The list has been too quiet.
I've given some thought to the 'useless' Pulse torpedo. Mark Kochte isn't the
only one who seems to have trouble making
the to-hit rolls for the things. I too have never been
enamoured with them.
A pulse torpedo will generate the following average points of damage:
0-6" 6-12" 12-18" 18-24"
Pulse Torpedo 2.31 1.75 1.16 0.58
By comparison a single submunition pack will do the following:
Submunition Pack 2.00 1.33 0.66 0.00
If you compare the two weapons by a comparable mass basis, where a Mass 5 PT
has the same mass as 5 sub packs, the single turn damage potential for five
sub packs is:
5 x SubPacks 10.00 6.66 3.33 0.00
Given that both weapons have the same one-arc restriction,
the torpedo destroyer is not as good of a purchase than a close assault
destroyer mounting 5 subpacks, and either a C Battery and a PDAF, or two
PDAFs.
A close assault destroyer will have a much better chance to unload the
subpacks against the heavier capital ships and score far more damage than a
comparable torpedo destroyer.
> Given that both weapons have the same one-arc restriction,
In our group we play pulse torpedoes as 4 mass and 12 points. We also make
available a dedicated torpedo fire control which can only direct fire of
dedicated torpedo systems but gives a +1 to hit. This system cost 5
points if replaceing an existing firecon or 15 points and 3 mass if added as
an extra firecon. A line is drawn on the ship diagram indicating which torpedo
systems are under control of this firecon. Those torpedoes may only fire with
the dedicated firecontrol and the dedicated fire control can perform no other
functions.
Later
Brian
Brian
TWIMC,
The entire debate about pulse torpedos/submunitions assumes
that the escort is attacking a slow moving capital ship w/thrust
of three or less. The pulse torpedo is more important against ships that can
'MOVE'. By 'MOVE' I mean thrust five or better ships.
In a current campaign, my thrust five battledreadnought squadron has managed
to elude not less than 30 missiles (in two salvos). I contend that submunition
armed escorts could not have done much better (I.E. close to within six inches
for full effect). Due to the even more limited firing arc.
Let the debate continue, only success can prove anyones claim.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
The majority of capital ships encountered will be the thrust 2 or 3 variety. A
thrust 5 DN with Level 3 screens presents a problem all of its own. I suspect
with the Third edition of the FT rules, such a ship will still be feasible,
but not packing
much in the way of weaponry with the mass-for-thrust rule
changes. Plus the elimination, if I recall, of the level 3 screen protection.
> Jonathan Davis wrote:
Actually I may have to retract that statement, Phil Pournelle
ran a game two months ago. That game may have had portions of the
'FTIII' rules in it. Notable item: A large increase in the size of the major
ships. 80 to 160 mass ships abounded. This I suspect is due to the mass
increase
required for multiple fire arc beam weapons. The increase
in size of ships coupled with the reduction in firepower resulted in the game
having a duration of greater than five (5), count them, five hours.
But then, maybe he was just trying out something new, a personal experiment.
The game was well done, well run, just looonger than expected. (By the way the
Rebellion stomped the Empire.)
Sorry, I have drifted away from the Pulse Torpedo subject. I'll quit while
behind. Bye for now,
Excerpts from FT: 1-Nov-97 Re: FT: Pulse Torpedoes vs.. by John
Leary@sj.bigger.net
> The entire debate about pulse torpedos/submunitions assumes
Hmm... I wouldn't really say that. But it *is* harder to use sub. packs on
faster ships, especialyl since they're one use weapons. I'd tend to be *much*
more careful about shooting 'em, i.e. 'Only fire at enemies that are closer
than 12 inches' or some such.
> The pulse torpedo is more important against ships that can
Um, missiles and pulse torps are two entirely different things. Missiles, as
long as you have a certain minimum speed (which gives you more than 6" spacing
between endpoints if you do a one point turn), as quite easy to evade. When
you can do *two* point turns, they're nearly irrelevent (though still deadly
if you don't even try to evade them).
> I contend that submunition armed escorts could not have done
More limited firing arc? In what way? They've got less range, but then pulse
torps don't exactly have a long range either unless you're really lucky. Both
weapons want to be inside 6"....
> Aaron P Teske wrote:
...Selected parts of reply follow:...JTL
> Um, missiles and pulse torps are two entirely different things.
Aaron, Actually I would be quite happy at 12" with the pulse torp, the chance
to hit is the same and the average damage is slightly
better than the sub pack. (Of course, there is never just one sub-
pack) More than likely the best situation is a combination of both
within a squadron of large DDs. The pulse torps close slightly
slower than the sub-packs and the target gets to choose which type
he will fire upon. The 'more limited range' comment refered to the area
covered by the weapon type, 24 inches of arc vs 18 inches.
Change of subject. I enjoyed your fleet in the first E.A. tourney.
Bye for now,
> At 08:52 PM 11/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
> Jon,
I designed the scenario around the Star Wars universe which has a lot of
monster ships on the side of the Imperials. The biggest flaw in the game was
when the player firing the SMB battery kept dropping sixes (note not
rolling...) that killed an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. Add the fact that
the ISD owner did not move... well you get the idea. This leads me to believe
the roll over idea does not work. This became very apparent from another game
I ran this last weekend.
Hopefully Jon has built in to the ship design/cost system ways to
discourage this. The best way that I can think of is a cost multiplier at the
end. Below is an example (just musings, not anything official).
Cost: Ship Mass 40 Ship Thrust x Mass 160 (4) FTL 10 3x Screen 75 3x A Bat 45
2x PDAF 6
----
336
x Mass Multiplier 40
----
13440 cost
Cost: Ship Mass 18 Ship Thrust x Mass 144 (8) FTL 10 Screen 25 A Bat 15 3x
PDAF 9
----
221
x Mass Multiplier 18
----
3978 cost
Using a system simular to this, you could could buy 3-18 mass ships for
about the same cost as 1-40 mass ship. This gives a closer
representation of actual value of the ships.
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
Message text written by INTERNET:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
" Actually I may have to retract that statement, Phil Pournelle
ran a game two months ago. That game may have had portions of the
'FTIII' rules in it. Notable item: A large increase in the size of the major
ships. 80 to 160 mass ships abounded. This I suspect is due to the mass
increase
required for multiple fire arc beam weapons. The increase
in size of ships coupled with the reduction in firepower resulted in the game
having a duration of greater than five (5), count them, five hours."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
> I designed the scenario around the Star Wars universe which has
You know that a skilled dice player can 'drop' whatever number he feels like
most of the time. Make 'em use a cup to shake the dice up:)
Add the fact
> that the ISD owner did not move... well you get the idea.
That's his problem. ;-) You fight something with SMBs I've found
the old SFB saying "speed is life" applies (most of the time).
Mk
Excerpts from FT: 3-Nov-97 Re: FT: Pulse Torpedoes vs.. by Not - e. to
extremes@sts
> >Add the fact
Heh-heh-heh-hehhh.... <grin>
Of course, I was doing some very *nice* missile placement, though you
did get your act together in the second battle -- at least you got your
battlecruiser out alive that time. ^_^
(Though I also had a rather unpleasant -- for Mark -- beam-equipped cap
ship, and he *was* hindered by some of the arcs his batteries covered.)
> >Add the fact
There was another game I ran recently where the beam ships kinda got zorched
by the SMB ships...kinda happened when the cruiser commander and the destroyer
commander crossed signals...cruisers went port, while the destroyers went
starboard...cross each other's paths...and ended up in range of all 6 SMBs
volleys that were fired from the SMB fleet...it was, needless to say, a
tactical error that cost greatly (1 DD vaporized, 1 CA reduced to a hulk, the
other CA and DD damaged, while they were facing 2 CAs and 2 DDs still)
> (Though I also had a rather unpleasant -- for Mark -- beam-equipped cap
Yeah, yeah, yeah...rub salt in the wounds, why don't'cha.
Mk