I was just reading the skunkworks page, and some comments about the "do we
realy need another weapon that makes a SD better at killing a DD", and the
corkscrew maneuver, and reading HH, gives me a idea. How about a maneuver that
allows a smaller ship to spin on it`s axis, and fire weapons on a target in it
side arc even with both side arc weapons (if the target is in the port fore
arc, and the ship had a weapon in it`s port fore arc, and starboard fore arc,
if it was spinning, it counld fire both weapons at the target). For PSB, we
could say that only smaller ships can do this due to the lower mass to spin in
the first place.
This is a rough idea that I wouldn`t use, but I thought I`d put it foreward to
see what people thought?
In message <000701c11da6$e2754f40$54c2893e@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I was just reading the skunkworks page, and some comments about the
Check out the weapons archive, manoeuvre section: Noam proposes a 'Corkscrew
manoeuvre, as follows:
# Corkscrew [Noam Izenberg] (NIFT-Midbar Skunkworks)
# Like a Roll, but more severe. Cost is 3 thrust. Roll 1 die at end of # turn
to determine final roll status of ship: Odd, ship is rolled, # even, ship is
"upright". A Corkscrew allows Port and Starboard facing
# weapons to fire in _either_ Port or Starboard arcs. To-hit rolls for
# _all_ weapons on 'Corking' ship receive -1. SM's etc. get -1 or -2 to
# #missiles that lock on. 'Corking' ships may accelerate and decelerate #
without penalty, but if the ship turns, it takes 1 beam die damage # (with
rerolls) per 20 Mass per point of turn due to stress.
A bit more complex than your proposal. I'm not sure the 3 thrust cost would
limit it to smaller ships (as burning most of your thrust to get most of your
guns to bear is probably worth it!)
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <000b01c11dbe$9c6f0dc0$57c0893e@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > Check out the weapons archive, manoeuvre section:
One further point, I'd specify that the thrust required for a corkscrew
_must_ count as manoeuvre thrust, which would:
a) limit the manoeuvre to ships with at least Main Drive 6 (or Advanced Drive
3), which would effectively prevent most large ships from using it
(except Kra'Vak and Sa'vas'ku - and given their design philosophies and
weapons tech - it wouldn't help KV, and SV would rarely need it).
b) The likelihood of a ship being able to both corkscrew _and_ turn is
very low, so the 'damage if ship turns and corkscrews' rule could probably be
dropped.
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> One further point, I'd specify that the thrust required for a
I kind of like this idea, but... Looking at FB1, the total number of ships
that could use the roll to any benefit with this restriction are: ESU: None
FSE: San Miguel, Suffren, Milan, Jerez,Ypres (1XC2 on each) NSL: None NAC:
Tacoma, Ticonderoga, Huron, Vandenburg (1XC2 on each)
So it becomes useful for pretty much custom ships only.
I'd rather make the cost 4 Thrust and say ships can't turn while
corckscrewing.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D73389@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
Well, as a counter-argument, it could be considered a pretty extreme
manoeuvre, so only highly manoeuvrable ships could do it. The problem of
making the cost 4 Thrust in total is that there are SDNs that have that much
thrust.
> So it becomes useful for pretty much custom ships only.
> Well, as a counter-argument, it could be considered a pretty extreme
I'll agree that it makes it accessible to things like the ESU BDN, but then
there's something poetic and heroic about a great tub like that doing a
15-20 minute pirouette. It may be challenging from a game POV, but I
think
the no-turn penalty may be reasonable compensation. We could add an
engine
threshold roll at -1 per 50 mas above 50 or 100, depending how harsh you
want to be.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D7338D@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> >> So it becomes useful for pretty much custom ships only.
Well, If you want SDNs doing it, then ok, I was considering limiting it to
more manoeuvrable ships.
So, say, costs 4 thrust, as much as possible of which should be counted as
manoeuvre thrust, which prohibits turns to ships with advanced drives
or MD10+.
Should there still be some form of fire penalty? I think something like
reduced range bands?
I'd make the Engine Threshold as follows: