I have just finished reading the shiva option for the third time (only got it
on friday, after all), and was thinking of ways to replicate some of the
systems/weapons used in said book in FT ship designs. I was specifically
reading the book about the "E" class suicide ships, and how to represent their
high dammage potential and ablity to destroy attacking fighters, when I
realised we already had a mechanic for such in the game system in the shape of
the PH plasma bolts. Instead of firing the plasma bolts, we have a system
mounted onboard the ship, that when activated, destroys the ship mounting it,
and causes 1D6 dammage to any object within 6MU. This would not be able to be
intercepted by PDS (unlike the PH PBL`s), due to it being a one shot only
suicide device. I would also make it that the area of effect is 6MU, even
using vector rules (to ensure destruction of fighters). If you do wish to
reduce the area of effect, we can say that it will destroy
fighters within 6MU, and dammage other ships/objects only within 3MU (to
represent the fragility of fighters). Also, I would make this system detonate
if dammaged by enemy fire or needle beams. And there is nothing to
say you couldn`t mount more than one on each ship. Mass/Cost?, unsure,
but I would make it the same as a PH PBL at 4 mass and 20 cost. Before someone
says it`s too powerful, remember it`s a one shot only suicide weapon,
requiring said ship to get very close to it`s target. As such, a firecon would
not be required (after all, the crew would be able to see from the sensors
when to trigger it). As for why a mass of 4 I decided upon, it was because it
would fit in my WARPHAWK pods very nicely (mass of 8, 1 firecon, 1 hull, 1
drive, 1 FTL, and a weapons payload of either 1 SMR, or 2 MT missiles, or 1
suicide charge, and a thrust of only 3). And fitting said weapons to a pod
like I just descibed would also make a good AMBAMP (Anti Mine Balistic
Antimatter Missile Pod), because it would destroy any mine within 6MU of said
pod (same as fighters).
The other thing I`ve been thinking about is the datalink systems. For standard
datalink, the ADFC works okey, but the command datalink would need something
different. Heres my first thoughts on such a system. Command
datalink would consist of a master computer/communication system abord
one
ship (or fort/spacestation), and a slave system aboard 5 other ships
within 6MU of it. This would tie together all the 6 ships (one squadren, for
me anyway) together as on for PDS fire, and allow the PDS to intercept ANY
incoming targets as one target. This would replicate the function of ADFC, but
also allow any wasted PDS rolls to be used against another threat
(EG-3PDS roll 7 kills agaist a fighter squad, the extra kill could be
used against either another fighter squad or incoming SM`s or MT missiles).
Remember this is over the entire squadren of ships. But the ships must be
within 6MU of each other to do this (for the entire squadren, not within 6MU
of the next ship). As a advantage, I would also allow this system to allow a
ship to use the firecons of any ship within the datalink groups to fire it`s
own weapons, even if it`s firecons were destroyed. These would only last as
long as the datalink was operational. If a slave system was destroyed, that
ship is on it`s own, and the rest of the squadren cannot use it`s PDS, and if
the master system was destroyed, the entire system would be destroyed.
Due to the delicate/complicated nature of the computer systems involved,
these systems could not be repaired by DCP`s if destroyed by needle beams or
threshold dammage. To plug another ship (commad or slave) into a net would
require said ship to roll a 6 on a D6, with a +1 for every turn it
attempts to do so (6 on the first turn, 5 on the second, and so on. Meaning
that
restoration of the net is guarateed after 6 turns). Mass/Cost? Unsure,
but thinking of 3 MAss for slave system, and 6 for the master, with a cost of
x6
mass (these are very high tech/expensive computer systems, after all).
Comments/critisisms/ideas anyone?
Haven't read the books, so the following is purely from a gaming point of
view.
Bif Smith schrieb:
> Instead of firing the plasma bolts, we have a
[snip]
> Also, I would make this system detonate if dammaged by enemy
Pretty suicidal, isn't it? I would have it explode if the ship is destroyed.
> And there is nothing to say you couldn`t mount more than one on each
If it destroys the carrying ship when it is activated, why should a ship carry
more than one?
Greetings Karl Heinz
On 5-Mar-02 at 09:39, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
wrote:
> Haven't read the books, so the following is purely from a gaming point
> of view.
> Roger Books Wrote:
> > If it destroys the carrying ship when it is activated, why should a
I'm guessing this means you can synch them to all detonate at the same
instant?
2B^2
> On 5-Mar-02 at 10:33, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:
> instant?
That would be what I would assume he wants. I don't see it as necessary as 1
point kills a fighter.
Personally I don't like the command data link, I think ADFC is more flexible
and useful. It doesn't even "feel" right to me from
> Roger Books wrote:
> That would be what I would assume he wants. I don't see it as
Agreed. Unless the die roll represented a # of fighters killed, in which case
it would make sense, but should be hellamassive & as pricey as bottled water
in Beverly Hills.
> Personally I don't like the command data link, I think ADFC is more
Since I've never even encountered said game, I have nothing to say to that
whatsoever.
Speaking of Hellamassaive, I was doing some thinking about FT in the Star Wars
uni. I tried to do numbers for the Millenium Falcon and realized that at it's
SMALLEST it would need to be a mass 7 (1 hull, 1 for thrust, 1 for FTL, 1 for
cargo, 2 PDS), maybe more to make it a little more survivable.
Given this, how big must a Star Destroyer be? The mind boggles - ha
anyone crunched it out?
2B^2
For the same reason suicide bombers' remains have been found to have had
undetonated grenades (several isolated cases) on them... Backup.
> On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 09:37, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> ship.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
[...]
> Speaking of Hellamassaive, I was doing some thinking about FT in the
Doesn't have to be *that* large, though. Cruiser-sized, maybe upwards of
battleship-sized. Just abstract. You can even make the MF smaller by
abstracting it's weapons system down to 1 PDS (although I'd feel a higher
thrust rating would be warrented, so my MF design would end up being larger
than yours ;-)
Mk
> Indy wrote:
> Doesn't have to be *that* large, though. Cruiser-sized, maybe upwards
Oh, I would definitely do that, I was just giving a bare-bones minimum.
But the SD will still be HUGE, big enough to hold other ships in bay.....
Flak Magnet schrieb:
> > If it destroys the carrying ship when it is activated,
OK, valid as a real-life reason. But in game terms it doesn't make that
much sense, unless you have rules that give it chance of not exploding when
activated.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> At 11:38 AM -0500 3/5/02, Indy wrote:
She had more than a PDS. I'd call it two PDS, a Salvo Missile Launcher system
(Concussion Missile launcher) and a forward arc class 2. Thrust 4 would
require a somewhat sizable craft when you add in some cargo space.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
Yes, there are 2 PDS guns on the ship, but I was saying abstract them
out to 1 gun for space-savings. FT does not and should not be only
modelling each and every individual weapon on a given vessel. It was
meant to be done in an abstract fashion. Otherwise if you do cross-genre
ships, equivalent-sized Superior Wars ships are going to MASSIVELY
outgun a GZG ship (which, if you note, have very little, if any, weapon arrays
visible, lending it easier to abstracting).
I don't know anything about the Concussion Missile launcher, or remember
anything about the Class 2 beam weapon.
In any event, *if* you want to keep it small, you can't model each individual
weapon system; you need to abstract. If you don't [want to abstract, that is],
go nuts. But no room for complaints for how
big the Star Destroyers will get. ;-)
Mk
> Indy wrote:
Otherwise if you do cross-genre
> ships, equivalent-sized Superior Wars ships are going to MASSIVELY
The obvious answer to that is either do not cross-genre, or redesign
Tuffleyverse ships to work in the new 'verse, or, as you have done, abstract
systems (I actually like that to some extent).
> I don't know anything about the Concussion Missile launcher, or
Not sure about the Beam 2, I'd not give it more than a beam 1. The Concussion
Missiles are probabvly more suited to being a sm pack, especially if you
abstract things.
> In any event, *if* you want to keep it small, you can't model each
Not complaining, just marvelling....
2B^2
> At 12:22 PM -0500 3/5/02, Indy wrote:
Hmm, granted. The two systems did give it the all around protection....
> I don't know anything about the Concussion Missile launcher, or
Something of a minimally mentioned thing that Han and Chewie had added. It's
mentioned in specs about the MF and touched on I think in one little blurb in
the Movies.
http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/mf/missile.htm
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
Agreed on these, although I'd rate the CM launcher as a submunition pack
rather than an SML
> and a forward arc class 2
What's this one?
> Thrust 4 would require a somewhat sizable craft when you add in
It's 'the fastest ship in the galaxy', surely thrust-8 is more
appropriate?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Dean Gundberg has done a great job of designing cross-genre ships. He
came out this way a few years ago and paid Noam and I a visit (with
Nick Caldwell, too? or Dave Raynes...argh, I can't remember :-( ) and
we played a fun cross-genre game using Star Trek, B5, Battlestar
Galactica,
and some other genre-specific ships against each other. Quite nicely
balanced. And fun, too boot. I believe he has run the same at GenCon in the
past.
> >In any event, *if* you want to keep it small, you can't model each
Okie-dokie! :-)
Mk
> At 5:42 PM +0000 3/5/02, Tony Francis wrote:
Probably good too..
> > and a forward arc class 2
They show some beams of some sort in ship to ship combat. Class 1's
would imply some anti-fighter role, so perhaps those are better...
> It's 'the fastest ship in the galaxy', surely thrust-8 is more
Fastest at FTL. Not fastest at normal space. The MF had a hard time
out-running those SD's that were chasing it after leaving Bespin.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
[...]
> >I don't know anything about the Concussion Missile launcher, or
Link's not working for me, but I'll take your word on it. :-) Thanks.
Mk
> Indy wrote:
Thanks Indy. Yeah, I do a Sci-Fi Crossover game at GenCon (I have
control sheets up on my webpage). I make sure I state at the beginning of the
game, that these are my impressions of these ships also they are made to be
fun when battling each other. Others may disagree with what I did, but you're
playing in my universe.
FYI, I made the Millenium Falcon smaller, well actually I called it the
Centennial Osprey or Epoch Hawk but it was the same ship ;-)
Super Heavy Fighter - Considered a fighter for targeting purposes,
resolve damage as if it was a heavy fighter (screens) plus 2 points of damage
must be caused to put it out of action. It can fire at fighters twice per
turn, normal beam dice. It carries a single shot missile weapon for attacking
ships, resolve as a torpedo per torpedo fighter rules. Movement is 24" but it
does not get a secondary move. Endurance is unlimited (in game turns)
To compare, my Imperial Star Destroyers are Mass 300 (and the Super Star
Destroyer is 1400 in 7 200 mass sections)
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
> FYI, I made the Millenium Falcon smaller, well actually I called it the
All that makes sense, especially if you want to put a cap on ship sizes.
> To compare, my Imperial Star Destroyers are Mass 300 (and the Super
I'd still be curious to work out some larger ship numbers, probably will. I'd
probably make Turbolasers into Beam 2 or 3 weapons, and regular lasers as beam
1, with House Rules limiting their arcs. I'd also run it in Cinematic, just to
retain the flavor.
2B^2
[quoted original message omitted]
> Roger Books wrote:
> Personally I don't like the command data link, I think ADFC is more
You got that backwards, I'm afraid. Command datalink is in Starfire because
it is in the books - Crusade and Insurrection were written at the same
time
as Starfire 3rd edition/Imperial Starfire, and Weber put a lot of tech
toys into the game which do make good plot engines for the novels but are
either unplayable or horribly unbalanced in the game.
Later,