OK, here's an idea.
Keep RGs the same in function as the old system except for a slight
modification to the damage system.
For the damage roll, 1-4 damage = class, 5-6 damage = 2 x class.
Add 1 per RG class; subtract 1 per armour level.
Simple. Gives heavier RGs an advantage. Easy armour rule.
I don't have the time right mow to work out potential mass and cost, but I'm
sure someone will.
This is the best idea I have heard yet.... Simple, no intensive changes
But what about rerolls? Hate to harp on it but all the major armaments of all
the races should have the chance for a catastrophic hit.
-=Kr'rt
> Keep RGs the same in function as the old system except for a slight
I posted the chart for this version a couple of weeks back, but I'll
have to recalculate for adding the RG class to the re-roll.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
[quoted original message omitted]
Like the snake that swallows its own tail were back here...
> This is the best idea I have heard yet.... Simple, no intensive
IMHO the double damage per class is the RG version of penetrating damage
(aka rerolls) so its already factored in. Catastophic damage is a different
mechanic factored on the number of SSD damage tracks nuked in a single turn.
I think its a mistake to try to overload RG's with beam based mechanics. We've
already gone full circle lets stop now.
> IMHO the double damage per class is the RG version of penetrating
I've got to agree here. As much as I'd like to resolve the situation, I'm
beginning to tire of running after my own tail.
Here's my balancing for the latest sRG proposal The PTorp is provided as a
comparison.
Mass levels for the RG's are close to each other this fixes the three for one
problem, a class 3
now does more average damage/mass than 3 class 1's,
though the class 1's have 2 arcs.
The cost of the RG's is high but it balances roughly
with a PTorp - the higher RG's are more cost effective
than a PT, though. The RG3 and PTorp are equivalent in mass. If the RG3 was
less in mass it was too cost effective, compared to the PTorp. If it were
higher in mass the RG1 would be more cost effective than the RG3.
This was the best balance without using
<spawn of satan>FRACTIONAL ACCOUNTING</spawn of satan>
(Cost mass x 4)
Average Damage
RG Class 1 2 3 Pulse Torp
Range
0 - 6 1.25 2.78 4.58 2.92
6 - 12 1.00 2.22 3.67 2.33
12 - 18 0.75 1.67 2.16 1.75
18 - 24 0.50 1.11 1.83 1.17
24 - 30 0.25 0.56 0.92 0.58
Average Damage / Mass
RG Class 1 2 3 Pulse Torp
Range
0 - 6 0.625 0.93 1.15 0.73
6 - 12 0.5 0.74 0.92 0.58
12 - 18 0.375 0.56 0.54 0.44
18 - 24 0.25 0.37 0.46 0.29
24 - 30 0.125 0.19 0.23 0.15
Mass 2 3 4 4
Average Damage / Cost
RG Class 1 2 3 Pulse Torp
Range
0 - 6 0.156 0.231 0.286 0.243
6 - 12 0.125 0.185 0.229 0.194
12 - 18 0.094 0.139 0.135 0.146
18 - 24 0.063 0.093 0.115 0.097
24 - 30 0.031 0.046 0.057 0.049
Cost 8 12 16 12
Ahhh, but if the RG penetrating damage is already factored into the BASE
damage, then there is no "luck factor" as there is with Beam Weapons. The
double RG class damage is there for each and every hit whereas rolled up
damage may or may not appear with a given Beam shot. I like the randomness of
the current reroll system.
-=Kr'rt
> ----------
> Ahhh, but if the RG penetrating damage is already factored
There is still a luck factor you don't always get the double damage and you
might miss. Bigger class RG's give you a better chance of doing more damage
when you hit as they have a larger calibre.
> I like the randomness of the current reroll system.
MMMV. One the new mechanic has bedded down I suggest looking at this but
shelving it till then.
Sadly, I don't have the rules in front of me so correct me if I am wrong on
the mechanics here...
If you roll a =6= with a beam weapon, you reroll and figure damage
accordingly. If the reroll is then another =6=, don't you then reroll a second
time (subtotal of 3 rolls now)? rinse, repeat....
If this is true, and this is how we played out Adler Tag, then by factoring
the "penetrating damage" into the newfangled RGs' base damage, it will
eliminate the possibility of a multiple reroll shot. This cuts the potential,
albeit low probability, damage from the weapon system.
As gamers, we live on the edges of the bell curve. I don't think ANYONE has
had a completely average game. <G>
-=Kr'rt
> ----------
Kurt wrote.
> If this is true, and this is how we played out Adler Tag,
Yes its true for Beams a you state
> then by factoring the "penetrating damage" into the newfangled RGs'
base damage,
> it will eliminate the possibility of a multiple reroll shot. This cuts
My latest figures show class 3 beams (with rerolls) are more cost effective
than class 3 railguns at long range. At close range the tables are turned.
Also don't forget most ships with Railguns will have equivalent of level 1
screens due to integral armor so the beam effectiveness drops from that
published, while the railguns don't. I think they are more than powerful
enough without the added complication of beam like rerolls.
Plus scatterguns are very bad news close in too.
Howdy Tim,
The problem that I am having is that all of the "This Weapon is More Powerful
Than That Weapon" issues can all be addressed by tweaking point costs. If a
given weapon is the best at long range, the best at short range and also the
best in the middle range, then it should have a higher point cost. I believe
we all agree there.
> >by factoring the "penetrating damage" into the newfangled RGs' base
<NOD>
> Also don't forget most ships with Railguns will have equivalent of
<I don't think of this as an issue as eventually, there WILL be non-KV
ships mounting RGs. It is even suggested in the books... This can and should
be
point-regulated and not mechanics-regulated.>
> Plus scatterguns are very bad news close in too.
<Ummm, not really a valid argument as SMLs are bad news, Capital Missiles
are bad news and PTs are bad news. The 1-shot nature of the SGs makes a
prolonged fighter/missile engagement turn towards the Hu'man side after
3-4
turns.>
My point is that a single weapon that can destroy a superdreadnought with one
really, really lucky shot is just the kind of randomness that makes a
game for me. That 0-level orc with a short bow taking down the hero or
the
pilot who used to bullseye womp-rats at home dropping a torp down an
exhaust shaft makes for a very memorable battle. Where is the fun in winning a
battle that boiled down to staying in an optimum range band where one's
weapons had the best efficiency? Isn't it better to say in the AAR that there
was one destroyer that got a stinking beam shot through on that carrier and
that it triggered a crucial threshold check with its great damage reroll?
-=Kr'rt
Also, thanks for the probability info...
> "Wasserman, Kurt" wrote:
> Howdy Tim,
It's impossible to disagree with your statement, but one problem with this is
that, IMHO, the points costs for weapons in FT (all flavours) is
disproportionately low. An 'average' ship uses around 20-30% of its mass
for
offensive weaponry, which costs 15-25% of the total ship cost (I've
based these
figures on a not-very-exhaustive survey of the four main powers'
battlecruisers in the FB). If you gave this hypothetical 'average' ship
weapons which were twice as powerful, and charged it twice as many points, it
would only be around
20% more expensive - not, IMHO, enough to make the designer think twice
about fitting the more powerful weapons.
Currently all of the basic weapons in the FB cost exactly the same -
three points per mass taken up. So cost considerations don't really come into
the
design process at all - whatever weapon fit you want in a given mass
will cost the same. This works at the moment because the basic weapon systems
(excluding Nova Cannon, Wave Guns etc) are well balanced and none is
significantly better than any other. If a new basic weapon appeared that WAS
more powerful than the others, and cost a little bit more, I have a nasty
suspicion that it would
unbalance the whole cost / design system.
Because of the way the cost / design system is structured, RG need to be
larger, not necessarily more expensive.
> K'rt wrote:
> Howdy Tim,
To some extent this is true. Latest analysis shows that RG point cost is now
about right.
> If a given weapon is the best at long range, the best
Nod.
<I don't think of this as an issue as eventually, there WILL
> be non-KV ships mounting RGs. It is even suggested in the books...
I agree the proposal should be the former not the latter.
> Plus scatterguns are very bad news close in too.
I was basing the observation on John A's latest play test report where they
felt this was the case and wanted to tone them down.
> The 1-shot nature of the SGs makes a
As you found out in Adler Tag.
> Isn't it better to say in the AAR that
Some players really hate this sort of thing, I'm just reminded of proximity
torps and SFB being outlawed in tournaments as it was thought unskillful.
Though not exactly the same, you could still get lucky:
The probability of a class 3 railgun at extreme range (30)
cascading a captial with 6 damage points is 1/6 * 4/6 or
1 in 8.
The probability of a class 3 beam shot doing say 6 damage
at range 30 is 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 or 1 in 216.
So the railguns are more likely to produce the effects you want. Would you
(the gamer) really want to make then even more likely to produce even more
damage?
> Tim Jones wrote:
> ><Ummm, not really a valid argument as SMLs are bad news,
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Capital Missles can miss or be shot down, SMLs can miss, fail to lock
Maybe I'm wrong but I though a ship can fire only one SG at a time?
[quoted original message omitted]