Hi all
I was wondering if anyone had looked at the math (or even considered)a couple
of subsystems I was thinking of.
The first I call (after the CarWars inspiration) component armour. Which is to
say, rather than general superstructure armour, particular armour for a
particular subsystem.
I see two ways to implement such a system. Either can be represented by
surrounding the system on the SSD with a set of concentric boxes (ie basically
a double border) which has a number beside it indicating the level.
In the 1st method, the number written beside the box indicates how many "extra
hits" that system can take before going out of operation.
In the 2nd method, the number represents a concept akin to screen mechanics.
For each level of armour, a
threshold roll is modified by -1 to the die roll. This
means that if the ship is thresholding on a six, the 1 lvl component armoured
system doesn't need to check.
If the ship is making the 5+ threshold, the system
checks on a six.
Probably in either case you'd need to stick a max level like 2 or 3 on a
system. But this could harden key systems against attack. One might also
declare exclusions like (for example) drives, firecons, whatever...
Any comments? Is such a system viable in either variant? How badly does it
distort the game? How expensive should either variant be and why prefer one
over the other?
On another note: Someone (Admiral Iceberg?) suggested using varying MU values
to denote tech differences. This seems an awesome idea. It is generic, not
limited to one system or another, and affects all ships systems in a related
way. What gradations would one suggest? I might imagine 0.5 inch, 0.75 inch, 1
inch, 1.25 inch and 1.5 inch would give you a spread to cover everything up to
and including quite advanced tech. Typically, you wouldn't likely see more
than 1 TL difference in most scenarios... but once in a blue moon it might be
fun to take a bunch of museum pieces out against a modern fleet. They'd have
better everything, but you'd still be able to give a fight if you showed up
with numbers.
Another idea: If it is possible to build a decoy ship to suck
up SMs, is it possible to create a decoy-launcher that could
launch an SM decoying drone (or ten...) when the ship comes under SM attack?
I might suggest something like this:
SM Launcher, Mass?, Cost?, Ammo?. <Real useful so far, right?> Arc: 360 like
PDS. Action: When a ship is going to be the target of any Salvo Missile
attacks (that is, movement has been resolved and the ship is within at least 1
SM radius), before the salvo missile attack is resolved, the ship may opt to
engage its SM launchers. (I'd make the ammo a fair size, like SMs themselves,
to prohibit abuse) For each SM launcher
fired against an SM strike, roll 1D6-1 (min 0). Subtract the result
from the SM attack - these represent decoyed missiles. For any remaining
missiles, apply their attack to the ship. Note: Part of the decoy system
working is the ship electing NOT to fire PDS because that would kind of "give
away" the real target.
At all sensible? Something anyone might want? I think if I could get a system
that offered a reasonably good defence against an SM, it'd be worth some mass
on the fronts where I expected to see SMs employed.
Anyway, my latest food for thought. I have another project in the works (an
idea that came to me this weekend) which will see draft publication on the web
shortly... Organized Crime in the 2180s. After all, haven't you always
wondered what the Tongs, Triads, La Familia, the gangbangers, and the other
large scale criminal organizations were doing in the GZGverse? And for that
matter, who was chasing them? I'll post the URL when the article is ready for
review (and I've donned my Nomex flightsuit).
> "Barclay, Tom" wrote:
> The first I call (after the CarWars inspiration)
Shades of Star Fleet Battles. A ship SSD could begin to look like a SFB or B5W
sheet. Not too practical.
> In the 2nd method, the number represents a concept akin
The core systems have a similar mechanic with a deferred
threshold check. Checking at 7+, 6+, and 5+ respectively for
each damage row.
Typical systems of choice would be a fire control, screen, and drives. Double
the mass and point cost for an hardened system. (Making armored drives VERY
expensive...)
Would these systems be immune from needle beam attacks?
> "Barclay, Tom" wrote:
Actually, what I want is "limited arc coverage" for screens and armor.
For screens, I'd say 3% (minimum 2Mass) would give you 2 arc
coverage. They can overlap, so you could have one set for FS/F
and another for F/FP; fire coming in from the F arc would then
hit Screen-2.
I haven't figured out a resonable way to make fractional-coverage
armor, though.
In message
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A210138@host-253.bitheads.com> you
wrote:
> Hi all
Hmm.. well, I've considering a couple of similar concepts, but hadn't come up
with any specific answers...
Firstly: Retractable systems - useful on Q-ships, mostly System can be
in two states, retracted and deployed, while retracted, system counts as a
core system for threshold checks, but cannot be used, while deployed, system
takes threasholds as usual, and can be used. Chance in state is announced
during orders phase. (Ispiration - several cheap & nasty sci-fi films
:-)
Increased MASS and COST of the system (dunno by how much).
Secondly, Armoured Core Systems - increases Core System threashold
number by
1, so that the first threshold is on a 8+, the second on 7+, and the
third
is on a 6+. MASS should be a percentage of the whole Hull MASS, COST is
a multiple of MASS. Possible an extra level of armouring could be added to
make the ship immune to Core system hits. I have no idea what the MASS and
COST values should be, but if you're using the standard core system rules, I
think they should be pretty high!
[snip TL variation and SM decoys]
> Tomb
> Barclay, Tom wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had looked at the math (or even
Have you checked the archives?
> The first I call (after the CarWars inspiration) component armour.
This was discussed quite a bit on the list just before the FB2 work
began in earnest... must've been some 12-18 months ago. Should be in
the archive. The general consensus then seemed to be "DON'T", though I
don't know if anyone except me actually tried it :-/
> In the 1st method, the number written beside the box
> In the 2nd method, the number represents a concept akin
For FCSs, add 1 Mass for each level of hardening. For everything else,
increase the Mass by 25% per level of hardening (add all increases together,
*then* round up). Determine the costs using the normal "Mass*X" values but the
new Mass ratings.
Note 1: Unless your enemy uses massed needle beams or EMP weapons, there's no
point in taking more than 2 levels of hardening.
Note 2: It'd look a bit silly if certain weapon systems are better protected
than the ship's Core Systems...
> Jon Davis wrote:
> The core systems have a similar mechanic with a deferred
"The name of the certain kind of resemblance that it bears is 'identity'.
Beyond that however the two pieces are not really very much
alike..."
(Kudos to those who identify the quote <g>)
Back to Tomb:
> On another note:
Even a 0.25" MU difference is quite massive. The difference between
0.5" MUs and 1.5" MUs, well - to quote OHMU: "Who are you trying to
kid? [...] This is like playing World War 1 tanks against World War 2
ones ..."
> Another idea:
Some months ago someone (IIRC Charles Taylor?) suggested an SM "decoy salvo"
ammo type; it worked just like a BJ. There were some problems with it though;
don't remember if they got hashed out or not.
> I might suggest something like this:
If you don't mean "SM Launcher" (introduced in FB1, usually abbreviated
SML; Mass 3, Cost 9, 3-arc, ammo carried in separate magazine), I think
you should probably pick another name for it...
> Action: When a ship is going to be the target of any Salvo Missile
Can *other* ships cover the missile target with ADFC-controlled PDS?
Can the target fire other weapons in the same turn, or is it just PDSs that
are prohibited?
> At all sensible?
Sounds like a heavily degraded scattergun to me <shrug>
> Something anyone might want?
The system you describe is as effective as 3.5 PDSs or 0.77 Scatterguns
against one SM salvo, but:
- can't be used against fighters, plasma bolts or ships
- can't be combined with secondary PD weapons (PDS explicitly, B1s and
K1s implied)
- can only be used against one salvo, whereas 3.5 PDSs can be split up
against several threats
- has limited ammo
The last two also apply to the Scattergun, of course.
Regards,
> --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:
...
Yes, I have done some of the armor work for
a couple of my alien races. I have used
three types of armor, known as K, L, And M.
K armor is the Kra'Vak FT2 armor -
acts as a screen, indestructable.
L armor is used by the alien 'Ileari' -
it is 'Local' or 'Point defense' armor, I.E. a particular system is armored
This is shown by the addition of an armor box attached to the system icon.
M armor is used by the alien 'Mar'Cal Le'Mer'-
and subtracts damage from the attacks of enemy ships, the armor may be
destroyed at threshold checks.
Comments,
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
...
> I haven't figured out a resonable way to make
I would suggest that a single six arc FT armor box be turned into double three
arc or six single arc armor.
Bye for now,
> >If it is possible to build a decoy ship to suck
I think it was me--a Jammer missile that reduces your available
missiles per pack by one but reduces enemy to-hit. I don't
recall details at the moment.
> [quoted text omitted]
In message <002801c02654$3d6aed60$d4ea6520@pent60>
> "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > >If it is possible to build a decoy ship to suck
I think you're right, I suggested an EMP salvo missile variant, but I
don't remember suggesting a 'decoy' SM - but my hard drive just wen't
down on friday, so I've not been able to check.
I suggest lots of strange ideas, some of which might actually work :-)
> Laserlight wrote:
> Some months ago someone (IIRC Charles Taylor?) suggested an >>SM
That one was supposed to be an *offensive* weapon, not a *defensive*
one :-/
The one I was thinking of worked exactly like a BJ - it looked like a
valid target for the missiles, so if it was the "nearest target" the entire
salvo went for it instead.
Regards,
In message <200009241933.VAA28708@d1o903.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Laserlight wrote:
> That one was supposed to be an *offensive* weapon, not a
> SV ECM pod
That's why I didn't notice it, I mostly ignored that discussion. So what would
it look like for Human tech? How about call it a MTM with radar beacon instead
of warhead? It wouldn't have to stick around and protect the launching ship,
could be assigned to "escort" as if a fighter (ie the launch turn it would
maneuver to the other ship, then two turns escorting before its endurance
ended). Of course, fighters could knock it down pretty easily. But if there
aren't any fighters around, is this too powerful against SMR?
***
Of course, fighters could knock it down pretty easily. But if there aren't any
fighters around, is this too powerful against SMR?
***
I think I missed this for the same reason.
If you play slow and tight, as some of us do, it balances SM's well, but I'll
admit when you're flying fast and open, SM's aren't the monsters they used to
be.
I'd think they'd have to be pointed high in that case.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> Ahh!, i think I have it, someone (can't remember who) suggested a
Nope. It was you, in the same post as the SM-EMP. So Laserlight and
Doug have no excuse for missing it <g>
Later,
> Laserlight wrote:
> Actually, what I want is "limited arc coverage" for screens and
Sounds reasonable. Probably a bit overpriced in Cinematic, but better over
than under.
> I haven't figured out a resonable way to make fractional-coverage
For Cinematic, long ago, I made each "directional" box cover 1 arc
only, but cost only 1/3 Mass (and 2/3 points). It made the ships a lot
tougher than the current FB1 system, though.
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> Hmm.. well, I've considering a couple of similar concepts,
Urgh... <imagines keeping track of several separate retracted or extended
systems on each ship>
If they're useful for Q-ships they must be hidden from enemy sensors
when they're retracted. Depending on what sensor rules you use this may or may
not be a problem.
Cost-wise, well... the actual value depends on what type of system it
is. Eg., since the FTL drive is almost invariably the first system to go down
when I roll for thresholds I'd pay quite a bit to make it retractable in a
campaign situation (where withdrawing the ship means I can fight
another day). There's at least one example of a (semi-)retractable
engine in SF literature (the Peep Q-ship in "On Basilisk Station")... I
wouldn't mind making my SM magazines retractable either, come to think
of it - though that *would* look rather odd <g>
The main use for retractable systems is on ships with short-ranged
armaments which want to close with longer-ranged enemies without losing
too many weapons before getting into their own range.
Hm. Based on my experience with vapour shrouds (which are similar to making
*all* your systems retractable, and retracting them all at the same time), I'd
increase the cost of all retractable systems by 1xMass
(without changing the mass itself). This definitely makes long-ranged
weapons overpriced, but I think it'll be reasonably accurate for
short-ranged ones.
> Secondly, Armoured Core Systems - increases Core System >threashold
This effectively means that the ships takes *no* core threshold hits until the
3rd row, and even then it's a pretty low chance.
> MASS should be a percentage of the whole Hull MASS, COST is a
Depends on your victory conditions. The property I call "system
survivability" - the average amount of damage the ship needs to take
before a "statistically average" weapon aboard becomes unable to fire (either
due to being damaged itself, or to being out of
CSs/bridge/power core/ammo etc) - doesn't change very much, because the
only immediately crippling core hit is the bridge (even a damaged power core
can't blow up until after you've had a chance to shoot back <g>). The big
impact from the Core hits doesn't appear until after the 3rd threshold check,
but by that time the ship tends to have rather few working weapons left
anyway.
However, it vastly increases the *ship's* ability to survive the entire
battle. I've seen lots of ships run out of life support right after their side
had won the battle, and ships which blew up after fighting for several turns
with damaged power cores. These core hits didn't affect the *battle* at all
(ie., they didn't remove any weapons from the battle while the shooting was
still going on), but they did affect the
*outcome* (measured in victory points, or - in a campaign - the number
of ships available for the next battle).
Sure, I've also seen ships blown up by their own reactors or run out of life
support while the battle was still going on and they still had significant
numbers of weapons left, but they're a small minority to those which
took early bridge hits, or were destroyed/knocked by running out of
hull boxes or weapons before their damaged reactors or lack of life
support could kill them :-/
So, well... in a one-off battle I wouldn't pay more than 5% of the NPV
for hardened core systems. In a campaign where the construction rates are low
I'd pay more, particularly for my capitals (which take the longest to
replace), but I still wouldn't pay more than maybe 10% extra. (If you relate
it to the TMF instead of the NPV you make it relatively cheaper for Phalon and
Kra'Vak ships than for human ones, thus I use percentages of the NPV instead.)
Later,
In message <200009251736.TAA21355@d1o960.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote: