> Not *my* UN committee! ;-)
Nor mine!
> Do you have any UN designs, I'd be interested in having a look, I
Thanks for the plug!:)
> Under his campaign section - they are a bit different, and he's fitted
The ssd symbol represents the magnetic guides for the kinetic penetrator and
also indicates the fire arc.
In retrospect, having done these designs, i was kind of conforming to the
physical miniatures having what looks to be something that could be described
as a spinal mount. I wouldn't normally do something like that especially using
perceived launch doors to determine how many fighter groups a ship carries.
There are no game mechanics to describe how fighters are launched other than
each fighter bay can launch its group in a single turn. Is this accomplished
from a single rapidly recycling launch tube or does each fighter have its own
door? In game turns, it doesn't really matter. Everyone, including myself
seems to like the UNSC miniature designs but really, any official ssds would
require something new or different in order
that they are not entirely based upon B1-4 's, P-torps and SMLs like FB1
ships. If by design, or by artistic license, the miniatures really do suggest
spinal mount.
The main question is what do they represent? Something like a wave gun? A "big
laser" weapon? A plasma bolt "cannon"?
New weapons need new rules and to hope that my designs could get some kind of
acceptance, i went with something that already exsists and has been playtested
extensively (unlike perhaps the wave gun or nova cannon <shudder!>). I thought
maybe a kinetic enregy rail gun and as such directly
based them on K-guns. Equally, i could have thought plasma bolt
launcher.
K-gun arrived in my brain first.
Experience has taught many of us that thrust 4 ships really are not the best
for single arc weapons (I get the impression that NAC ssds are quite
unpopular) but where Tuffleyverse designs are concerned, doctrine is
important. IMHO i think this is a good thing. If you don't like them then you
don't use them or redesign them. Real world navies have doctrines they tend to
adhere to based upon historical and geographical experience. The Chinese navy
for example is based upon littoral and coastal operations with little
experience of deep water operations. Until about 10 years ago (apologies if i
got this time scale wrong), the US Navy was almost the opposite to this.
Anyway, i digress.
So, while not completely effective, a class 3 rail gun is on average, the
same as a p-torp with regards to damage it can cause. A class 4 rail gun
is more effective. Cost effectivness in terms of mass and points cost is not
addressed here. If the UNSC ships were to have a thrust of 6, then their
single arc effectiveness would increase.
However, what could be done to make a rail gun, something a little different
from a k-gun and not just a copy. Here is my suggestion. Alternate
ammunition types.
-KP (Kinetic Penetrator) are a sheathed kinetic penetrator similar to
how i
imagine K-gun rounds to be, and as such inflict damage in the same way
as
k-guns.
-KPI (Kinetic Penetrator, Incendiary) are a penetrative round designed
to penetrate the hull, vapourising into directed plasma. This could ignite the
very structure of the ship (pyphoric effect) and create significant blast
overpressure capable of blowing out whole hull sections. In game terms, they
would damage equal to rail gun class. Each subsequent turn, the ship will take
two points of damage from the spreading incendiary effect until it is dealt
wth by damage control teams (as in the same way that Sa'Vasku leach pods are
dealt with).
Again, i am not speculating on costs in terms of mass and points. Perhaps the
mass could be increased by 1 to cover the cost of alternate types?
Comments?
Cheers,
> Paul Radford wrote:
> Experience has taught many of us that thrust 4 ships really are not
Not sure about that. They're very unpopular with my group, but others on the
list seem to have other opinions <g>
> but where Tuffleyverse designs are concerned, doctrine is
Doctrine is based on the enemies you expect to fight as well as the locations
you expect to fight in. The FB1 NAC ships are very much
designed to fight ESU capitals - the *old* ESU capitals, ie. thrust-2
monsters with level-2 screens... if your intended target is thrust-2,
thrust-4 is enough to let you aim a single-arc P-torp.
> So, while not completely effective, a class 3 rail gun is on average,
Um... no, a K3 inflicts on average almost 30% more damage than a P-torp
:-/
> -KPI (Kinetic Penetrator, Incendiary) are a penetrative round
Hm. If turns are 20 minutes long - heck, even if they're just 2 minutes
- that's a pretty impressive incendiary effect...
In message <002701c02408$a1abc0e0$037ba8c0@paulradford.innotts.co.uk>
> "Paul Radford" <paulradford@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Not *my* UN committee! ;-)
You're welcome
> >Under his campaign section - they are a bit different, and he's
Well, I was chatting to Jon T. at colours, and he said something very
similar :-)
On this subject, have you seen the UNSC Deep-Range Explorer, the whole
forward hull looks like a giant weapons array!
> The main question is what do they represent? Something like a wave
Hmm.. question to list - has anyone out there done any playtesting on
Wave Guns and Nova Cannon? I know some think they are too powerful, while
others think they are too weak!
On the subject of spinal mounts, I've been thinking about extra-heavy
versions of the Pulse Torpedo (doing 2d6, 3d6 etc. damage, perhapse
longer range brackets) but havn't come to any conclusions yet, - and I'm
sure I've seen a 'Heavy Pulse Torpedo' on the web somewhere, but I
cannot find it now :-(
Also, one of the WWW write-ups of the UNSC mention that the NAC
'aquired' the pulse torp concept from one of their officers tour of duty
with the UNSC :-)
> Experience has taught many of us that thrust 4 ships really are not
The
> Chinese navy for example is based upon littoral and coastal operations
You don't want to know the problems my modular thruster concept is
causing me, but I'll stick with it, for now :-)
> However, what could be done to make a rail gun, something a little
Nasty!
Hmm.. reminds me of the early versions of the Kra'vak K-guns I saw in
the list archives, that had both slug and shotgun modes.
> Again, i am not speculating on costs in terms of mass and points.
Perhaps
> the mass could be increased by 1 to cover the cost of alternate types?
I think thats a good question for the list :-)
> Comments?
Well, I still think the Sol class SDN-X should have some cargo space -
the design I'm working on swaps a fighter bay for a capacity 6 MASS hanger
bay, and uses the cargo bay as either a barracks for ground troops, or a
science bay (depending on mission profile).
> Cheers,
> In message <002701c02408$a1abc0e0$037ba8c0@paulradford.innotts.co.uk>
Well, there's a lot of tradeoffs between superguns and plasma bolts.
In favor of superguns:
- They're not weakened by screens.
- You can't shoot them down.
- They're longer ranged.
In favor of plasma:
- You can actually aim the things in more arcs than the nose of your
ship.
- Although the absolute area that superguns cover is indeed larger
than for plasma, plasma still gives a better cushion for guessing wrong
against a single target due to the larger radius. (Subject to house rules on
whether superguns fire during the "placed weapons" phase or the "direct fire"
phase... this isn't clearly defined anywhere in the rules.)
- You can use any normal screens you have while you fire it. (The
fact that Phalons can't use their vapor shrouds at the same time is a facet of
the shrouds, not the plasma. If you allow any other ships to use plasma,
there's nothing saying they can't use their regular screens.)
- You can use your other weapons while you fire it.
- You can scale up plasma. (Again, subject to house rules on whether
you can mount multiple superguns or whether there are "classes" of superguns
as there are with plasma launchers.)
Huge tradeoffs. My personal opinion is that, in most cases, the ideal ship
to mount a nova cannon is a simple armored, self-propelled gun with
assorted PDS. There are arguments for putting backup weapons on such a ship,
but those arguments generally work better for giving the ship escorts to carry
those weapons. For wave guns, it's a little bit less extreme (since you can't
fire the wave gun every turn anyway) but putting too many weapons on a ship
armed with a wave gun isn't all that sound of a plan either.
I personally think that they're not overpowered, and the limitations they give
you for them (especially if you can't scale them up or allow multiple
superguns on a single ship to fire all at once) are pretty big. Plus, if you
think
_plasma_ is hard to get on a bunch of Kra'Vak flying at fraction-C
speeds
cutting four- to six-point turns, imagine trying to get superguns on
them. (Especially if your house rules treat superguns as "placed weapons".)
Our group uses the super guns during the direct fire phase. It is hard to hit
with the super guns and they are not that effective against large ships. I
have used them effectively to cause my opponent to maneuver, split off ships
from escorts, cause my opponent to maneuver were I wish him to go, and to draw
fire and attention. Plasmas are easier to use. I find the best ship to place
them on is a sort of armored bomb catch or a carrier. The fighters can support
a ship that is otherwise weaponless. I have done some silly things with them
that worked quite well. Like lining cheap Nova cannon ships up in a row and
turning the entire table top into a killing zone. In all they work best as a
surprise or against a slow moving well packed target.
Andy A
[quoted original message omitted]
Charles Stanley Taylor wrote, in reply to Paul Radford:
> Hmm.. question to list - has anyone out there done any playtesting on
<Vorlon>
<buzz jingle chime> "Yes"
</Vorlon>
> On the subject of spinal mounts, I've been thinking about extra-heavy
More damage with the same range bands scales as just over 1:1 - the big
weapon gains a bit from higher repairability when it goes down, but OTOH it
loses a little in flexibility when they start overkilling badly damaged
targets. It depends on what you're fighting, really.
> -KPI (Kinetic Penetrator, Incendiary) are a penetrative round
This >>could ignite the very structure of the ship (pyphoric effect) and
create >>significant blast overpressure capable of blowing out whole hull
>>sections. In game terms, they would damage equal to rail gun class. >>Each
subsequent turn, the ship will take two points of damage from >>the spreading
incendiary effect until it is dealt wth by damage control >>teams (as in the
same way that Sa'Vasku leach pods are dealt with).
> Again, i am not speculating on costs in terms of mass and points.
You may want to tie the damage inflicted on the subsequent turns to the class
of the weapon. K1s firing KPIs would be quite... impressive otherwise, for an
increase of only 1 Mass. At least against enemy
escorts :-/
Regards,
> In message <200009231242.OAA03033@d1o901.telia.com> you wrote:
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote, in reply to Paul Radford:
Good answer :-)
> >On the subject of spinal mounts, I've been thinking about extra-heavy
Hmmm.. also with the equivalent mass in smaller weapons you have _less_
chance of loosing _all_ of your firepower to a threashold check, but a
_greater_ chance of loosing _some_ firepower - I'm beginning to get a
headache!
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip KPI]
> Regards,
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> On the subject of spinal mounts, I've been thinking about
damage, >>>perhapse longer range brackets)
> More damage with the same range bands scales as just over 1:1 - >>the
Yep. *On average* - over a large number of battles - the single big and
the many small weapons lose just as much firepower to a threshold check, but
in a single battle the big weapon is more vulnerable to a few unlucky die
rolls. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on whose dice you use for
the threshold checks <g>
Later,