Technology Rating
0-2 - Unable to use that system.
3 - Systems cost double mass, and double cost per mass ie total cost is
x4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---------
4 - Systems cost triple mass, but normal per-mass cost ie total cost is
x3.
5 - Systems cost double cost, but normal mass, ie total cost is x2.
6 - Systems cost normal mass and normal cost
0 means completely unknown 1 means that the effects are known 2 means that
basic principles are known, usually from examining debris 3 means that some
working devices have been captured or bought, and embedded in special
interfacing harnesses. The amount is limited to what can be acquired.
4 means that inneficient systems can be built that have the same effects 5
means that efficient hardware can be manufactured at great cost 6 means that
the technology is now fully integrated into the mainstream.
As of ~2200 It is recommended that Alien Technology be restricted to level 3
between KraVak, Phalon and Human, Level 5 between Human fleets of different
powers (eg ESU using PTs, NAC using Needles), and 2 otherwise.
--------------------------------------
1. Fighters and Missiles - missiles that home in on targets and fighters
that attack target ships or fighter groups ( ie the target lies within
6"/3"
after movement) are placed next to the target. Their position during the
attack is deemed to be the target's position.
Consequences: This is a change insamuch as fighters now no longer have facing,
and that fighter vs fighter combat always involves a dogfight. Also, all
fighters "escorting" the target ship are coincident, and a dogfight will ensue
if there are any. Finally, the Phalon Plasma Ball will be a sovereign
protection against fighters and missiles -
take 1D6 (+) damage and become immune - if they don't shoot up the
plasma ball.
2. At the time of PDS firing, any ADAF-equipped ship may fire at any
fighter or missile within 6". This means that an ADAF ship effectively
"escorts" all ships within 6".
Consequences: Simplification of ADAF rules. It also means that ADAF ships can
fire at any
non-attacking fighters or missiles within 6", so can effectively be
Anti-Fighter weapons when screening at a distance.
3. Up to 6 fighter groups may attack any one target per turn. [PSB Section:
they get in each other's way, and it doesn't matter much how large the
target is - maybe change this to "up to 1000 mass or part thereof"]
Consequences:
This only affects "all-carrier" fleets. Only in extreme cases will more
than
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 06:59:13PM +1100, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
Lots of stuff, which I'm looking at interestedly. I'm picking holes in some of
it below, but I like many of the ideas...
> Technology Rating
This is probably reasonable. But I continue to dislike mixed-tech on
aesthetic grounds, I'm afraid. (Not to mention the nightmares of making
_anything_ work with S'v tech - how many power points do you need to
energise a class-4 beam?)
> Level 5 between Human fleets of different
Yowch! That's one way of enforcing FB designs, I suppose...
> 1. Fighters and Missiles - missiles that home in on targets and
> Consequences:
As far as I can see from FB1, this is the case anyway.
> and that
Why is this a good thing?
> Also, all fighters
Why is this necessary when we already have screening fighters?
> Finally, the Phalon Plasma Ball will be a sovereign
True, but that's a pretty broad-headed tool.
> 2. At the time of PDS firing, any ADAF-equipped ship may fire at any
I have no problem with this. (Though actually it would fall out of your #1
above...) I think this makes a lot of sense.
> Consequences:
I do miss the ability that ADAFs used to have, of firing at fighters in
free space. Under FB1/FB2, as far as I can see, the only way humans have
of stopping fighters when those fighters aren't attacking is to send more
fighters after them.
> 3. Up to 6 fighter groups may attack any one target per turn. [PSB
Umph. I can see your reasoning, but I really hate this sort of arbitrary
limit. Is there a way to express it which doesn't have the numbers? Some
sort of gradually-increasing risk of collateral damage, like fighter
attacks on missiles...?
Roger Burton-West replied to Alan Brain:
> Technology Rating
This is reasonable IN THE "CANON" GZGVERSE ONLY.
If OTOH you want to fight, say, Renegade Legion battles, you pretty much
*have* to mix tech: long-ranged beam weapons which can fire at both
ships and fighters (Phalon pulsers), missiles which damage all ships in the
target volume (closest match is PBs, though the WotW anti-matter SMRs
would be better still), shields which are active all the time and don't
interfere with your own shooting (human screens), thick armour (Phalon
multi-layered
shells) and huge hyper-velocity mass projectors (Kra'Vak K-guns) - all
used on the same ship. Oh, and all of it powered by something similar to a
SV-style "limited energy available" power plant...
In other backgrounds other tech combinations are "canon", eg. the Nova Cannon
and Waveguns in Anime settings (neither of these two is currently
part of the GZGverse "canon").
> 1. Fighters and Missiles - missiles that home in on targets and
This is IMO a bad idea, particularly from a Phalon point of view - both
due
to their limited-arc point defences and to the reduced value of PBLs for
anti-missile work (see below).
> Consequences:
Correct.
> and that fighter vs fighter combat always involves a dogfight.
It simplifies screening. Whether that is good or bad depends on your point of
view as well as on what other rule changes you implement together with the
above one.
> Also, all fighters "escorting" the target ship are coincident, and a
It is sort-of-necessary because it is so easy to neutralize the
screening fighters in the current system. However, since fighters in a
dogfight can't attack targets outside the dogfight, no units *outside* the
dogfight can
fire at the fighters *in* the dogfight, and starships can't participate in
dogfights under the current rules, Alan's proposal as it currently stands also
means that:
1) one single screening fighter is sufficient to make the screened ship
*completely immune* to enemy fighter attacks for one turn (all attacking
fighters are locked up in a dogfight with the screening fighters and therefore
aren't allowed to attack any target outside the dogfight), and
2) neither the screened ship nor any nearby ADFC units are allowed to use
their PDSs to engage the attacking fighters, because the friendly screening
fighters get in the way.I'm not sure that either of these effects are
intentional.
> Finally, the Phalon Plasma Ball will be a sovereign protection
"Sovereign protection"? Alan - you haven't tried this out on the table
yet, have you...?
With the current rules, it is possible - if you are skilled enough to
know where your ships are going and the enemy doesn't put his missiles right
into that position - to place anti-missile plasma bolts in such a way
that they nail the missiles without harming your own ships. Not entirely
trivial, but quite possible. Even if you aren't skilled enough to know where
your own ships will end up, you're guaranteed to hit those missiles
which were launched before you launched your plasma bolt - though in
this case you *risk* hitting your own ships in the process.
The above proposal means that you *must* - you don't *risk* it, you
*have
to* - hit your own ships with the PB in order to protect them from
missile
attack - and if you don't know where your own ships will end up, you
risk *missing* the missiles as well.
Dunno about you, but I don't consider going from [guaranteed missile
kill +
possible hit on your own ships] to [possible missile kill + possible hit
on your own ships] to be an improvement! Quite the contrary, in fact.
(Side note: You need a CL (or Phalon Dinth-class "DDH", which is for all
intents and purposes a CL) or bigger to be able to do this trick even once
with any degree of safety - and CLs usually can't do it more than once
before they start to take internal damage. DDs and smaller ships generally
find 1D6 damage to be a quite nasty experience, sometimes even lethal.)
Against fighters PBs give very little protection, because the fighters make
their secondary move before they commit to an attack - which means that
they'll just refrain from attacking any target covered by a plasma bolt.
PBs can keep the fighters away for one turn (if you hit your own ships with
the PB) or force them to burn an endurance point to avoid destruction (if
the PB hit the fighters' pre-secondary-move position). Unfortunately
each D6 of damage inflicted on your own ships is roughly equal to one
successful
fighter squadron attack opposed by PDS/Pulsers - so unless there are a
LOT of fighters and only a few of your ships hit by a weak plasma bolt, or the
fighters are in a hurry and *have* to inflict damage NOW, they'll be quite
happy to let you attrit your own ships in this way.
> 2. At the time of PDS firing, any ADAF-equipped ship may fire at any
all
> ships within 6".
Instead of escorting just one ship within 6" per ADFC, which is the current
rule.
> Consequences:
Keep in mind that the FT2 ADAF was pretty big - 3 Mass for a single
anti-fighter shot per turn. In FB terms this is equivalent to giving
each
ADFC the ability to direct ONE PDS in long-range mode - which is
something quite different from Alan's giving a single ADFC the ability to
direct ANY
number of PDSs against ALL unengaged fighter/missile targets within 6".
I agree that something like this makes sense, but IMO this proposal makes ADFC
*way* too powerful for its cost.
> 3. Up to 6 fighter groups may attack any one target per turn. [PSB
Agreed. Also, I somehow find it a bit odd (in the "Y-wing rear gunners
use WW2 targetting techniques" way) that you can't coordinate more than 36
fighters with weapon ranges measuring in tens or hundreds of miles to attack
the same target over a period of several minutes...
Later,
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:35:39PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Granted, but so are the tech rating rules. If I wanted to fight Renegade
Legion battles, I'd be seriously considering re-calculating the points
values anyway, from the point of view of tactical doctrine as well as pure
mechanical effectiveness.
I don't think it would be sensible even to try for a system which would
both let me fight Renegade Legion battles _and_ bring those ships into
the GZGVerse to fight the NAC.
> and that fighter vs fighter combat always involves a dogfight.
I will admit that I'm arguing primarily from aesthetics rather than
balance, here: I'd like to see fighters' long-range attacks relatively
less effective than dogfighting, rather than more or less equal as they
are now, but not non-existent.
> Also, all fighters "escorting" the target ship are coincident, and a
Fair enough.
Given that a fighter group that's taken five losses can still be an effective
screen, would it be reasonable to say that a group can be broken into
"screening elements" (between 1 and 6 individual fighters) which must be
engaged normally? A screen comprising smaller groups would die faster but
could hold off an attack while doing so.
> I do miss the ability that ADAFs used to have, of firing at fighters
I
> agree that something like this makes sense, but IMO this proposal makes
> ADFC *way* too powerful for its cost.
Yes, fair enough; I'm certainly inclined to require individual ADFCs per
fighter group (or missile or whatever) target in exactly the same way that one
requires normal FCs per ship target.
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> Granted, but so are the tech rating rules. If I wanted to fight
I'll agree with that, doing a total conversion of FT for a specific universe
just requires making things internally consistent and not
consistent with the GZGVerse - you can't really rate a Culture GSV in
terms based on an NAC dreadnought (without using scientific notation AND
logarithmic scales).
> Yes, fair enough; I'm certainly inclined to require individual ADFCs
I"m thinking that way myself, but I'd want something able to engage a whole
"stack" of missiles or fighters. But I'm not sure yet of how to handle it in
detail.
> Roger Burton-West wrote:
> >This is reasonable IN THE "CANON" GZGVERSE ONLY.
I don't think the points values really need tweaking (at least I haven't
found any serious imbalances in my RL battles over the past year), but you
do need a limit on how many K-guns a ship can carry - ie., one <g>
However, considering the difference in scales - RL ships are even bigger
than HH ones - the NAC superdreadnoughts *might* qualify as light RL
patrol vessels; the smallest RL destroyers are more than 20 times larger...
> Given that a fighter group that's taken five losses can still be an
I'd prefer to re-write the screening mechanism from scratch :-/
> >Keep in mind that the FT2 ADAF was pretty big - 3 Mass for a single
This sounds a lot more reasonable, yes :-)
Later,