I'm looking at the concept of Needle Beams, and can't find my FT rulebook
currently. The FAQ and my memory recalls, Needle Beam damage can't typically
be repaired. The problem I see, is
how this affects non-weapon systems. The FAQ uses the example
of blowing the weapons mount to bits. This I have no problem with.
What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines will be the
most common target of these systems. Not being repairable I can see being a
big problem, if I make a fleet with NB's as it's primary weapon system. So,
I'll open up the floor.
Do people think FC's and Engines should not be targetable by NB's? Much like
Control Systems for FC's their main instrumentation would be internal, with
multiple redundant external
systems? And Engines being too large/armoured to be affected by
the precision strikes?
Or, do people think that the damage from NB's against these systems should be
repairable? Rerouting of the energy conduits for an engine, changing to a
redundant system for Fire Control?
Or a combination of the two? Engines not being destroyable, FC's being
repairable, or vice versa.
Or, do people think NB's should just not be permitted, full stop? Which would
be a shame as I am working on a house set for an Islamic fleet, and figured
maneuverable and precise would be a good thematic concept.
[quoted original message omitted]
Yes. Needle beam damage may not be repaired (in the time frame of a FT
battle).
Yes. Engines and FCS should be legitimate targets for these systems. Engines
already take 2 strikes from a Needle to kill (the 1st one reduces the drive
by 1/2), so you could say that they are already heavily armored. Most
ships have multiple FCS (escorts being an exception), so you could call that
multiple redundant systems. So no exception needs to be made for the primary
targets of Needle Beams.
The Needle Beam is just about at the cost/mass/limitations that it
should be. Not counting the systems it can destroy, it only does 1 point of
damage. It only has a 1 in 6 chance to take out a system. It is limited to 1
arc.
And it is massive/costly for its effectiveness.
It is the only system that gives a group of small ships (FF and below) a
chance agianst larger ships (BC and above). MT missiles did this when they
were only hit by a 6, but now that they are hit by 5-6, they are much
less effective.
The Needle Beam is a _little_ bit over-costed as it stands. But this is
how it should be to keep it a niche weapon. This is one of the reasons that I
am, somewhat, dubious of the Needle variations that have been posted to the
list. If you make this weapon too effective, it will become manditory on ships
to be effective (like the "A" beams and screens in FT 2nd Edition).
The only fleet that I have faced (since FB) with a large number of Needle
Beams was at attack by Laserlight's IF strikeboats. In most situations, they
are not cost effective.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Please forgive the negative tone of this post. I just happen to be saying no
alot here.
From: "Morgan Vening" <morgan@optushome.com.au>
> I'm looking at the concept of Needle Beams....The FAQ uses the example
> What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines
> Do people think FC's and Engines should not be targetable by
No. Your objections are primarily based on PSB - that FireCons and/or
engines are either more distributed or protected on a given ship. There are
any nuber of PSB ways to get around that. The main objection, however, is that
if you take an already weak weapon and weaken it further it becoomes useless
in the game. Needle beams are hard to use effectively at the best of times,
and their primary targets are Drives and Firecons. Take that away and theres
no reason to use them over any other more effective (for the mass and cost)
weapon system. Theres been recent abundant discussion about Needle
variants to correct present weaknesses - see the WotW discussions from
the
last couple weeks for perspectives on long-range and multi-arc Needles.
> Or, do people think that the damage from NB's against these
No. Same reason. This does not make the Needle _quite_ as useless, but
given this rule I'd never even try use them vs. a capital ship (or even a
cruiser) with lots of damage control. Waste of time.
> Or a combination of the two? Engines not being destroyable, FC's
No. This both weakens and adds more complexity to the weapon's rules.
> Or, do people think NB's should just not be permitted, full stop?
No. I (and others, I think) think the Needles need to be brought into the
23rd (almost) century with "advanced" (read Heavy and/or Long Range
and/or
Multi-arc) versions, not weakened furher.
> Which would be a shame as I am working on a house set for an
Take a look at Laserlight's IF fleets and design philosophy. As one who
prefers playing New Israel, I think I would welcome facing a primarily
Needle-armed fleet.
> The Needle Beam is a _little_ bit over-costed as it stands. But this
And if you'd turned and shot at them, those wouldn't have been cost effective
either. They work best by coming up in a blind arc, or by
> Morgan Vening wrote:
> What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines
One of my fleets does use needle beams as their primary weapon (together with
EMP missiles and boarding parties). If needle damage was repairable, the
needles would be about as effective as tossing wet tissue paper at the
opponent and the fleet would only have two primary weapons: EMP missiles and
boarding parties.
> So, I'll open up the floor.
I most definitely do not think this. FCSs and engines should be targetable by
needles.
> Or, do people think that the damage from NB's against these
Definitely not. If you want a redundant FCS, buy it explicitly when you design
the ship.
> Or a combination of the two? Engines not being destroyable, FC's
Not this either, no.
> Or, do people think NB's should just not be permitted, full stop?
Put it like this: I have a design archive with a bit over 1100
human-tech FT/FB ship designs, from about 60 different players. (I
haven't included all of my own designs in this archive, mainly because many of
them are in a state of flux as I use them for playtesting new ideas.)
Of these 1100+ ships, *36* use needle beams.
This suggests that needle beams *as they are* are considered to be
rather underpowered relative to their cost - otherwise they'd be rather
more common. All of your suggestions weaken them further still...
Regards,
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
[snip]
> It is the only system that gives a group of small ships (FF and below)
a
> chance agianst larger ships (BC and above). MT missiles did this when
MT missiles are hit by (FB) PDSs at 4-6. B1s hit them at 5-6.
[needle discussion snipped]
Regards,
> What I see as being the problem is that Fire Controls and Engines
You've hit on the one thing that we've already decided in a thread last week
really creates a reason for the smaller ships. If you swarm a BB or DN with
needle-beam armed ships, you should be able to seriously reduce the
threat by taking out Firecons. The answer? Small ships to protect your bigs
ships from the small ships!
> Do people think FC's and Engines should not be targetable by
FC's and Engines need to be targetable, especially if the rule is to make
sense. Surface features on a ship can be targeted, that would certainly apply
to engines, and I can't imagine that their aren't surface features for the
Firecon systems.
George
Noam said:
> Take a look at Laserlight's IF fleets and design philosophy. As one
Hah! So would I. I'd put some needles on disposable boats on the theory that
it's worth losing a few corvette if I can immobilize your BB, but it's not
something I'd try every time. Islamic Fed relies on
a mix of SMR and beams--the needles are just there to distract the
opponent.
Stealth + needles might be different, but I've never played with
"cloaking" so can't say.
The main reason I designed ash Shaulahs was to give you a reason to take
something other than all capitals. In a 1000 point game, if you
take 2 BB's and I bring 20 ash Shaulahs + a CH to the table, you'll be
hurting; if you bring a BB, a couple of CE and some escorts, you're
pretty safe. Assuming I'm bringing needles, that is--I could have 1
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:32:24 -0500 "Izenberg, Noam"
> <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> writes:
<snip>
> Take a look at Laserlight's IF fleets and design philosophy. As one
Noam, although I am thinking using the Needle Beam primarily for the Nektons
in a Starguard conversion campaign, I think you have hit it pretty much on the
head in two arenas.
1) The best to decide this is for each local group to play it out on the
table. I hope to have some Nekton ships ready (I will use another PSB
for testing in a non-Starguard setting) soon that will reflect the
following:
A) Escort class ships sporting *either* 1 - 4 NB /or/ 1 - 3 "A"
beams (remember this is FT/2nd only that I have
currently) in mixed flotillas of 2:3 ratio of NB to Beam ships.
B) Cruiser class ships in similar mixed flotillas of 1:3, with
the NB ships carrying [5, 6, 7 NB only - 2 Firecons {or} NB A/B
Beam mixes] and the "non-NB" ships packing Beams only
(Max'ed on the "A" type).
C) Capital ships TBD (originally Nektons had no need as a minor power for
other then raiders but I'll need something for testing
scenarios - probably Beam heavy with a small number of
NB's just to maintain the Nekton "flavor" (sometimes described as amphibious
remoras...)
2) IMO standard NB are fine just the way they are, although I can see
some of the alternates [HNB - one arc, and the Needle Beam/"C" Beam with
multiple Arcs (I'd limit them to 180 degrees myself)] as viable. I've been
convinced that [while I don't 'buy' the PSB to prevent
Maneuvering/Life Support hits per se] the danger in 'unrepairable' hits
in life support and 'the Bridge' are unbalancing in game terms. The idea to
find a balance for the weapon to make it 'useful and playable' without
creating an "Uber Weapon" in the game.
I vote for standard, HNB (one arc) and 1-3 arc (In FB terms) NB/light
Beam adjustable weapons as inclusive and bypass the other optional weapons.