Having just read the preveiws of the shiva option, a couple of freinds and
myself are going to attempt to play the battles (well, some of them, the lot
would take too long) from in death ground. Now, I have most of it worked out
(the bug SD`s I worked out a while ago, and use them as my standard bad
guys), I just have some questions/ideas to run past everyone (to ensure
they`re not too unbalancing).
Comercial drives (as used in bug SD`s)- I was thinking of 7% mass per
thrust, and a 0.5 cost per mass (yes, a half).
Missiles-SML`s for the bugs at the start, ER SML`s later, and MT
missiles as SBM`s, using the MT launcher as given in the WDA, with AM missiles
having double dammage, but will detonate if hit (threshold roll).
Plasma guns-C mode only pulsars (my acid design has about 10 of them,
ouch!)
Force beams-Cl.3 bats (for capts), 2`s for lighter units.
Needle beams-Heavy, long ranged needle beams as given in the WDA, with
multi arc option, but only 1 critical even at close range.
AFHAWK-Use the version given in the WDA
HET lasers (terran only)-See above
Fighters-Standard fighter rules
Standard datalink-Using ADFC rules
Advanced armour-PH armour rules
There is one or two things that I need help on. These I will list below.
COMMAND DATALINK-I was thinking along the lines as the C3 used in
battletech, with each ship in the group using a slave computer (M=1,
C=6?),
and the mother ship a master computer (M=5, C=30?). Can function as a ADFC for
the equipted ships in the group (max of 6). Max range from mother ship is 6
MU(same as ADFC)
Some of my ideas for this are-
For incoming missiles, you roll the total number of missiles to hit, and then
roll PDS against the missiles, counting the incoming missiles as one salvo, so
not wasting any rolls. The number of PDS each ship has allocated to it out of
the group has to be decided before the number of missiles to hit is rolled,
but after you know how many salvo`s are going to hit
(IE-Allows you to allocate the PDS at the last minute against incoming
fire, using the groups entire PDS, as long as they`re within 6MU sphere of the
mother ship).
For offensive fire, this is more difficult, due to the differences in the PDS
of the two games. The offensive advantages work by timing the salvo`s on
target a the same time from different ships, and overloading the PDS of the
target, so allowing more missiles to get through. For FT, my idea is that for
every ship in the group firing on a target, said target has a PDS reduced in
effectiveness to that of a Cl.1 bat in PDS mode. The number of PDS effected is
equal to the number of ships in the group firing (6 ships, 6 PDS as Cl.1
bats). If firing on a command datalink equipted group, this advantage is
nullified.
I know the above sounds complicated, and will require play testing to see how
it works, but the defensive systems FEEL OK, just not sure of the offensive
bit (also, will have to get my coppies of starfire out to see if you get any
advantages for direct fire weapons, don`t think you do, but this is from
memory only).
Forts-Use ship construction rules, with them having a drive of 2% mass
for station keeping only (not thrust).
Gunboats-This I am trying to go along the lines of a heavy/interceptor
fighter that can be targetted by ship to ship weapons, but can carry more
missiles than a fighter (2 fighter missiles, or 1 SML missile each) and has no
endurance (but is slower, 18 MU per turn). If rearming, must be rearmed by a
shutdown ship, and if shutdown ship is hit by weapons fire, takes doubble
dammage. Must be carried on external racks (10 mass for a squadren), and if
hit by enemy fire while onboard their racks, are considered destroyed.
If anybody has any ideas, please feel free to comment or pass along to
myself, PLEASE (IE-Am I on the right lines, or not, in other peoples
opinion)
Hm. Thought I had posted this already, but appearently not :-( Sorry for
the delay.
Coming mainly from the Starfire game direction here:
> Comercial drives (as used in bug SD`s)- I was thinking of 7% mass per
I'd make it 7.5% mass per thrust to make a it little easier to calculate
(7.5% mass per thrust is exactly 1.5x the mass of normal drives), but it
should be OK. Feels a bit odd to make the engines cheaper than the hull
plating though <g>
However... considering that none of these battles are even close to being
cost-balanced (it is all in the victory conditions), you only need to
take the difference between military and commercial drives into account if you
run a campaign where both strategic mobility and production cost are accounted
for.
> Missiles-SML`s for the bugs at the start, ER SML`s later, and MT
The Bugs had CMs (corresponding to ER SMs) with first-generation
anti-matter warheads in the very first battle of IDG; it was the
2nd-generation AM warheads they didn't develop until some way into the
Sarasota campaign.
Standard-range salvo missiles correspond better to the shorter-ranged
missiles (Starfire "Standard Missiles") used by close-range combattants
of all sizes (including virtually all light Allied units).
> Plasma guns-C mode only pulsars (my acid design has about 10 of them,
Yes.
> Force beams-Cl.3 bats (for capts), 2`s for lighter units.
On the Allied side, virtually all units smaller than a BC had pure missile
armaments - there were some heavy cruisers which carried beams, but they
used the same size beams as the capitals.
Virtually no light Bug units used force beams at all - the exception are
the Cataphracts which have a force beam for minesweeping in the game module,
but they don't have it in the novels.
(The reason for this was that the rules for Starfire minefields had been
extensively reworked between the time Weber wrote the draft for the novel
and the time the game module was published - had we retained Weber's
original Cataphract minesweeper design, it would've been completely useless
for the role it was explicitly designed for :-/ )
> Needle beams-Heavy, long ranged needle beams as given in the WDA, with
You mean "Primary beams" (Starfire has Needle beams as well, but they don't
feature in the IDG/TSO battles). The capital primaries carried on the
Augers etc. are long-ranged enough to correspond to FT "Heavy needles",
but
the expendable Cleavers used short-ranged (basic) primary beams instead
(FT
normal needles, or normal needles with multi-arc option).
> HET lasers (terran only)-See above
The Orions used bomb-pumped lasers (derived from those used by the
Thebans in "Crusade", but very much improved esp. regarding safety) which had
similar prestanda to the terran HETs.
> Standard datalink-Using ADFC rules
For defensive fire, yes. For offensive fire, see below.
> Advanced armour-PH armour rules
Both sides had the same armour types though.
> There is one or two things that I need help on. These I will list
> Some of my ideas for this are-
This could work OK.
> For offensive fire, this is more difficult, due to the differences in
Argh. With just about every ship being missile-armed, how do you keep
track
of which ship fired which missile/missile salvo? If a datagroup of six
ships fires (say) six missile salvoes and those salvoes hit one target each,
do the targets still suffer the penalty?
> I know the above sounds complicated, and will require play testing to
You most certainly do. In Starfire, just as in Full Thrust, you normally
fire one unit at a time and records damage as soon as it is inflicted.
Starfire datalink gives the same effect as FT fire-per-squadron, ie. all
ships in the same datagroup fire at the same time.
Normal ("basic") datalink can link up to 3 units, but is very fragile -
it is lost when the *first* hull box (not armour) is crossed out, and cannot
be repaired afterwards. Command (or "capital") datalink can link up to 6
units and is treated as a normal system for threshold checks.
In Starfire point defences can shoot at any fighter within range, but they can
only fire at missiles which attack either the unit mounting the point defence
itself or another unit in the same datagroup. This is quite different from FT,
where a single ADFC can protect *any* friendly unit within 6mu.
> Forts-Use ship construction rules, with them having a drive of 2% mass
Why bother with engines at all?
> Gunboats-This I am trying to go along the lines of a heavy/interceptor
Gunboats generally get slaughtered by an equal number of fighters, so
Heavy/Interceptor doesn't sound all that likely. I'd make them
Heavy/Attack
or just plain Heavy, in either case assuming that the "fighter missile" above
refers to AFHAWK (not sure, it could refer to a torpedo
fighter-style
weapon as well).
> Must be carried on external racks (10 mass for a squadren),
The reason to carry the gunboats on external racks was that they *don't*
take up much internal Mass aboard the mothership...
Good luck with the battles,
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <000201c1406a$9f5148e0$418387d9@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip]
> > >Forts-Use ship construction rules, with them having a drive of 2%
Well, I tend to think that the power requirements for a system are included in
its MASS requirement (except for Sa'Vas'Ku).
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip]
I would disagree. In FT, I think that the power from the Main Drives provides
sufficient power for all the weapon systems. I doubt that each Beam weapon
would have its own generator. But yes the power requirements are abstracted
out. However I would think that on a satelite without a MD that is constantly
running, something would have to
be added (1/2 size MD 1 drive?).
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D470232EB46@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> I would disagree. In FT, I think that the power from the
Well, I didn't think that every system has its own generator, but that the
ships central generator is made big enough to power everything on the ship,
and its MASS is 'hidden' in the MASSes of the systems it powers.
Which is why we don't have to work out power consumption or anything in FT
(except for the Sa'Vas'Ku).
Continuing this, a space station mounting a lot of systems (weapons, sensors,
etc). will have the necessary power to run all those systems.
But of course, it can't move (or even rotate).
Your suggestion of adding a Thrust-0.5 drive should be sufficient for
station keeping, and perhaps rotation?
[quoted original message omitted]
> BIF wrote:
> >>Forts-Use ship construction rules, with them having a drive of 2%
Dunno about other FTers, but in Starfire the station-keeping drives are
included in the hull cost/mass. The powerplants are included in the
cost/size of whatever systems use power, but in FT I'd keep the
Powerplant core system.
> >>Gunboats-This I am trying to go along the lines of a
and has
> >>no endurance (but is slower, 18 MU per turn ). If rearming, must be
OK, that works too (with the fighter torpedoes representing fRAAM).
> We took your sugestion and used them
OK.
> >>Must be carried on external racks (10 mass for a squadren),
Yes, true.
> The one thing we did find
Depends if you fly them as individual units, or as the 4-GB squadrons
like in Starfire (where each *squadron* counts as a single target).
Later,