As I see it, the current problem is how to make sure that RG1s are still
effective in an armoured world. The only way I see it can be done is by
allowing the RG1 to score (potentially) more than 1 point of damage. So maybe
we should look as how RGs damage things. I have a couple of alternate
methods that still keep to the single die roll for to-hit and damage.
This also addresses the problem with RG3s and RG4s, which were too
effective IMO. Lets face it - 9 points is an awful lot of damage.
#1 has my vote of those I've listed...
[1]
The to-hit mechanic stays the same, but the score of each die determines
its damage. On any roll to hit at any range, 2s and 3s result in 1 point, 4s
and 5s result in 2 points, and 6s result in 2 points plus a reroll.
Roll 1 2 3 4 5 6
0-6 0 1 1 2 2 2+reroll
6-12 0 0 1 2 2 2+reroll
12-18 0 0 0 2 2 2+reroll
18-24 0 0 0 0 2 2+reroll
24-30 0 0 0 0 0 2+reroll
This gives an average damage at range of:
Range RG1 RG2 RG3
0-6 1.6 3.2 4.8
6-12 1.4 2.8 4.2
12-18 1.2 2.4 3.6
18-24 .8 1.6 2.4
24-30 .4 .8 1.2
OK, now on to something completely different:
[2]
Just switch to no rerolls and give the potential for a little more damage.
Roll 1 2 3 4 5 6
0-6 0 1 1 2 2 3
6-12 0 0 1 2 2 3
12-18 0 0 0 2 2 3
18-24 0 0 0 0 2 3
24-30 0 0 0 0 0 3
This gives an average damage at range of:
Range RG1 RG2 RG3
0-6 1.5 3 4.5
6-12 1.3 2.6 4
12-18 1.1 2.3 3.5
18-24 .8 1.6 2.5
24-30 .5 1 1.5
or...
[3]
This was actually my first idea, and turned out to be my least favorite in the
end. At 2 over the "hit number" you get 2 points, and at 4 over you get
3.
Roll 1 2 3 4 5 6
0-6 0 1 1 2 2 3
6-12 0 0 1 1 2 2
12-18 0 0 0 1 1 2
18-24 0 0 0 0 1 1
24-30 0 0 0 0 0 1
This gives an average damage at range of:
Range RG1 RG2 RG3
0-6 1.5 3 4.5
6-12 1 2 3
12-18 .66 1.3 2
18-24 .33 .66 1
24-30 .16 .33 .5
Comments?
I'm not clear how the systems work against integral armor (IA)
Why not mount 6 class 1's instead of 1 class 3 (same mass and points)? I then
get a much greater average damage,
whatever the mechanic. So probably need to fix mass/cost of RG classes
again.
Nagging doubts.
I looked back at the system Dean proposed, and it has advantages. No multi
shot probability effect, works with KV armor, fixes equivalent RG class
problem, very like MT mechanic.
The only problem is needing two rolls for the hit / damage.
and remembering different range bands (latter is hardly a problem IMO).
Combining hit with damage roll doesn't really work as long range shots 4,5,6
would always cause double damage, which is weirdness we don't want.
Anyway I suggest revisting it, Dean do you have the stats as for the other
system analysis you did?
> Tim wrote:
Yup, I did them up at the same time preparing for this;) They are listed as
dGRs to differentiate them from the prior RG stats I posted. I also added info
for a Class 4 dRG. To refresh memories, this version of the RG
is very close to the MT versions, rolling to-hit like Pulse Torps but
range
bands vary by size (4/6/8/10), for each hit a d6 is rolled for damage
with
1-3 = class level damage and 4-6 2xclass damage (integrated armor
reduces this damage roll by armor level), cost is 5 per mass and class1s have
2 arcs with the others having a single arc.
Ave Dmg Mult 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6
dRG1 1 1.250 1.000 0.750 0.500 0.250 dRG2 2 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 dRG3
3 3.750 3.000 2.250 1.500 0.750 dRG4 4 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 Pulse
Torp 2.917 2.333 1.750 1.167 0.583
Dmg / Mass Mass
dRG1 1 1.250 1.000 0.750 0.500 0.250 dRG2 2 1.250 1.000 0.750 0.500 0.250 dRG3
4 0.938 0.750 0.563 0.375 0.188 dRG4 6 0.833 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 Pulse
Torp 4 0.729 0.583 0.438 0.292 0.146
Dmg / Cost Cost
dRG1 5 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 dRG2 10 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050
dRG3 20 0.188 0.150 0.113 0.075 0.038 dRG4 30 0.167 0.133 0.100 0.067 0.033
Pulse Torp 12 0.243 0.194 0.146 0.097 0.049
Note that these tables are by to-hit value and when comparing the PT to
the RGs with larger range bands a long range shot for the PT would be in a
closer range band for the RG.
When comparing the dRG2 to the PT since they use the same range bands, the
dRG2 has a slightly lower average damage but only takes up half the mass.
Damage to cost ratios on these two end up very close.
The larger RGs (dRG3 and dRG4) have lower damage to cost ratios but I think
their increased ranges make up for it.
In looking at the figures that Matt Seidl posted a while ago on the same
system, he calculated higher masses on the RGs but that was at 3
pts/mass.
At 5 pts/mass the final points costs are very similar.
I could be talked into allowing Class2s to get a 2nd arc for another point of
mass (50% increase) but anything larger should stay a single arc.
Also when reading MT I noticed it stated that all of the RGs fire at the same
velocity and it is the increased size of the projectile that increases damage.
If JT wants to keep this assumption, then my PSB of increased velocities
giving greater range is shot down and something else is needed to make larger
RGs desirable.
> Dean wrote:
Ok the smaller dRG give you more damage than equivalent larger classes but the
trade off is range. However as we find out range may not be acceptable
limiting factor due to PSB.
> I could be talked into allowing Class2s to get a 2nd arc for
Please stop now, its fundamental they remain arc bound as in MT, I can *just*
accept a class 1 having 2 arcs but not a class 2.
> Also when reading MT I noticed it stated that all of the RGs
Yes thats how it should work, as in the machine gun analogy.
> If JT wants to keep this assumption, then my PSB of increased
That was one of the minus points of the dRG. It seems there is no way out at
the moment the alternatives seem to be just as full of holes. Are we looking
for a new PSB or a new RG fix?
Are there any alternative limiting factors.
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> As I see it, the current problem is how to make sure that RG1s are
So
> maybe we should look as how RGs damage things. I have a couple of
<snip> Comments?
> Schoon
Ok, Schoon.. your losing it..;)
Remember Kra'Vak only have one major weapon system - that is the
Railgun..
We need to make them work..Changing the Damage and Mass/Points of the
railgun is not going to fix this problem in my mind.. We need to continue
to work on Kra'Vak armour -vs- railgun ideas..
Hows this - Kra'Vak armour is venerable to railgun projectiles, and
offers no protection agaist them?
If the best weapon the Kra'Vaks can widely field is a Class3 railgun, that
does under 9 points of damage, they will not have the same teeth they did
in MT.. I think we need to compare them to the SML/SMR - same weight and
how many times the damage..
Just my rant..
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Tim Jones wrote:
> Dean wrote:
<snip>
> That was one of the minus points of the dRG. It seems there
Tim, instead of incressing the mass and cost of Railguns by 2, why not used
1.3 or 1.5 times? This would take longer to even out massed class2 vs
Class3's.. Just a thought..
Example:
Class1 Railgun 1 mass 1d6 "to-hit"
Class2 Railgun 1.5 mass 2d6 "to-Hit"
Class3 Railgun 2.5 mass 3d6 "to-hit"
Class4 Railgun 4 mass 4d6 "to-hit"
points = mass x5 or 6
SA
> Ok, Schoon.. your losing it.. ;)
Probably true ;-)
> Remember Kra'Vak only have one major weapon system - that is the
True again.
> Hows this - Kra'Vak armour is venerable to railgun projectiles, and
No. This doesn't really fit in with the Integral Armour concept, which against
my best judgement, I've grown rather fond of.
> If the best weapon the Kra'Vaks can widely field is a Class3 railgun,
OK, we keep the mechanic we came up with and keep working on the armour thing.
> Tim, instead of incressing the mass and cost of Railguns by 2, why not
I'll apologise for this in advance.
NO FRACTIONAL ACCOUNTING!
I feel much better now. Fractions give me bad SFB flashbacks.
Ok, Ok, sorry for the flashbacks - I will burn my SFB books, when I get
home for influenceing me..;)
Now back to the show - We can not use Range or 'to-hit' modifiers, so
that leaves weight, points or damage to even out the classes. But I must point
out just last week (I think) there was a thread on Class4 Beam batteries,
where serval people - wanted to replace them with massed Class2s'.. Or
what about the ship that carried 10+ SMLs' - No matter how good we cover
the rules, someone is going to play with massed weapons, instead of a few
larger ones.
Steven
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Tim, instead of incressing the mass and cost of Railguns by 2, why
> Now back to the show - We can not use Range or 'to-hit'
I'd accept the to-hit mod recently proposed for the sRG against
Iarmor. It is however not the general case against FB armor, so OKish.
Generally the KV won't be firing at each other so we can ignore it.
> where serval people - wanted to replace them with massed Class2s'.. Or
Yep they are. The design goal is to eliminate 'where possible' the advantage
of massed
lower class weapons. Some players like to design solely within the envelope
of the design system (even if unofficial stop-gap until FB2 is
published) to WIN (at any cost).
It can also cause all sorts of religious wars along the lines of 'its cheese'
no 'its the rules', 'bring and battle' etc. so its worth at least trying to
fix it.
The sRG does this by the higher probability on long range shots hitting and
killer damage at close range. This is its main attraction along with the
single roll.
IMO the KV armor thing looks reasonably fixed. And we have the costs sorted
too though they seem to have changed in the turmoil, Schoon?
<Wed 02/12/98 schoon wrote in thread: Kra'Vak Railguns Number-Crunched>
I'd be game for those increases. They would result in:
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 3 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 6 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
<-->
<Fri 04/12/98 schoon wrote in thread: Armour & RG - again>
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 2 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 4 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
<-->
Given that the *higher* mass (1,3,6) were for fixing the
damage / mass / cost problems in thread 'Kra'Vak Railguns
Number-Crunched' we should stick with them?
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tim Jones wrote:
> I'd accept the to-hit mod recently proposed for the sRG against
Sounds good to me..
> IMO the KV armor thing looks reasonably fixed. And we have the costs
Aslong as we balance out the total mass of the ship, when we balance out
the Railguns - I don't see a problem with the higher mass/point cost.
This
means a 70-80 mass thrust 6 Heavy Cruiser - mounting class2 x4, class3
x2, scatterguns x4, and FC x3 for around 300 to 340 points.
[massive snip]
By gum, I think we may actually be making progress here!!
Choice #1 looks better than Choice #2 or #3. Rerolls are too good a mechanic
to not include. It allows for even a small ship to make a big difference.
-=Kr'rt
> ----------