With SML salvoes, we're not limited to making them 6 actual missiles to be
shot down. At Mass 19 for a single salvo, I'd rather take a Wavegun.
How about simplifying the mechanics down.
3 mass AM-SM (AMSaM) salvo = 2 die Plasmabolt, 24" range.
Defence resolution is resolved as normal against the Plasmabolt.
PSB: Area detonation is harder to target, as the missiles aren't using
terminal manoeuvres for a hull contact detonation.
This becomes slightly more efficient while the ammo holds out & reduces new
rule mechanics to be learned & still fits within the standard magazine spaces.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
and
> thus can use PDS - however, if they can do this to an AM-SM, then why
> With SML salvoes, we're not limited to making them 6 actual missiles
Basically firing a shotgun blast of antimatter pellets. This is good.
(anything that increases the demand for antimatter is good. Forward Power
Station is a major economic factor in the Alarishi Empire, and
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89D71@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> With SML salvoes, we're not limited to making them 6 actual missiles
Err... IIRC, the 19 MASS was for a PBL-6 with its range reduced to 24mu,
I hadn't yet made any attempt to factor in the fact that a PBL can be
used unlimited times (but no more than 1/2 turns), while an SML can only
be used a limited number of times (but _can_ be used on successive
turns) - because I'm not sure how to!
> How about simplifying the mechanics down.
Seems reasonable to me, want to think about the damage though, hmm...
Example (very contrived & rough):
A ship with, oh (leafs through FB1), say 4 PDS, escorted by a CE with 3
PDS is attacked by two salvos -
All PDS are used (4 vs. 1, 3 vs. other), killing an average of 5.6 missiles,
(3.2 on first, 2.4 on second).
On average, 3.5 missiles per salvo are on target, from the first salvo, on
average.3 of a missile gets through, from second, 1.1 gets through. Ship takes
1.4 d6 damage
Same ships are attacked by PBL-2, (same as your AM-SM)
All PDS fire, removing an average of 1.67 (approx) d6s, so only 0.33 d6
reach the target - but both ships are hit - oh, make it .67 d6.
So, _in_this_example_ your AM-SM is about as effective as ONE standard
range SM.
Not that I am _not_ taking into account a lot of things - extra ships in
the area would both increase (more targets to damage) and reduce (more
PDS systems) the effectiveness of the AM-SM, also, some Alien PDS
equivalents are more effective. Finally, I did not account for screens
(which reduce the AM-SMs effectiveness - if we treat them _exactly_ like
PBLs)
On the whole, your version looks good, but I'd either reduce the MASS
per salvo to 2 (which would allow for extended range AM-SMs), or
increase the yield to 3 plasma dice.
> This becomes slightly more efficient while the ammo holds out &
Agree - I'd say, for magazine use, treat them just like other SMs, while
for effect treat them _just_ like plasma bolts.
So, does everyone else agree? - can we tick the first one off the list?
or am I just a bit premature :-)
> Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
In message <006701c09178$aabd2740$dffc0e3f@pavilion>
> "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > With SML salvoes, we're not limited to making them 6 actual missiles
Well, in that case - do _you_ agree with the revised stats we've hacked
together so far? - or not?
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Seems reasonable to me, want to think about the damage though, >hmm...
> Example (very contrived & rough):
In order to kill an average of 5.6 missiles the PDSs need an
"effectively infinite" number of target missiles - in reality 12 or so
missiles is enough. However, the target salvo doesn't *have* 12 missiles; it
only has 1d6 missiles; therefore the average number of missiles shot down per
PDS gets lower the more PDSs you throw at the salvo.
The real average damage from 1 SM salvo opposed by 4 PDSs + 1 SM salvo
opposed by 3 PDSs is 4.39 + 3.24 = 7.63 points of damage.
> Same ships are attacked by PBL-2, (same as your AM-SM)
C'mon Charles, you're not usually this careless! :-) If all PDS fire
they'll remove on average 7/6 = 1.167 d6, so on average only 0.833d56
gets through to each ( = 2.92 pts each, 5.83 in total).
> So, _in_this_example_ your AM-SM is about as effective as ONE
The AM-SM in this example inflicts on average as much damage as
5.83/(7.63/2) = about 1.5 normal SMs, though the AM-SM damage is spread
over two targets rather than concentrated at a single one.
> Not that I am _not_ taking into account a lot of things - extra ships
That's only because you underestimated the damage inflicted by the
AM-SMs by some 60% :-/ You could have extended-range AM-SMs if you
like, but they'll be Mass 4 or 5 per salvo.
Regards,
After I said
> > Basically firing a shotgun blast of antimatter pellets. This is
Forward
> > Power Station is a major economic factor in the Alarishi Empire,
Charles asked:
> Well, in that case - do _you_ agree with the revised stats we've
Oh, I don't care how efficient the weapon is, as long as it gives me a
favorable balance of trade :-)
Depends on the target. Lots of small craft, I'd take the area attack
AM-SM,
against big capitals, I'd take the standard SMs.
PSB expansion: the area effect is generated by a "phased" or "constructed"
explosion sequence. PDS can disrupt the effect by destroying enough warheads
that the explosions fail to support each other in the shockwave etc. (good
enough?)
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
In message <001301c0921e$25a33120$84fb0e3f@pavilion>
> "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> After I said
<wierd alien speech pattern> So you see, fellow board members, now is a good
time to sell the humons our patented casimir warheads, and undercut their
native market for
obsolite counter-terrine munitions.
Those that make reproductive jokes about our fine spacecraft will be used as
target practice, or as a target audience for our soap operas!
</wierd alien speech pattern>
In message <200102081950.UAA23602@d1o903.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
Darn it! I knew I was being too simplistic with that calculation! Should have
got spreadsheet out I think!
> The real average damage from 1 SM salvo opposed by 4 PDSs + 1 SM salvo
Ok, so it looks like we go back to 1 AM-SM is MASS 3, and is equal to 1
shot of a PBL-2. In which case I propose that, for simplicity, there are
_no_ extended range versions.
> Regards,
Depends on how you define the loss of the magazine. If it's just the feed
mechanisms, no problem. If it's the actual missiles, I would say an internal
detonation is in order (2d6, all to hull).
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> C'mon Charles, you're not usually this careless! :-) If all PDS fire
|
> Well, at least I'm being consistently careless :-( I think it was
Just checking to see if you're awake ;-)
[snip]
> Ok, so it looks like we go back to 1 AM-SM is MASS 3, and is equal to
No problem.
> Ok, thanks, I figured if I missed anything (and I did), you'd spot it!
<g>
> Another question - although IIRC no one has mentioned it yet, what
According to various SF novels and games, particularly Weber's novels
and Starfire, the ship should go BOOM if a magazine holding anti-matter
missiles is hit. Certain Starfire players who also are atomic and
nuclear phycisists have voiced objections to that description though -
according to them an accidental explosion is vastly more likely to go
"fizzzllleee" than "BOOM" :-/ Spoilsports, I call them... <G>
'Course, Starfire magazines can jettison missiles in a jiffy if the hits start
getting too close. Full Thrust game turns are usually considerably longer than
Starfire game turns, so it's not unreasonable
to say that "if a magazine holding AM-SM fails a threshold check (or
equivalent), the AM-SM are automatically jettisoned (ie., cannot be
repaired even if your normal house rules allow repairing missiles).
Later,
D'OH!
> I wrote:
> A ship with, oh (leafs through FB1), say 4 PDS, escorted by a CE
...
> The real average damage from 1 SM salvo opposed by 4 PDSs + 1 >SM
No, of course not. Those are the values for SM salvoes opposed by 4 and
*5* PDSs respectively. The *correct* correct values are 5.85 + 4.39 =
10.24 points of damage from the two SM salvoes.
Yes, Charles, you may hit me now... <sigh>
The AM-SM still inflicts on average 5.83 pts on these two ships, so it
only does slightly more damage than 1 normal SM salvo in this example.
Charles's various underestimates more or less canceled out ;-)
I'd still put the AM-SM at Mass 3 though. It is far too easy to create
other examples where it is rather more powerful - eg., replace the
4-PDS ship with two smaller ones, or surround it with a bunch of BJs.
Or use it to force a bunch of enemy fighters to burn endurance, or to destroy
an enemy missile alpha strike (or at least force the enemy to risk fighters to
prevent this), or...
Besides, if it is any smaller than Mass 3 it'd start outgunning the
PBL-2 it is based on by a fair margin - the average number of shots an
individual PBL has managed to fire in my battles to date is just over 2
:-/
Later,
In message <200102091637.RAA10656@d1o901.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> D'OH!
Hmm.. one of the things I wasn't sure of was how many times a PBL is
likely to be used per scenario - which would affect the comparison -
thanks for providing the experience.
Ok, so lets stick with MASS 3 per salvo for the moment, and assume that
the fact that the missiles are _not_ activly homing in on one target
'explains' the reduced PDS etc. performance against them :-)
Ok, IMHO I think we've (mostly Brendan and Oerjan) sorted this one :-)
So, can we use these as the 'one true' FT2.5 Narn Energy mine?
Or do the Narns demand something more powerful with a longer range?
In message <200102090618.f196IJW02869@maile.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
[big snip]
> >Another question - although IIRC no one has mentioned it yet, what
Hmm... I remember comming to that conclusion myself - IIRC there is a
good description of such an effect in 'The Anvil of Stars' by Greg Bear.
In the next gen Star Trek technical manual, the photon torpedoes
described carry a payload of anti-matter and _matter_ pellets in many
containment force-fields, when detonated, the force fields switch from
keeping the AM and matter apart, to forcing it _together_.
A simpler idea is to shoot a lump of anitimatter at a matter target at high
velocity, the KE of the impact wil vapourise the AM and some of the
target, and the resultant gases _should_ mix a bit :-)
> 'Course, Starfire magazines can jettison missiles in a jiffy if the
Ok, I'll go with that.
> Later,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Hmm.. one of the things I wasn't sure of was how many times a PBL >is
You're welcome.
> Ok, so lets stick with MASS 3 per salvo for the moment, and assume
That could work, yes. Brendan's phased explosion sounds interesting as well.
Looks sorted out to me.
*Next Victim!*
(I can't access the list from work, Charles, so if you can pick the next
one?)
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89D82@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Looks sorted out to me.