A idea for a x-ray
laser warhead for a MT missile. The MT missile has a x-ray laser
warhead,
that on reaching attack range, detonates, sending several x-ray laser
beams at the target, in a cone pattern to increase the chances of a hit. When
using them, roll a 1D6 (not sure about having some modifiers for ECM and
such), that is the number of beams on target. Each beam is a K3 (or 2?), and
dammage is done as such.
I posted the above, but nobody said anything. Having given it some thought,
I`ve decided it wouldn`t be as unbalancing as I first thought, if compaired to
SML`s. A SML can do between 6 and 36 DP, the MT laser warhead can do between 3
and 36 DP. The difference comes from the PDS, and the fact the MT missiles are
more vulnerable to interception than SML`s. What I`m asking, is that is there
a number cruncher out there that can compair the
chances/dammage potential of these two missiles against PDS? (please?,
my number crunching stopped at school <G>). I know that I`m not being very
clear here, but what I`m after is compairing the chances of the 2 missile
systems to get through the PDS, and the dammage potential afterwards
(ie- a
SML with 6 missiles, can lose 1 to PDS, and still do 5D6 DP, but a MT laser
missile can either do the dammage, or non vs the PDS).
G'day Bif,
> What I`m asking, is that is there a number
Oerjan is probably enjoying a well earned summer holiday so I'll TRY and
help out Bif.....
Recently Oerjan worked out this table comparing the average damages of SMs and
standard MTMs against upto 6 PDS (where we're looking at total PDS involved,
not PDS per MTM or SM). As Oerjan eloquently explained when we
were discussing the topic, you must consider the case where theres more
than one PDS/MTM to get a true feel for their potential power (through
the stauration of PDS). <I hope I'm doing justice to your explanation Oerjan.>
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 21.00 14.00 7.00
1 9.75 17.50 10.50 3.50
2 7.62 14.00 7.00 1.75
3 5.85 10.50 5.25 0.88
4 4.39 8.75 3.50 0.44
5 3.24 7.00 2.63 0.22
6 2.36 5.25 1.75 0.11
Now for the MTM-K3 version you propose this table would transform into
(assuming I didn't stuff this up!)....
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 15.75 10.50 5.25
1 9.75 13.13 7.88 2.63
2 7.62 10.50 5.25 1.31
3 5.85 7.88 3.94 0.66
4 4.39 6.56 2.63 0.33
5 3.24 5.25 1.97 0.17
6 2.36 3.94 1.31 0.08
And for the MTM-K2 version (hopefully).....
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 14.00 9.33 4.67
1 9.75 11.67 7.00 2.33
2 7.62 9.33 4.67 1.17
3 5.85 7.00 3.50 0.58
4 4.39 5.83 2.33 0.29
5 3.24 4.67 1.75 0.15
6 2.36 3.50 1.17 0.07
So compared against an MTM of 2 mass and cost of 3xmass your
laser-warhead
with individual strength of MK-3 should be about 0.75 as expensive and
you're MK-2 should be about 0.67 times as expensive. The later is easier
to do with in the FB design system... so I'd recommend laser warhead
MTM-MK2
should be mass 2 and cost 2xmass (I think).
Now I'll just sit back and wait for someone to correct me;)
Cheers
G'day
Me stealing Derek's email here to correct myself!!
I forgot to actually multiple my final results by the size of the K-gun
(so did the if less then class double damage adjustment, but not the actual
class value stuff.... ugh!)
The table for an MTM-K3 SHOULD look more like....
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 47.25 31.50 15.75
1 9.75 39.38 23.63 7.88
2 7.62 31.50 15.75 3.94
3 5.85 23.63 11.81 1.98
4 4.39 19.69 7.88 0.99
5 3.24 15.75 5.92 0.50
6 2.36 11.81 3.94 0.25
And the K2 version....
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 28.00 18.67 9.33
1 9.75 23.33 14.00 4.67
2 7.62 18.67 9.33 2.33
3 5.85 14.00 7.00 1.17
4 4.39 11.67 4.67 0.59
5 3.24 9.33 3.51 0.29
6 2.36 7.00 2.33 0.15
So in comparison to the normal MTMs with the table
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 21.00 14.00 7.00
1 9.75 17.50 10.50 3.50
2 7.62 14.00 7.00 1.75
3 5.85 10.50 5.25 0.88
4 4.39 8.75 3.50 0.44
5 3.24 7.00 2.63 0.22
6 2.36 5.25 1.75 0.11
You get the Mk-3 version at 2.25x as expensive and the Mk-2 version at
1.33x as expensive. Thus the k-3 version costs would be best modelled by
something like Mass 3, Cost of massx4.5, which is a bit difficult under
current FB integer costing system - so k-2 version is probably simpler
to go with at mass 2, cost of massx4.
OK hopefully I go closer this time!! Sheesh!
Beth
[quoted original message omitted]
> Beth wrote:
:
> >What I`m asking, is that is there a number
Summer playtest period, which some consider to be a "holiday", began
yesterday :-/ Frantic RL workload in the previous weeks and old friends
suddenly dropping in for the night has caused a log-jam in my mailbox
though :-(
> Recently Oerjan worked out this table comparing the average damages of
> than one PDS/MTM to get a true feel for their potential power (through
You do indeed :-) The updated tables (sent from Derek's account) were
correct too so I won't copy them here; suffice to repeat that the average
damage of the Mk-3 is 2.25x that of the normal MTM and the Mk-2 is 1.33x
of the normal MTM.
However:
> You get the Mk-3 version at 2.25x as expensive and the Mk-2 version at
> current FB integer costing system - so k-2 version is probably simpler
Um, well. You have to look at the *total* cost of the weapon - ie.,
weapon cost plus basic hull structure and engines (refer back to the thread on
weapon design systems). If you multiply the *mass* of the weapon by the
above factors without changing the cost/mass ratio you automatically get
the total cost right (because the engine and hull costs change in
proportion to the weapon Mass), but if you change the mass/cost ratio
you need to calculate the total cost.
The standard "total cost" (thrust-4 standard engines and FTL) for a Mass
2
MTM is 10.6, so the Mk-3 should have a total cost of just under 24 and
the
Mk-2 should have a total cost of just over 14. This gives an Mk-3 at
Mass
2, cost 9-10xMass or Mass 3, cost 5-6xMass while the Mk-2 becomes Mass
2,
cost 5xMass.
However... these masses and costs assume that the standard MTM is itself
balanced against the SMR. At the moment there's, um, quite a few different
opinions on how true that assumption is <g>
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> If I may be so humble, there is definately a inbalance between SM`s
The
> question this raises is that does the greater range of the MT missile
IMHO....
Provided that the MTM is neither greatly inferior nor superior to the SM, and
provided that it's different enough so tactics good vs one aren't neccessarily
the best against the other, then we've got a feasible system.
I would tend to err on the conservative side - that is, that the MTM be
generally, though not always, just slightly inferior to an equal
mass/pts
cost of SMs.
Variation I'm currently (solo)playtesting is:
Speed 18, Endurance 3, Damage 2D6, Homing radius 6"/3", secondary move
6"/3". Homes on closest. The variant with a 6" secondary move in Vector
had
a 100% on-target rate at normal (25-40") ranges :-(. This against a
random
evasive pattern, impossible to predict. OK, I didn't have any Thrust-8
or highers, those would have evaded sometimes. I think this is Derek's
original version. It certainly appears fairly balanced in Cinematic.
This version also has the great benefit of being the simplest - though I
don't like the kludge of having different secondary moves for MTMs. Anyone do
this for fighters in Vector? Sorry, I play exclusively cinematic myself.. I
just found that secondary moves of 12" (6" for MTMs) in Vector removed all the
uncertainty unless in fighter vs fighter setups.
My favourite version based on playtesting so far is the Mk III:
Speed 18, Secondary Move 6", 6/3" Homing on closest target.
Type preselected before the game. Short Range: EMP or 3D6, 1 Endurance Medium
range 2D6, 2 Endurance Long range 1D6, 3 Endurance Mass 2 when from racks, 1
from SML launchers, cost 3 per mass.
The 100% hit in Vector at normal range is balanced by the 1D6 damage -
not a great yield for 2 mass!. It may be a tadge weak in Cinematic, but not
overly so.
> At 09:27 8/07/01 +1000, you wrote:
> Variation I'm currently (solo)playtesting is:
Actually my original version was 9" secondary move and you could pick your
target. I had never thought that halving the secondary move for vector was
required because this isn't done for fighters. So I followed that convention.
G'Day Bif
Just out of interest sake, I'd just like to say that I always assumed that MT
missiles had laser warheads, but following in the spirit of FT (where
one generic system could actually represent many different technologies)
you could say that they could also be a high speed sub-munition or a
fast dash and then impact during the terminal phase by the MT missile itself,
the choice is up to you. Just like the beam batteries, which as John says in
FT can be phasers, lasers or what ever you want:)
Beth,
How do you get an average damage of 15.75 from a single MT missile vs no PDS?
They only get 2 dice of damage, so the MAXIMUM would be 12. Average the
average should be about 7.5 and the mean 7.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> 1.33x as expensive. Thus the k-3 version costs would be best modelled
> BIF wrote:
> > However... these masses and costs assume that the standard MTM is
I know. Some
> Ignoring the dammage potential differences of the 2 missile systems
Take a look at the tables Beth posted again; they compare 1 SMR hitting a
target protected by 1 to 6 PDSs with 1, 2 and 3 MTMs hitting the same target.
The MTMs need to hit the target with just over 2 missiles to "break even"
compared to the SMR (or just under, if the target is very weakly defended).
Because of this the main problem with the MTMs is *not* their vulnerability to
PDSs, but instead that the movement mechanics specified in MT give them far
too low a chance of hitting a target in the first place. If you change
the MTM movement to a fighter-style system, their hit probability
increases massively.
I'm currently playtesting Alan's "simplest" MTM version as well, and so far I
like it (at least for Cinematic; haven't had a chance to try it in Vector
yet). The "variable" version feels a bit too short-ranged though.
Later,
Try the following in vector: Endurance: 6 (original MT missile lasted as long
as fighters)
Move: 36mu (same scale-up as fighters) moving as fighters, but limited
to
+/- 2 clockfaces turn.
Range: 4mu (all arc)
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Variation I'm currently (solo)playtesting is:
Sorry. I read the wrong chart. You did have the correct figures for normal MT
missiles: So in comparison to the normal MTMs with the table
#PDS: 1 SM 3 MTM 2 MTM 1 MTM
0 12.25 21.00 14.00 7.00
1 9.75 17.50 10.50 3.50
2 7.62 14.00 7.00 1.75
3 5.85 10.50 5.25 0.88
4 4.39 8.75 3.50 0.44
5 3.24 7.00 2.63 0.22
6 2.36 5.25 1.75 0.11
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
G'day Brian,
> Try the following in vector:
That's an awful lot!
> Move: 36mu (same scale-up as fighters)
Now is that 36mu all up (so 6 per CEF) or 36 per turn (CEF)?
> Range: 4mu (all arc)
If that's 36 each turn and you have 6 CEF my experience would say that's
way too much. Sorry if I've misinterpreted.
Beth
G'day
> The "variable" version feels a bit too short-ranged though.
We've found the same thing, add an extra CEF to each category and they should
be OK though (just a punt, not tested).
Beth
No you got it right.
When MT Missiles came out they matched fighter endurance and Fast Fighters for
speed.
I have, in this adjustment, kept that balance. For vector, I change the middle
2 point turn for a starting 2 point turn.
In play it may be too much, but in the limited playtests, it has not
proven so. A +/- 2 point turn means that it take 3 turns to turn
arround.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day Brian,
> When MT Missiles came out they matched
Do you play high speed or manuverable ships? We've tried 18" primary +
9"
or 6" secondary move and even then we don't usually have trouble hitting
something. Based on that I just would've thought that 36" was a lot more
than you needed (even accounting for the 2pt turn restriction) -
especially
compared to what an SM/SM-E can do. How do you work actual engagement,
do they have to touch or do they have an engagement envelope?
Cheers
Beth
4mu engagement envelope (probably should be 3mu). No secondary movement. Can
choose target (like old MT missile).
Is destroyed on PDS 5-6 (like Salvo Missile).
We also limit launch to Active Sensor Range (54mu). So no off-board
launches (you don't want to take out that cruiseliner with a broken
transponder by mistake).
Our group does use ships with beefed up with ADFC/PDS nets.
But then again, we never have done a missile swarm either. The most missiles
on the table at a time that I can remember is about 6. Our house rule is
that any ship leaving the table scores 1/2 vp for the opposition. So the
swarm of corvettes with a single missile is usually a loosing proposition.
We usually fly at 15-20 and most ships have at least a MD of 4. We also
do not use markers indicating where the ship will be in the next turn or allow
measurement from opposition ship in the missile/fighter
placement/movement
phases (these makes it too easy for any missile of fighter to be on target
every round). With the 2 point restriction, MT missiles are usually a hit or
miss weapon. Either you guess right the 1st time or you loose the use of the
weapon.
I will concede that they are unbalanced in large numbers (but no more so than
fighters).
I am curious, do you think that Fast Fighters (move 36mu, 2nd move 12mu,
range 6mu) is a bit much also? I know that the mass/cost, damage/mass
and
damage/cost is different. But they do get to make more than one attack.
Missiles are like fighters the more you use, the more effective they are.
Fighter groups seem balanced at about 1 group per 3 friendly ships ( with a
balanced, mixed mass fleet), where no more than 2 groups attack a single
target in a single turn (playtesters can correct this perception if I am wrong
and indicate the correct balance point). In MT, MT missiles seemed balanced at
about 1 per 2 ships (where no more than 2 attacked a given target in a given
turn). My version, above, should meet this same balance point.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
On 10-Jul-01 at 08:42, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
(Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil) wrote:
> Missiles are like fighters the more you use, the more effective they
You would never get anything through in one of our games. The balance point is
way over what you have listed.
> Brian Bell wrote:
> 4mu engagement envelope (probably should be 3mu).
SMs are normally destroyed on PDS rolls of 4-6...?
> I am curious, do you think that Fast Fighters (move 36mu, 2nd move
Which gets to make the largest number of attacks during the battle: 7 MTMs or
1 Fast Fighter squadron? (That's roughly the same total cost on both sides.)
Later,
G'day Brian,
> 4mu engagement envelope (probably should be 3mu).
OK that would cut down the problem a bit, but at the speeds you say you play
I'd be surprised if you didn't have a high hit rate.
> We also limit launch to Active Sensor Range (54mu).
Then why have such large CEF? Do people usually need that much?
> Our group does use ships with beefed up with ADFC/PDS nets.
Most people we've come across do too... the ship books are a little light;)
> The most missiles on the table at a time
So you have no players that tend to play in the FSE mould or do you play
small-moderate sized games (i.e. few cruisers etc)?
> We also do not use markers indicating
Allowing measuring can be a big aid, but I'd still be surprised if the missile
users didn't get their eye in though;)
> I will concede that they are unbalanced
I obviously haven't played your missiles out, but my gut feel would be that
your proposed MTMs may tend to get overwhelming faster than Alan's 18"
version.
> I am curious, do you think that Fast Fighters
Assuming your morale rolls are good. MTMs don't make morale rolls;)
> Missiles are like fighters the more
True, though how and why and when is a bit different in each case.
> Fighter groups seem balanced at about
Do you mean unopposed? And do you mean total ratio (so carrier with 9 groups
say is bringing the fighters for 27 ships)? Either way I wouldn't
have found that ratio of fighters to be overwhelming in our games -
unless maybe if the firing side also had a lot of disposable munitions (PBs or
missiles) and the other side had only few fighters and/or a PDS net
about the same scale as in the ship books.
> where no more than 2 groups attack a single
What sized target are we talking about? I'd rarely through less than two
fighter groups on to a ship cruiser size or above, but that could be just the
way I play (overwhelm and whittle down one at a time, ADFC ships first).
> In MT, MT missiles seemed balanced at
I'm not good at looking at it in such an abstract way, I have a better feel
for numbers in an entire fleet. However, based on the games we've played
where you can have 10s of missiles (SMs/MTMs or a mix) on the board at
once, 1 per 2 ships seems awful low even vs ship books (especially say the NSL
or ESU).
Cheers
Beth