[FT] Railguns

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

Personally, I don't like it -- Railguns are still moew deadly than beam
weapons when they hit, so the old "1 arc per railgun" limit should still
apply.

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:02:24 -0500 (EST), Rick Rutherford writes:

I think I'm in the middle on this. I'd like to see R1 with 3 arcs, R2 with 2
arcs, and R3 with 1 arc.

An R1 doesn't hit that hard. 1.5 average damage after a hit. At best thats
1.25 per shot at point blank range. Beam dice do 0.53 points on
average per die.  So an R1 at < 3(/4/6)" does the same damage as about
2.5 beam dice. Its not THAT nasty.

Some opinions on RailGuns etc...

Rerolls: Adler Tag was played with rerolls allowed. In play, they did not turn
the battle nor did they seem overwhelming. The added chance of getting a
really deep gouge into a ship is sweet but only happened once or twice. I had
one railgun reroll 3 times. Los had one massive shot on his beam weapon that
tore a ship in two. Very Cool. Other than that, the rerolls were not that
earthshaking. How can one logically justify the reroll on a beam weapon and
not on a railgun. A reroll represents particularly nasty and lucky shot.
Seeing it in play in a massive battle did not convince me that it was a bad
idea. (Los, Correct me if I am wrong...)

RailGun Arcs:
I have a hard time justifying anything other than a Railgun-1 having
anything more than 1 firing arc. As a Kra'Vak player, I would LOVE to have 180
or 360 degree weapons but it doesn't make sense. Having to maneuver your ship
tightly to get a shot is enough of a disadvantage. If it ain't broke, don't
fix it.

Beam Vs. Railgun debate/comparison
Comparing the two is an exercise in futility. They can only be compared so far
before you lose track of the argument. What should be looked at is RACIAL
weapons and systems. Take a look here.

KV Hu'mans
------                  ---------------
Railguns Beam Batteries Fighters (Hvy Only) Fighters(All flavors available)
Scatter Guns Point Defense systems Area Defense systems Capital Missiles Salvo
Missiles

Because the missile capability of the Hu'mans is so extra-ordinary,
should something be done to "balance" it? Once again, as solely a Kra'Vak
player, I would LOVE to have Area Defense but I like more the fact that I
DON'T.
 It
makes me play differently than if we had equal technology. If everything is
equal, then the game devolves into ONLy rolling dice. "My fleet has 13 dice of
beams, Admiral Pinafore has 13 dice. We roll. He rolled better..." In the
words of the Monty Python troupe, "Where's the sport in THAT?"

In summation, <G> I think all these "issues" can be resolved by point cost
adjustment. I don't think a fundamental reworking of weapons systems is needed
nor would it be best for the game... We all remember games where there were
sweeping changes from version 1.0 to version 2.0, don't we?

-=Kr'rt

> Rerolls:
[...]
> earthshaking. How can one logically justify the reroll on a beam

Alternatively, one could look at it that a railgun just sends a single chunk
of mass into a ship, whereas a beam weapon may be 'raking' along the ship,
spreading out it's potential damage, and thus the reroll idea.

Not that I'm against railguns having or not having rerolls. Just thought
I'd toss that out there since you kinda asked.  ;-)

(ps: Matt, for the record, I think my turnaround times on msgs is under
10 minutes - woo! :)

Mk

I have to agree - the whole 'flavour' of the Kra'Vak models is that of
fixed, forward firing weapons rather than anything turreted / phased
etc.

Tony

> Rick Rutherford wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> Tony writes:

Ditto. In addition, the Kra'Vak have their turn-on-a-dime
MANEUVERABILITY to make up for lack of extra arcs. Or have y'all forgotten
'bout that?
;^)

Mk

> Wasserman, Kurt wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> RailGun Arcs:
XXX Basically I agree with you. JTL XXX
> Beam Vs. Railgun debate/comparison
XXX Since I am on vacation this week and need some entertainment, I'll start
another argum...discussion about the 'K'. It is a common error to say that the
'K' do not have anything but 'Heavy'
(armored) fighters.   The MT rules no not say anything of the sort.
This quote from page 26, first paragraph, titled 'Kra'Vak fighters' says

it all. "The fighter groups used by the Kra'Vak are basically the same as
thier human fleet counterparts, except that they are always treated as HEAVY
FIGHTERS as per the advanced fighter rules....
     The Kra'Vak fighter arm has the same options as the human.   With
the additional 'freebee' that all fighters are considered as 'Heavy' in
addition
to the primary role.   Yes folks, the days of the Heavy Interceptor,
Heavy
Fast, Heavy attack, Heavy ect have arrived.   (Unless you don't like it,

then a house rule is in order.)   JTL
XXX

> Because the missile capability of the Hu'mans is so extra-ordinary,
will turn out the same as the humans (with slightly different weapons). I like
to play the Kra'Vak because the style is completely different
and quite dangerous.   I like to play against the 'K' for the same
reason! JTL

Bye for now,

> Wasserman, Kurt wrote:

> Some opinions on RailGuns etc...

Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...Actually it makes
sense to allow rerolls though those rerolls are pretty hellacious with a type
2 getting automatically 2 pts damage! But I think they should be allowed.
Whether the RG fires a single projectile or a stream a lucky shot is a lucky
shot.

> RailGun Arcs:

I agree anything alrger than Type 1 should be fixed. It adds flavor.

> [quoted text omitted]

Okay, here's a thought...let's make Railguns completely different. Personally,
I see RGs as being very difficult wepons to hit with at FT distances, but if
they DO hit their target...bad things happen.

To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in inches,
centimeters, or whatever scale you are using) on 3d6. In other words, in order
to hit a ship 12" away, the Kra'vak player must roll 13 or higher on 3d6. A
roll of "3" is always a miss, and a roll of "18" is always a hit.

Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for class 2, 4d6
for class 4, etc.), with no rerolls; half of the damage (rounded down) is
applied to armor, and the rest to the target's hull.

        Option the First: When firing, the to-hit dice (for lack of a
better phrase) are equal to the class of the RG. I.e., a class 2 RG must roll
higher than the range on 2d6, a class 4 must roll higher on 4d6, etc. I don't
think I care for this idea, but it is an option.

        Option the Second: Allow the firer to reroll sixes on his to-hit
dice. This extend the maximum range of RGs to, in theory, infinity and beyond,
but I don't really see a problem with this. After all, in space a shot is
going to travel until it hits something...and the chances of anyone rolling
enough sixes to hit a target on the other side of the table are slim indeed.
The only problem that I can see with this is that it may cause overzealous
players to attempt a shot every single turn, but a stout hammer would remedy
this pretty easily.

Option the Third: If the damage seems to high, allow screens to subtract
one point/level from the damage dice.  I don't see a need for it, but
whatever works for you.

        Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the
KV manuever? I think that they should use the Vector system, with all of their
Thrust points, as the best adaptation from MT. Being able to travel one way
while pointing another can only work to their advantage, after all. Let the
Sa'vasku use the cinematic system.

Anyway, this would give the humans a definate range advantage, but would allow
the Kra'Vak to go through them like a hot knife through butter at close range.
Plus, it is different enough from beam fire to provide a nicely "alien feel",
and it does not require any tables or charts.

        However, I have no idea what point/mass cosst should be,
thankyouverymuch.

I'm going to add in my idea of 'Raking' for rail guns instead of rerolls.
Raking comes from naval battles where the shot hits along the long axis of a
ship and causes terrible damage as it passes through
much more real-estate. Give a RG a reroll if it rakes
its target. 'Raking' would apply if the shot came in through the targets
forward or aft arc.

This would be pseudo *realistic* and logical given its a projectile weapon and
add spice to KV games as they try to maneuver to rake their targets.

Also can someone summarise the current KV stats/systems
after this useful discussion.

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:

good thinking.

> To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in

nice one! this really is different, and quite fun.

> In other words, in

problems that i can see are:
- weapon's effective range is only about 15; beyond this, hit
probability drops too low. this is very, very short compared to beams and
missiles
- weapon's actual range is unlimited - 18 is a hit at any range
- rate at which hitting gets easier falls of at very close range - not
much difference between 5, 4 and 3 inches, and no difference between 1, 2 and
3. not that much fire combat occurs here, of course.

> Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for

i think rerolls should be allowed; they just reflect the chance of a lucky
hit, not some special property of beam weapons.

> Option the First: When firing, the to-hit dice (for lack of a
I
> don't think I care for this idea, but it is an option.

this is nice as it extends the range of larger weapons. larger weapons are
not necessarily firing larger rounds - they could well just be firing
same-size rounds at higher speed. this would justify a greater range, as
longer distancs could be traversed in the same time, and time (due to the
ping-echo lag in firecon radars etc) is the limiting factor in shooting.

> Option the Second: Allow the firer to reroll sixes on his to-hit

i quite like this idea. take out the 18 is auto hit rule, and it balances.

> but I don't really see a problem with this. After all, in space a

or until the universe ends, which may be more likely. space is biig and empty.
what we thought were leonid meteorites are in fact salvoes from an space war
fought by the venusians billions of years ago...

> and the chances of anyone rolling

unless he is aaron teske, i understand.

> The only problem that I can see with this is that it may cause

maybe this would be a reasonable strategy for a fleet with massdrivers: if
your ammo is unlimited (as it might well be if you use small projectiles), you
just keep blasting away. a rule might be introduced to counter this; how about
saying that firing your railgun emits an electromagnetic pulse, and gives away
your identity, much like using active sensors. this would discourage long
shots early in the game if you use sensor rules. i can't
think of anything that works mid-game and which is not too severe.

> Option the Third: If the damage seems to high, allow screens to

sort of goes against what vanilla ft screens are supposed to be, though. of
course, if you use, say, a star trek background, then your screens work
against massdrivers anyway.

> Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the

if using cinematic movement, use the rules in MT: they can use all their
thrust to turn. in vector, what advantage should they have... i don't know
vector well enough to say.

> Anyway, this would give the humans a definate range advantage,

overall, this is a nice system. i haven't looked at the statistics in detail,
but it seems alright. 18 inches as a max range still feels a bit steep,
though. how about making the target number half the range? they can then shoot
to 36" in principle, although it would be very hard. i think
your "number of to-hit dice = railgun class" is a good modification.

> thankyouverymuch.

no, thank you.

Tom

> At 09:09 AM 11/25/98 -0000, you wrote:

Not a bad idea...but what about target aspect? Many ships would be harder to
hit when firing from fore and aft quarters since the target presents a smaller
profile than they do from the broadsides.

> Not a bad idea...but what about target aspect? Many ships

True, but that detail has been abstracted out of the 'raking' proposal. In the
age of sail the range of engagement was close, yes it was still a more
difficult shot unless at *very* close range.

[various snippage throughout]

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:

> To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in

> problems that i can see are:

I agree here. The average range of even a class 3 battery is only 9.5" with
this system. Interesting mechanic, but if it's to work, it needs some sort of
multiplier.

On the other hand, the bell curve result you get from rolling dice in this
manner doesn't really reflect the accuracy of a projectile over range.

> Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for

Without getting into the re-roll part of it, this damage seems a bit
high. A Class 3 weapon will do an average of 9! points to anything it hits.

> Option the Second: Allow the firer to reroll sixes on his to-hit

Better, but range would still be quite limited on the average.

> Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the

This I agree with mostly: limited or restricted arc might be a better
phrase 3/2/1 or 2/1/1 for the various classes would seem right.

Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:

A neat idea.

> nice one! this really is different, and quite fun.

Why not make the number of dice you need to roll vary with size class.
Therefore perhaps a class 1 RG gets 2 dice, a class two gets three dice, and a
class three gets 4 dice. The only hard and fast rule is you need to exceed the
range. That way big RGs have long range (sometimes) and a decent mean range.
Now, the # of dice may be subject to debate, but this would be an interesting
way to give class 4 or 5 RG long range.... but not 'always'. I like the idea!

> problems that i can see are:

Well, if you gave an extra die (4 die) for a class three, the mean range would
be 14", but max would be 24. If you upped that to 5 dice, the mean would be
17.5, and the max would be thirty, and so on.

- 18 is a hit at any range

yeah, if you used the variable dice scheme, then their is no magic hit number.

> - rate at which hitting gets easier falls of at very close range

Well, OTOH, your gain going from moderately long to moderately short range is
pretty good!

 - not
> much difference between 5, 4 and 3 inches, and no difference between

And if 1 on all dice is an automatic miss, if you were using (say) a
five dice railgun, the only way you would miss at 0-6" would be
rolling all ones - pretty unlikely. But then, that close, the railgun
may have shifted to rapid fire mode or something.

> > Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for

> i think rerolls should be allowed; they just reflect the chance of a

I concur. Rerolls should be allowed.

> > Option the First: When firing, the to-hit dice (for lack of a

Sorry.... RTFM.... my aplogies.

> this is nice as it extends the range of larger weapons. larger weapons

Range should always be the limiter.

> > Option the Second: Allow the firer to reroll sixes on his to-hit

I'd let your reroll on damage dice, not firing dice. If you use a
multi-dice railgun based on size class, then this is a bad idea...
(of course, depends on # of dice rolled - with lots of dice, you end
up getting lots of re-rolls).

> > and the chances of anyone rolling

%$##@!!!. And the odds of some of us hitting at 10" with a class 8 railgun
would be pretty low..... (I have clearly been victimized by Indy's Probability
Skew Demon).

> > The only problem that I can see with this is that it may cause

Good rule!

 this would
> discourage long shots early in the game if you use sensor rules. i

How about large (class 4+) RGs can only fire every second round?

> > Option the Third: If the damage seems to high, allow screens to

If the screens protect against explosions (missiles) then they should probably
apply here. If not... not. (I can't recall).

> > Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the

If you use vector, you may want to limit their thrust... otherwise its a
pretty big capability to be able to pivot a class 3 or larger RG on a dime...

> > Anyway, this would give the humans a definate range advantage,

Yep. Or number of dice +1 or whatever. Or # of dice with sixes
rerolled. You want to give them a 'chance' at long range hits, but make them
tough close in.

/************************************************

So, let's see if this works....

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:

I want something different, not just Beam Batteries with a new paint
job....

> To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in

inches,
> centimeters, or whatever scale you are using) on 3d6.

Thank you!

> In other words, in

I am not sure that this is a bad thing. I think that RGs should be balanced
weapons, not just better ones. Giving them LOTS of damage, and

a short effective range, leads to very different tactics than one would emply
with human ships. Whether or not this is a good things depends on

your point of view, of course.

> - weapon's actual range is unlimited - 18 is a hit at any range

Agreed. If we do use the rerolled sixes, than we should drop the "18 always
hits" rule. If not, limit the range to 24", or something. I do like the
potentially unlimited range, though.

> - rate at which hitting gets easier falls of at very close range - not

2
> and 3. not that much fire combat occurs here, of course.

Agreed again, on both counts.  If you have a lot of close-range combat,
this will be a problem. If not...then it won't.

> Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for

class 2,
> 4d6 for class 4, etc.), with no rerolls; half of the damage (rounded

True enough, but I just thought that 3d6 of damage was bad enough as is.

[ka-snip!]
> maybe this would be a reasonable strategy for a fleet with massdrivers:

if
> your ammo is unlimited (as it might well be if you use small

I like the sound of that. I just don't want to have people slowing the game
down by firing all of their RGs, every single turn, when they have no
reasonable chance of hitting anything. I know how some gmaers think...from
bitter experience.

> Option the Third: If the damage seems to high, allow screens to

I see screens as intense magnetic fields anyway, but YMMV. Like I said,

I don't see a real need for it, but it might balance things a bit better. Of
course, why bother with balancing it? The KV are aliens, right?

[ka-snip!]

> overall, this is a nice system. i haven't looked at the statistics in

If I remember correctly, the average 3d6 roll is nine, meaning that the KV
would have 50% chance to hit a target 9" away. Doubling that to 18" would give
them a 50% chance to do LOTS of damage to a target that would

be unlikely to do much in return with its beam weapons. At least at 9",

beam weapons are going to be capable of significant return fire.

Unless I'm rolling, in which case the humans are screwed anyway.

> Tim Jones wrote:

Tim, Actually, a rather interesting idea, I would suggest a minus one on the
'to hit' due to the reduced target aspect. (I always try to give some kind of
'crock' when dealing with damage enhancments.)

Bye for now,

> [various snippage throughout]
with
> this system. Interesting mechanic, but if it's to work, it needs some

It's about half the range of a Class 3 beam battery, and only a little less
than a Class 2. And that's just average range...at 12", it should be much
worse than beams against screened ships. Honestly, 9" seems to be normal
combat range in the games that I've played.

> On the other hand, the bell curve result you get from rolling dice in

I find that simplicity is more appealing than accurate simulation (especially
with my gaming group), but YMMV. The farther away it is, the harder it is to
hit...that works for me.

> Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for

down)
> is applied to armor, and the rest to the target's hull.

Yes, but the KV are supposed to be terrifing opponents. And I think that the
short range would help balance the high damage.

[ka-snip]

> Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the

Honestly, I can see the Class I guns being little more than oversized Machine
Guns. Give them limited turrets, or even full turrets, but anything that's
Class III and up should be one arc only. The KV should use their high
manuverability to compensate.

> Schoon

> John Crimmins wrote:

> To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer

...Vast Snippage... JTL

I consider the concept to be original and innovative. My problem with it is
that the 'K' are being forced into
a short range game.  (I.E. 12 inches/units or less)
The 'K' don't have a problem at 12 or less, in fact if this became general
rule, why bother with the large mass railguns at all. (an overstatement, but a
possibility.)

Bye for now,