Ok everyone...after I asked about those extra arcs, I got to thinking
(I know -- very dangerous!). So I threw togather some ideas, and here
they are: I am braced for the commentarys...8D
This is an ascii text file I typed up on my laptop. It has some drawings in
it.
Donald Hosford
Firearcs.txt Variable Firing Arcs Written: March 19,1999
by
Donald Hosford (Email: Hosford.Donald@ACD.net)
Purpose: This is my take on a system to allow players to setup the firearcs of
their weapons any way they like. This is totally unofficial! If you don't like
it, don't use it! If you want to change something, go right ahead. It might
even be fun..:)
(A note...never tell someone that something isn't possible...they will often
prove you wrong the moment you turn your back...8D)
Fire Arc Illustrations Clock Face Circular 12
New System Old System Half Arcs Arc 11 | 1
10, \ | /
,2
\ F / , FQ , FH | C '-\|/-'
FP \ / FS '-, ,-' | 9 ----O----
3
----O---- PQ O SQ ----O---- PH O SH O ,-/|\-,
AP / \ AS ,-' '-, | 8' / | \
'4
/ A \ ' AQ ' AH | 7 | 5
6
Arc Values:
2 per arc 3 per arc 6 per arc 6 per arc 12 per arc
(In increments of 30 degrees.)
Buying a weapon:
1) Add up the "Arc Values".
2) Index the Arc Value, and Weapon on the table. Result is the mass of the
weapon.
Weapon Mass Table (Numbers in ()'s are original values from the Fleet Book.)
Arc Value
Weapon 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class 1 Beam 1 - - - - (1)
Class 1 costs: \Cost 1 /\ Cost 2 /\ Cost 3 /
Class 2 Beam 1 - (2) - - (3)
Class 3 Beam (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10)
Class 4 Beam (8) (10) (12) (14) (16) (18)
Submunitions pack (1) 1 1 1 1 2
Needle Beam (2) - 2 - - 3
Pulse Torpedo (4) (5) (6) 7 8 9
Nova Cannon (20) 25 30 35 40 45
Wave Gun (12) 15 18 21 24 27
Base cost for all weapons is 3 x the weapon's mass. (Note: Class 1 beam
weapons use the row below it to find it's cost.) Inbetween arc values: Weapon
mass: Use next higher mass. Weapon cost: Use next lower mass, x 3, add 1 per
arc value higher.
Example: Class 2 beam, Arc: FP, AP, FQ. Arc value is 7. This puts the weapon 1
spot higher than 2 mass. The next higher mass value is 3. So this is the
weapon's mass. The cost is figured from mass 2 (the next lower mass value),
and add 1. So the cost is 7 points.
Notes:
NO ship may carry NO MORE than 2 weapons with 12 arc value! (Means it can
shoot in any direction).
Reason: The laws of physics state that no two objects may occupy the same
space at the same time. No weapon may fire through the ship it's mounted on
without damaging it. (If a weapon could do this, then logically it couldn't do
any damage to anything else, because the ships would be in one reality, and
the weapon effects in another...) The end result is this: weapons with a 12
arc value can be mounted in only two places...The very highest unobstructed
spot, and the very lowest unobstructed spot. And only one weapon in each of
those places. If the players are using specific ship miniatures to represent
specific ship designs, then the player must be able to point to the spots on
the mini where the weapons are mounted. Note, that this means some ship
designs can't have 12 arc weapons...too many things in the way.
These weapons are exempt from these firearc rules: Salvo Rack, Salvo Launcher,
MT Missle, Point Defence System
Reason: These weapons are either guided missles, or are in small emplacements
scattered all over the ship. In the case of guided missles, they can be let
off any side of the ship. Then they maneuver to their target on their own. The
point defence system, I allways assumed that it was made up of a number of
very small, short ranged
missles/lasers/pellet
launchers/ect (take your pick). And that these were spread evenly
around the ship. When a PDS is hit, it could be said that the control lines to
this network of weapons is damaged or distroyed.
(A note to Jon (GZG): It isn't possible to abuse these arcs by buying all 360
degree weapons...First the weapons would be very large, so a ship couldn't
carry more than a few. And would be radically outgunned by the opposition...
Second, the laws of physics says so...Anyone who insists on using ships with
more than two 360 degree weapons and is using these rules is CHEATING! Enough
said!)
END!
> Donald Hosford wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> NO ship may carry NO MORE than 2 weapons
...snip...JTL
> (A note to Jon (GZG): It isn't possible to abuse these arcs
Anyone who insists on using ships with more than two 360 degree weapons and is
using these rules is CHEATING! Enough said!)
> END!
(Note: I don't really disagree with the concepts presented
in the text. And if I was presented with these ships as an
enemy force... I really don't think I would care.)
CHEAT DESIGN CENTRAL IS ONLINE.
1. I think the correct phrase is: In my view, no ship should be equipped with
more the two 360 arc weapons.
2. You are thinking in two axis mode (yaw and roll), you forgot the pitch
axis.
3. A large number of 360 arc weapons can be mounted on a ship in a line (think
star destroyer bottom), and all have 360
arc coverage. The secret is to do pitch corrections to
uncover the required arcs for fire. These corrections
are (in the scale of FT/MT/FB) so small that thrust (points)
would not be required to make them.
CDC is offline.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> (Note: I don't really disagree with the concepts presented
The Variable Firearcs rules should be seriously playtested, more than the few
weapons mounts I have messed with. I would appreciate any feedback.
> CHEAT DESIGN CENTRAL IS ONLINE.
I stand corrected...Sorry! I retract the last sentence.
(NOTE TO SELF: Reread EVERY email I write!)
> 2. You are thinking in two axis mode (yaw and roll),
> 3. A large number of 360 arc weapons can be mounted on a ship
Oy! I am so used to dealing with 2d movement systems, that I didn't even
consider these pitch maneuvers. I have been timid towards 3d systems because
of the extra dimension of complexity required. (I hope this explains my mental
block...)
Concerning these "pitch maneuvers"...I take it that so long as you are just
"rocking" the ship, no maneuver points are required. Does the "Roll maneuver"
given in the fleet book cover a ship flipping end for end? This would let a
ship turn around faster...instead of course changing to turn around...could
this open up a new avenue for abuse?
Thanks for your enlightenment. I am not above apologizing/admiting I
made a mistake. I like this list, and the FT game too much to let anything
ride...
(Who am I...I am a social barbarian! So mistakes are a natural state of
mind....I think.)
Ok! Lets try that again...THIS time with any commetary on my part...
Sorry for the first one! Please ignore it...
Donald Hosford
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Firearcs.txt Variable Firing Arcs Written: March 19,1999
by
Donald Hosford (Email: Hosford.Donald@ACD.net)
Purpose: This is my take on a system to allow players to setup the firearcs of
their weapons any way they like. This is totally unofficial! If you don't like
it, don't use it! If you want to change something, go right ahead. It might
even be fun..:)
(A note...never tell someone that something isn't possible...they will often
prove you wrong the moment you turn your back...8D)
Fire Arc Illustrations Clock Face Circular 12
New System Old System Half Arcs Arc 11 | 1
10, \ | /
,2
\ F / , FQ , FH | C '-\|/-'
FP \ / FS '-, ,-' | 9 ----O----
3
----O---- PQ O SQ ----O---- PH O SH O ,-/|\-,
AP / \ AS ,-' '-, | 8' / | \
'4
/ A \ ' AQ ' AH | 7 | 5
6
Arc Values:
2 per arc 3 per arc 6 per arc 6 per arc 12 per arc
(In increments of 30 degrees.)
Buying a weapon:
1) Add up the "Arc Values".
2) Index the Arc Value, and Weapon on the table. Result is the mass of the
weapon.
Weapon Mass Table (Numbers in ()'s are original values from the Fleet Book.)
Arc Value
Weapon 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class 1 Beam 1 - - - - (1)
Class 1 costs: \Cost 1 /\ Cost 2 /\ Cost 3 /
Class 2 Beam 1 - (2) - - (3)
Class 3 Beam (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10)
Class 4 Beam (8) (10) (12) (14) (16) (18)
Submunitions pack (1) 1 1 1 1 2
Needle Beam (2) - 2 - - 3
Pulse Torpedo (4) (5) (6) 7 8 9
Nova Cannon (20) 25 30 35 40 45
Wave Gun (12) 15 18 21 24 27
Base cost for all weapons is 3 x the weapon's mass. (Note: Class 1 beam
weapons use the row below it to find it's cost.) Inbetween arc values: Weapon
mass: Use next higher mass. Weapon cost: Use next lower mass, x 3, add 1 per
arc value higher.
Example: Class 2 beam, Arc: FP, AP, FQ. Arc value is 7. This puts the weapon 1
spot higher than 2 mass. The next higher mass value is 3. So this is the
weapon's mass. The cost is figured from mass 2 (the next lower mass value),
and add 1. So the cost is 7 points.
Notes: These weapons are exempt from these firearc rules: Salvo Rack, Salvo
Launcher, MT Missle, Point Defence System
Reason: These weapons are either guided missles, or are in small emplacements
scattered all over the ship. In the case of guided missles, they can be let
off any side of the ship. Then they maneuver to their target on their own. The
point defence system, I allways assumed that it was made up of a number of
very small, short ranged
missles/lasers/pellet
launchers/ect (take your pick). And that these were spread evenly
around the ship. When a PDS is hit, it could be said that the control lines to
this network of weapons is damaged or distroyed.
(A note to Jon (GZG): It isn't possible to abuse these arcs by buying all 360
degree weapons...First the weapons would be very large, so a ship couldn't
carry more than a few. And would be radically outgunned by the
opposition...(Personally, I would take one of those ships with the narrower
arcs. It could carry about twice the weaponary.)
On a related note, is it acceptable to specify arcs as being
non-adjacent? Eg a Class 2 Beam which has F/FS/A arc. It's not
difficult to rationalize ("No, can't shoot through that arc, the radar dish is
there"), and I don't have any desire to design something that way, but is it
legal?
> Donald Hosford wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> I stand corrected...Sorry! I retract the last sentence.
XXX
Please remain seated. JTL
XXX
...Snip...JTL
> Concerning these "pitch maneuvers"...I take it that so long as you are
This
> would let a ship turn around faster...instead of course changing to
XXX Caution, Pun zone ahead!
To rock, you gotta roll! JTL
The Roll maneuver in the rules allows you to exchange
the right and left side of the ship. I.E. you turn
the SSD over to see the new weapon arcs.
The actual 'end for end' rotation can be accomplished in the yaw or pitch axis
with the application of the thrust as specified by the rules.
The pitch/yaw required for the firing of weapons 'in a line'
could be on the order of a few degrees of pitch, yaw or pitch and yaw. Since
the lowest recordable value of change of angle is 30 degrees (15 if you round
up) any change of 7 or less degrees would not be recordable, but would open
the target up for fire from the 'in line' weapons. JTL XXX
> Thanks for your enlightenment. I am not above apologizing/admiting I
XXX You made no error, this level of accuracy is lost
in the scale of the game. (But the nitpickers can eat one alive
if these SMALL things are not considered.) :-) JTL
XXX
> (Who am I...I am a social barbarian!
XXX
If you insist. :-) JTL
XXX So mistakes are a natural state of
> mind....I think.)
XXX This is only a natural orderly fuctioning of the laws of Chaos. JTL XXX
> Donald Hosford
Bye for now,
Laserlight wrote (in a formatted post :-( ):
> On a related note, is it acceptable to specify arcs as being
Not legal under the published rules (FT p.9, not changed by FB).
Given John's recent pitch/yaw description, the radar dish has to be
very large to make it work, too :-/
Regards,
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Concerning these "pitch maneuvers"...I take it that so long as you
No. Flipping the ship end for end is covered by expending 1 maneuver thrust
point for turning 180 degrees in the Vector system, but isn't possible in the
Cinematic system under the current rules.
Regards,
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
CHEAT DESIGN AUXILIARRY UNIT ACTIVE...
> 2. You are thinking in two axis mode (yaw and roll),
it is possible to imagine a design where you had a tower of all-round
turrets, each stacked on another, like a wedding cake.
alternatively, think of a stack of discs, like a Tower of Hanoi, with a gun
mount which can go round each terrace:
|---| #
|-----------| #
|-------------------| #
|---------------------------|
where a # is a gun platform. all these guns have 360 fire arcs. this may look
daft, but if the mount is just a reflector for a beam generator buried inside
the hull, it's practical.
> CDC is offline.
CDAU GOING INTO ACCESS STANDBY...
Tom
> |---| #
several wet navy ships had these only 2 tall with smaller guns in the top
turret it was a bit unweildy and with the advent of the big gun dreadnought
not very useful any more but it was done
Donald Hosford wrote in a HTML-ized post:
> This is an ascii text file I typed up on my laptop. It has some
Hm... HTML =|= ASCII. Fortunately the text appeared in my reply, but
when I looked at your post directly it showed 18 kB of pure emptiness.
The second attempt was only 15 kB of pure emptiness :-/
[badly scrambled ASCII graphics snipped]
> Buying a weapon:
1) Add up the "Arc Values".
2) Index the Arc Value, and Weapon on the table. Result is the mass of the
weapon.
Weapon Mass Table (Numbers in ()'s are original values from the Fleet Book.)
Arc Value
Weapon 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
> Class 2 Beam 1 - (2) - - (3)>>
Balance problem here. Single-arc (60-degree) Class-2 batteries are
*very* good if they only cost 1 Mass in my experience :-( (I have
several models with medium-sized guns in fixed-forward mountings, so
I've tried reduced-Mass Class-2s quite a bit. I wouldn't go below Mass
1.333 for a single-arc Class-2 - 1.5 seems to play OK for a 120-degree
broadside arc... but both of these require Mass fractions, and I don't want
that at all.)
> Class 3 Beam (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10)>>
A 6-arc Class-3 beam is 9 Mass in FB1, not 10.
> Submunitions pack (1) 1 1 1 1 2>>
No way. In this way a 5-arc sub-pack (which is very nearly identical to
a 6-arc sub-pack in capabilities, except when you don't maneuver) costs
exactly as much as a 1-arc sub-pack (which is quite a bit harder to hit
with). Balanced, you say?
> Needle Beam (2) - 2 - - 3>>
Same comment as for sub-packs.
> Nova Cannon (20) 25 30 35 40 45>>
The NC is a supposed to be a spinal mount. 'Course, I suppose you *could*
mount the keel of your ship in a turret if you really want
to...
> NO ship may carry NO MORE than 2 weapons with 12 arc value! >>
and
> (A note...never tell someone that something isn't possible...they
Which John Leary promptly did <G>
> [quoted text omitted]
(A note to Jon (GZG): It isn't possible to abuse these arcs by buying all 360
degree weapons...First the weapons would be very large, so a ship couldn't
carry more than a few.
> [quoted text omitted]
It is of course quite legal to build all-360-degree-weapon designs
using the FB1 design system. The official NAC carrier designs are examples of
this.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote in a HTML-ized post:
Display it useing a non-variable font. I use a Dos word processor, it
makes doing tables and forms easy.
I haven't yet figured out html tables.
> [badly scrambled ASCII graphics snipped]
The only other way to balance this, is to entirely redo the weapon
tables....Another major change...Oy! I could change the class2 beam 2 arc
value mass to 2, and assume that the mass of the aiming gear is trivial below
a certain size.
> >>Class 3 Beam (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10)>>
Oops. Thanks for spotting that.
> >>Submunitions pack (1) 1 1 1 1 2>>
costs
> exactly as much as a 1-arc sub-pack (which is quite a bit harder to
Balanced? (hehehehe...sorry for the laughter) The table needs adjustment. What
I assumed when I wrote it:
Any weapon may be mounted on an aiming mechanizium. There are three basic ways
to aim a weapon:
A) Fixed-mount (aim the ship) Great for anything that is
maneuverable enough, or for weapons that require a huge amount of the ship's
mass. (Deathstar superlaser is one example. Fighter weapons are another.)
B) Turreted-mount (Slap the weapon on a "Turntable") This mounts
the entire weapon above the hull. This means that the bigger the weapon, the
better it is protected, the larger and more powerfull the aiming mechanizium
must be. (think ww2 battleship weapons)
C) Nozzle-mount (put the generator below the hull, and place the
beam emitter in a small turret) Only the beam emitter would actually stick up
above the hull. Great for energy beam weapons, missle launchers, ect. The
means the turret gear is very small.
> >>Needle Beam (2) - 2 - - 3>>
Please note: The system has recieved Very little Playtest... How much can one
person playtest something and still recieve some good data? Or get board?:)
This is why I submitted it here...The more minds are concidering it, the
better the resulting rules...
Thanks for the comments.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >>
I didn't say it was illegal, just more difficult. The ships with narrower arcs
would have smaller weapons, thus they could carry more weapons. Thus more
damage. And haveing to maneuver to bring the weapons to bear, something I am
willing to put up with.
Jon (GZG) said somewhere that he did the arcs the way he did was to reduce 360
degree battleship abuse. The weapons getting bigger with each additional arc
solves this nicely. That battleship could mount all of it's weapons as 360
degrees, but it's opponents could carry about 2.5 times more weapons.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> > Arc Value
You'd need to multiply all Masses (including those for hull integrity boxes
and armour) by at least 3, preferrably 6 or more, to get the
necessary detail. That'd allow you to fine-tune the other weapons a
little better as well.
But for simplicity's sake I'd agree with the "negligible turret mass
for fewer than 3 arcs" explanation :-/
> > >>Submunitions pack (1) 1 1 1 1 2>>
costs
> > exactly as much as a 1-arc sub-pack (which is quite a bit harder to
> Any weapon may be mounted on an aiming mechanizium.
Yep. So how do you nozzle-mount small, comparatively badly-guided
missile packs (aka sub-munition packs)?
> Please note: The system has recieved Very little Playtest... How
Depends entirely on how long you've been playing, and how much
modifying you've done during that time :-/
Regards,
Donald Hosford wrote in reply to me:
> > It is of course quite legal to build all-360-degree-weapon designs
> I didn't say it was illegal, just more difficult.
You are quite correct that you didn't use the word "illegal" explicitly.
You merely very emphatically disallowed mounting more than 2 360-degree
weapons on a ship, calling it both physically impossible and "cheating"
- the latter in capital letters for extra emphasis. That's pretty close
to declaring it illegal IMO...
Fortunately you seem to have changed your mind since then ^_^
Regards,
Then again it's not physically impossible to have more than
two 360 degree turrets in a pseudo-2D world, you just
stack them on top of each other. You end up with a ship that looks like a pile
of checkers, but each would be able to fire all around, but only the end two
would get to fire directly up or down.
Even if a pile of checkers is not to your aesthetic liking, just look at
modern tanks which can have two 360 degree weapons
-a main gun and a commander's cupola. In space, you get
to use the entire bottom side of the ship for twice the number of turrets.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote in reply to me:
I retract the last sentence. The rest of it should mean that it was more
difficult to abuse the system this way....the last sentance about cheating
shouldn't have been there. I must remember to re-read my email before I
punch send...
> Fortunately you seem to have changed your mind since then ^_^
Ohyes! I just reinstalled from my backup. 8D
> Regards,
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Then again it's not physically impossible to have more than
It could make an interesting looking fleet.
> Even if a pile of checkers is not to your aesthetic liking, just
I always wondered why "starblazers" ships didn't make any use of the bottom of
the ship. (except for a bridge).
> At 02:58 PM 3/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
Or, take... um... I think it was the ships in Piers Anthony's Space Tyrant
series, that were spheres with rotating belts? Something like that, anyway.
Or try this reasoning for allowing many 360 degree weapons: they're not all
the same gun. Personally, I'll abstract a fair number of weapons out,
especially if I'm trying to make a design based on a miniature. As in, "these
two weapons on opposite sides of the bridge structure I'll count as one 360
degree weapon." Sure, you lose a bit of flexability, but so what? If you want
to, you can... that's the wonder of the system.
Besides, I can't get the image of a Gunstar-like ship where each gunner
has a set of weapons available, and just spin 'round and 'roudn and 'round
shooting at whatever's in their field of view at the time. ^_^ I guess
that's not loads of 6-arc weapons, but close enough.... (Now who
knows/remembers what a Gunstar is? ^_^; )
Later,
> At 06:56 PM 3/22/99 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
Check again, Oerjan. The rolling maneuver seems explicitly designed
*for*
the cinematic system, since that's the example that Jon uses.
Later,
> At 4:35 PM -0800 3/22/99, Aaron Teske wrote:
Mr. Teske is making a classical reference. The science-fiction
equivalent of the apocrypha: The Last Starfighter.
The Teske Field Incarnate wondered:
> that's not loads of 6-arc weapons, but close enough.... (Now who
"You mean, counting us?" "...Okay, yeah, counting us."
"One!"
> Aaron wrote:
> >No. Flipping the ship end for end is covered by expending 1 maneuver
You check again too, Aaron ^_^
The section you quoted above isn't about the rolling maneuver but about
turning the *facing* of a ship 180 degrees. OK, you can do it in Cinematic
too, but only if the ship's speed is 0 at the start of the
turn :-/
Later,
> Aaron Teske wrote:
> Or, take... um... I think it was the ships in Piers Anthony's Space
I wonder how much extra mass the rotating belt would require? And how much
mass of weapons you could mount in one?
> Or try this reasoning for allowing many 360 degree weapons: they're
In one of the early (taskforce) nexus magazines, they had a starfire story. It
was about the Khanate encountering a new race. The new race's ships had little
ports all over....for their laser beams. They had one or two centrally mounted
laser generators, and all of these conduits to channel the beams to the ports.
The gunners would then select the nearest port, and "wobble" the ship a tiny
bit to bring it to bear.
They could only fire one shot per turn like normal. Also in Starfire there are
no adjustable/buyable firearcs. All weapons (even guided missles) have
a standard arc: F, FP,FS,AP,AS (FT equivalent) (After a while, all of the
starfire ships started to look the same to me...I still like the game, many
happy memories...)
> Besides, I can't get the image of a Gunstar-like ship where each
> > Besides, I can't get the image of a Gunstar-like ship where each
Aaron, more than a few of us passed the Excalibur test.......
Now there is a Space Fighter mini for Jon to make.... Not-Gunstars...
/************************************************
Thomas sed:
***
Now there is a Space Fighter mini for Jon to make.... Not-Gunstars...
***
And if Jon needs any pics, between movie program and FASA games I've got, I'm
certain we could work something up.
Of course, the Not-Starfuries might work for conversions in the
meantime.
Then, there are the two Kodan fighters and the big, bad boy itself...
*shudder*
The_Beast
> Thomas sed:
I've not seen the movie, and have only seen a small B&W pic of a resin
Gunstar kit in a magazine advert - so I've got a rough impression of
what it looks like, but no details. If someone wants to email some pics over,
I'll see what we can do.... :-)
> At 06:56 PM 3/22/99 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
Yes, but the roll doesn't change the ship's facing, so it works for
cinematic AND vector alike, as stated in the book. An end-for-end flip,
like a 180 degree rotate, reverses the ship's facing - OK in vector, but
not in cinematic.
> At 06:53 AM 3/23/99 +0100, Oerjan wrote:
> At 06:02 PM 3/23/99 +0000, Jon (GZG) wrote:
> Besides, I can't get the image of a Gunstar-like ship where each
I do I do!!!! :-)
I have The movie!!!! I like the Last Star Fighter. GO DEATH
BLOSSEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aaron Davis
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/castle/8274/index.html