> Tim Jones wrote:
Thankyou for pointing that out. I like the original proposal even less as its
now based or 'potential' for velocity change (liveliness) rather than 'actual'
velocity change.
If I were using a thrust/velocity modifier a better one
would be based on actual target velocity change the turn of firing. That truly
reflects the unpredicted displacement of the target. So use the same chart but
base the numbers on thrust expended the turn of firing. I still think its too
complicated.
> This is what I had in mind when talking about fire modes. In Raking
I don't get why Raking fire is less penetrating, it just more damage as it
penetrates a longer axis of the ship.
Tim spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Because, rather than discharging my capacitors once to accelerate one mass and
then wait to charge, etc. for subsequent shots, I've gone to a rapid fire mode
where I still burn the same amount or maybe only
25% more spread across a lot of projectiles - it helps to spread the
damage, prevent overpenetration - but it means that each shot has
actually less accelerational power in it because one is spreading ones power
over more rounds. Or put another way, if I can fire a high rate at maxpower,
why can't I fire an even more powerful single shot with the same energy? So
this is just the converse of that.
> >This is what I had in mind when talking about fire modes. In Raking
> Because, rather than discharging my capacitors once to accelerate one
OK - but what you describe isn't 'Raking'. Raking is firing down
the long axis of the target. This (above) is a variable pulse railgun which is
certainly a viable alternative system, if you (the gamer) want that sort of
thing.
Given a turn may be 20mins or so though, I get the feeling the weapon effects
are an abstraction anyway. With a big fusion power plant a
coil/railgun could probably pump a large amount of projectiles out
in 20 mins at max power/accel. So I don't think the variable pulse
idea is moot to the level of abstraction for the game I want to play YMMV.
Tim spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >Because, rather than discharging my capacitors once to accelerate one
I call this raking or volume mode. Mainly because it would be the mode you go
to at close range when you wanted to rake.
> Given a turn may be 20mins or so though, I get the feeling the weapon
I wished to support two mechanics. One a short range 'rapid fire' mode, and
one a longer range 'hard hitting' mode. That was just one possible PSB. Even
as an abstraction, one can conceive that, whatever your firing window is, you
can choose to throw more projectiles with
less energy, or fewer with more - thus supporting the two mechanics.
PSBs notwithstanding. I just thought it made for interesting tactical options.
> tim jones
In a message dated 11/27/98 8:47:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:
<SNIP>
> I wished to support two mechanics. One a short range 'rapid fire'
> your firing window is, you can choose to throw more projectiles with
Brings up a question though. Given that we all agree to one level or another
that targeting solutions become more problematic for the Kra'Vak as range
increases would it not be better to reverse the modes of fire? In other words,
rapid fire is used at long ranges to cover all the possible interception
points while slower, higher powered shots have more utility up close where the
firing solutions are much simpler.
> > tim jones
re: Raking Fire.
I think adding raking fire rules would be an unnecessary complication.
Aren't re-rolls already a dmaage modifier for a lucky, more damaging
shot? A shot running along the long axis can be just as damaging whether it
comes
from a Railgun =OR= a beam weapon. All this extra-damage can be
attributed to a slug ripping through a cargo bay or Ensign Butterball in
astrogation opening a shutter on one of his telescopes just in time to see a
"really bright light..."
-=Kr'rt