[FT] Kra'Vak Changes

> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
<big snip>
> How about if we modify the Hull chart a bit to take various people's

I like it, I did not even think of dropping hull mass, Good job Schoon!! Now,
lets start playing with Kra'vak armour rules..

SA

[B] - it gives more options for an "alien" feel than just adding armour
boxes.

'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".

> -----Original Message-----

First this original message has weird MS type formatting so my reply is
honoring it as its MS too.

    [A]
    2 Points Armor - 1 MASS
POINT COST = 3 per MASS

     Yes

    [B]
    5% mass = Armor 1 (acts as screen-1)
    10% mass = Armor 2 (acts as screen-2)
Cost = mass x 5

     No - reason is the former uses the 'standard' armor mechanic so
would be more FB like and may actually balance KV invunerability. Using the
standard mechanic you get the proper behavior for penetrating shots etc.

> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> Are you more in favor of something like:
Kra'snip>
> 5% mass = Armor 1 (acts as screen-1)

Schoon,

I have been playing around with this type of armour, and a modified hull
damage track, to display the overall general toughness of the Kra'Vak
hulls..To balance out The incressed toughness I was playing around with
modified repair rules.

One question I am having a problem with - should Kra'Vak armour protect
agaist missile, and torpedos? In MT it states that Kra'Vak armour gives
..significant protection agaist both projectile AND energy weapons fire..
should this include missile and torpedos? If yes how?

> At approximately 11/30/98 10:23 PM, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> Are you more in favor of something like:

Not to be a pain but isn't normal armor cost 2 points per mass. Shouldn't the
cost for the KV armor be at least 4 per MASS (I'd prefer a

cost of 5 per as there's additional savings in the hull cost and engines

as well).

> or

Actually I prefer this system. I provides the KV with a different feel in
combat. MASS x 5 feels fairly reasonable as there's no chance of lossing the
armor in a threshold check (or is there... hmmmm) and it also helps against
RGs (better than screens).

Instead of calling it armor can we think of another name that explains it. It
might be a bit confusing to call this stuff armor while there is

human armor running around. Hmm... Maybe "Belt Armor" similar to the way some
WWII BBs (and other's) were made. This would account for the possibility of
sneaking damage through from time to time.

> Kevin Walker <sage@millcomm.com> wrote:

> Instead of calling it armor can we think of another name that explains

How about something like Superdense Superstructure, or Superstructure
Reinforcement, or Composit Reinforcement, or -- umm brain dried up.

> Steven Arrowsmith <arrowjr@usit.net> wrote:

> I have been playing around with this type of armour, and a modified

I'm leaning towards the "screen-like" armor myself because it's
different from human rules, and as Dean so eloquently put it, it fits with my
idea of
how the K'V should be toughness-wise.
"Instead, their ship hulls are built with a much higher degree of structural
armour and integrity than human designs..."

I'm very curious what you were experimenting woth for the repair stuff. Care
to share?

> One question I am having a problem with - should Kra'Vak armour protect

In order... Yes. Yes. These because the additional integrity should help the
K'V cope with almost any kind of damage if we view it as integral to the
entire superstructure.

My initial idea is that for weapons that roll a d6 (unmodified) for damage,
Level 1 Armor should subtract 1 from the roll, and Level 2 Armor should
subtract 2.

No. KV armour shouldn't affect missiles or PT damage. It can be argued that
missiles & PTs simply 'eat' their way through armour and hull alike. With
nuclear or fusion missiles, the extra mass
can 'feul' the reaction whereas PTs could be a mini-fusion
reaction/plasma reaction or matter/antimatter shot (depending on
preferance) that 'eat' any energy directed at them (all that random energy
should overload or bypass any energy defences).

It mostly depends on how you view the actual attack technology.

'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]

> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

> No. KV armour shouldn't affect missiles or PT damage.
Brendan,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but Human Beam batteries are a development or
offshoot of particle accelerators? Regardless of what you call them -
Phaser, lasers, particle project cannons, fusion cannons - they are all
energy weapons designed to eat armour, hull and anything eles that gets in
their way. If Kra'Vak armour acts like energy shields, when hit by Human
beams, whos to say, that they don't also act like nuclear dampers, or have
other special features..

> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

> No. KV armour shouldn't affect missiles or PT damage.
Brendan,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but Human Beam batteries are a development or
offshoot of particle accelerators? Regardless of what you call them -
Phaser, lasers, particle project cannons, fusion cannons - they are all
energy weapons designed to eat armour, hull and anything eles that gets in
their way. If Kra'Vak armour acts like energy shields, when hit by Human
beams, whos to say, that they don't also act like nuclear dampers, or have
other special features..

I wasn't worried about the beam composition, my answer was to whether KV
armour should reduce damage from PT & missiles.   The point I was trying
to make is that KV hulls are strong enough to reduce damage from direct fire
weapons, but not strong enough to assist against proximity detonation due to
the massive energy difference between the weapon types.

'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]

Steven spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Correct me if I am mistaken, but Human Beam batteries are a

Or maybe they have the dreaded "Structural Integrity Field" (a ST PSB field
designed to hold together ships that would otherwise apparently
fly apart... mighty scary engineering - it seems obvious to me why no
engineers at starfleet academy wear iron rings....).

Tom.
> Steven
/************************************************

I am coming late to the discussion, so if the following is repeating or
invalid, please forgive me.

Kra'Vak changes I prefer:

Armor: I would prefer to use the FB armor rules. Perhaps 3 armor points per 2
tons.

Structural Integrety: I would give the Kra'Vak reduced mass, but a higher
cost. Give the KV: Super for 30% mass, Strong for 20% mass, and Average for
10% mass. Alternatly (and less desirable) Give them only 3 damage rows instead
of 4.

Damage Control: Same. I would save extra damage controls for a species that
uses organic ships that regenerate.

Maneuvering: Cinimatic: Same as MT Vector: Give the KV the same amount of
maneuver points as thrust. Allow
them to make an extra turn/push (one before thrust and one after). This
provides the extra maneuverability shown in the original KV.

Railguns: Need fixed, but I am undecided on the best fix. Must have
re-roll penetrating damage.

Scanners/Sensors: When Jon releases advanced sensor rules in FT3
(whenever that will be), give the KV advanced sensors (They must have advanced
sensors/targeting computers to be able to hit a moving target at this
range with a slower than light weapon).

---

> Brian Bell wrote:

> Armor: I would prefer to use the FB armor rules. Perhaps 3

Discussion has moved towards screen like integral armor, problems with FB
armor too many boxes, not different enough, might encourage cheese designs,
people liked MT system.

> Structural Integrety: I would give the Kra'Vak reduced mass,

Thats what we have - slightly differently. Damage rows same.

> Damage Control: Same.

Its the same.

> Maneuvering:

Same

> Vector: Give the KV the same amount of maneuver points as

Adopted.

> Railguns: Need fixed, but I am undecided on the best fix. Must have

In discussion. Not re-roll as such but multiplier.

> Scanners/Sensors:

Nothing decided so far

Looks like were on the same page then, mostly.

Heck, the engineering in ST is insulting to all us engineers.

JimC B.S.E and Forensic Engineer

----Original Message Follows----
From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:05:50 -0500
Subject: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Changes
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

Steven spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Correct me if I am mistaken, but Human Beam batteries are a

Or maybe they have the dreaded "Structural Integrity Field" (a ST PSB field
designed to hold together ships that would otherwise apparently
fly apart... mighty scary engineering - it seems obvious to me why no
engineers at starfleet academy wear iron rings....).

Tom.
> Steven
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/

> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

erm... only if the armour was made of plutonium. to get things to fuse, you
need to crush them from all sides, something which the warhead would not to do
the target. also, elements heavier than iron do not release energy when they
fuse, but rather absorb it, so that wouldn't help.

> whereas PTs could be a mini-fusion

see above comment. plasma is actually a very poor weapon, as, although its
is very hot, it is not very dense and so has a tiny heat capacity - the
plasma would condense to gas and the target would warm up a few millikelvin.

> or matter/antimatter shot

ah, now this is a better idea! the energy released depends on the mass;
antimatter allows your enemy to supply half of that mass, doubling your damage
potential. however, antimatter is going to be tought to make, store and work
with. still, it can safely be handled after the application of enough PSB.
even so, the armour would protect the target; it's not as if the armour was
supplying any mass the target's hull wouldn't anyway. armour is still useful
in this situation.

Tom