[FT] Weapon Mechanisms

10 posts ยท Jun 4 2002 to Jun 6 2002

From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@o...>

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:33:09 +0100

Subject: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

How do members of the list envision what the various weapon mechanisms
represent? For example I always think of the standard beam as almost a machine
gun type effect, it blankets the area of the target with shots, the closer in
the higher the percentage of possible hits. If you design a weapon, do you
envision the effect you want to simulate, and design the mechanism to
represent it, or do you think of a neat mech and nominate what weapon this
simulates

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 17:07:21 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> If you design a weapon, do you envision the effect you want to

Yes. You take whatever the Muse gives you and work from there.

From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@s...>

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:38:07 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> Anthony Leibrick wrote:

> How do members of the list envision what the various weapon mechanisms

The model of beams being energy projectors that pepper a region of space where
the ship could be is workable enough; although, really following through on
that theme would be to compute range bands as a function of

From: Robertson, Brendan <Brendan.Robertson@d...>

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:23:28 +1000

Subject: RE: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

On Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:33 AM, Anthony Leibrick
> [SMTP:A.Leibrick@btopenworld.com] wrote:
Beams are multishot weapons, targetting all possibilities within the
maneouver envelope to account for time-on-target and ecm issues.
K-guns are garbage can guns, firing only a few shots, but at near light
velocities over a narrower targetted area.
P-torps are single shot weapons firing semi-guided energy munitions
(similar to Photon torpedoes).

> For example I always think of the standard beam as almost a machine

In the end, because it's a generic system; they represent whatever YOU want
them to represent (frozen hot dogs at 100 metres anyone?)

'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:40:47 -0700

Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

[quoted original message omitted]

From: CS Renegade <njg@c...>

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 08:40:45 +0100

Subject: RE: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> Anthony Leibrick wrote:

> How do members of the list envision what

From: ~ On Behalf Of Richard and Emily Bell
Sent: 04 June 2002 22:38
Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> The model of beams being energy projectors

It sounds like you want a simple target size modifier. Easy to do under most
systems; a pig to do under FT.

> A function that I would be interested in

Yes, but how does that modifier get used? Existing beam dice represent both
chance to hit and penetrating power. Ignore that and you're in danger of
creating (shudder) General Quarters. Drop the number of dice that are rolled?
It's a very crude scale to correct, so you would end up with obvious
pre-FB1 thresholds.

> If you design a weapon, do you envision

Proper development would be to think of a good mechanic then invent the PSB to
justify it, but a lot of past suggestions have shown
that many of us are science/science-fiction
fans who will see a concept or effect and

From: Donald Hosford <hosford.donald@a...>

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 04:13:09 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

What makes this dificult in FT, is every weapon has a different to-hit
proceedure.

It would be easier if they all used a single system. Then a lot of other
things like ECM, speed adjustments, ect would be lots easier. Tho' that would
mean you would have to roll to hit, then roll for damage.

Just an idea.

Donald Hosford

> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:

> Anthony Leibrick wrote:

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:19:57 -0400

Subject: RE: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> What makes this dificult in FT, is every weapon has a different to-hit

Not quite correct. Every FT weapon except missiles has a two step procedure:
a) measure the range, which determines the "to-hit" either as a required
score or as number of dice
b) roll a "to-hit"

Therefore you can simulate stealth, evasive maneuvers etc as simply
increasing the effective range--eg "for each Thrust point committed to
Evasive Maneuvers, add 1" effective range per 6" actual range" or something
like that. Example: a MD6 DD escorting a MD2 BB has 4 thrust it's not doing
anything with, so it performs evasive maneuvers. An
enemy SDN at 23" real distance fires.  Range to the DD is 23 + 4"(1 per
evasive maneuver point) x 3 (6", 12", 18" real range) = 35 effective. Fiddle
with the exact figures to suit yourself, of course. You may
decide on 1MD = +1"/12", 2MD = +1"/6", 3MD=+1"/4", 4MD=+1"/3" and so
forth, or some other scheme.

From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@s...>

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:05:00 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

> CS Renegade wrote:

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Richard and Emily Bell

From: Donald Hosford <hosford.donald@a...>

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 01:52:38 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Weapon Mechanisms

The only thing to remember then, is the range limits on the various weapons.

Donald Hosford

> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:

> >What makes this dificult in FT, is every weapon has a different