 1 Class2 1,3 0,2 Class3 2,5,8 1,4,7
> If we decide to go this route, then just say, that any hit
> rerolls than any unmodified roll of 6 will do 1 point of damage..This
I thought of something like this too but the problem is it potentially unfixes
rail guns in that there is an advantage to just use class 1's against KV
integral armor.
In your example 1 class 3 (6 MASS) does a min 1 point againt level 2 armor. 6
class 1's (6 MASS) does a min 6 points against level 2 armor. This gives you
no incentive to mount Class 3.
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Tim Jones wrote:
> I thought of something like this too but the problem is it
Tim,
D'oh.. Ok, lets drop the first one, and look at doing 1 point
of damage to armoured hulls on a roll of 6 only - instead of a reroll.
SA