Well, I've decided to run a small poll:
We've proposed two distinct mechanics for handling stealth systems, which does
everyone prefer:
Option A:
This is Noam's original proposal - The Stealth system reduces the size
of the range bands of ships attacking it.
Option B:
This is based on Aaron's Holofield - the stealth system works like a
screen against beams, and gives a -1 to hit against Pulse torpedos and
K-guns.
So, which do you prefer? Votes please!
Thanks,
> Well, I've decided to run a small poll:
Sounds somewhat easier to balance than B
I instinctively go for option B. However, why not simply create two different
systems to fullfil each function?
They both sound very usefull Thanks Pat Connaughton
e-mail - ptconn@earthlink.net
ICQ # 2535086
"He who knows not how to dissemble knows not how to reign" Tiberius, Emperator
and Princips of Rome
[quoted original message omitted]
***
I instinctively go for option B. However, why not simply create two different
systems to fullfil each function?
***
I find the B option easier to apply; on first blush, modifying dice rolls over
changing range measurement seems an easier mechanic.
***
> Option A:
*-snip-*
Sounds somewhat easier to balance than B
***
I'm not seeing that immediately, but I suppose I should go back through
previous posts to get it. Until I do, I'll just assume that the changing range
bands are easier to fudge because of higher granularity with dice modifiers.
If so, that IS a powerful argument, though FT thrives on simplicity.
I'd say that they can be alternative systems, though I'd like to see a
'preferred'. ;->=
I'll vote a provisional B.
Oh, these are still totally optional, used with the permission of all
participants, right?
Well, I am Vacc head second (after DS2) and only because the game is so much
fun but here's my vote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:22:28 +0100 Charles Taylor
> <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk> writes:
This is perfectly acceptable although I think it works a bit too good
versus all systems including quasi-area affect weapons...
> Option B:
This is my selection (for once a vote to choose between the better of two
goods as opposed as the lesser of two evils... Alright!)
> So, which do you prefer? Votes please!
In message <OF1F266C46.6BDE35C4-ON86256AA5.00537C1B@uneb.edu>
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
[snip]
> I'd say that they can be alternative systems, though I'd like to see a
I don't see why not.
> I'll vote a provisional B.
Ok, so far I make that 1 for 'A', 3 for 'B', and 2 for having both options.
> Oh, these are still totally optional, used with the permission of all
Of course :-) I think that applies to all of the WDA stuff, it probably
applies to some of the stuff in the actual books as well :-)
> The_Beast
I vote "A", because it's different, as opposed to B wherein you just have
another way of giving your ships screens (admittedly with added benefits vs.
other weapons), and whilst option B is simpler, A isn't difficult to
manage - they're both excellent ideas.
> Well, I've decided to run a small poll:
***
> Oh, these are still totally optional, used with the permission of all
Of course :-) I think that applies to all of the WDA stuff, it probably
applies to some of the stuff in the actual books as well :-)
> The_Beast
Charles
***
Natch, but, you know, I think it needs to be said sometimes. *heh heh*
*wheeze*
G'day
> Option A:
I'd go A (because I'm lazy and its easier to check quickly if that one's
balanced)
Cheers
Hmmm.
This is a tough call. I have not been following the thread closely, so I do
not know the range band modifiers. I would hope that they are not more than
3mu out of 12 (1/4) or 2mu out of 6 (1/3).
The problem, as I see it, with range band reduction is that it applies a
different penealty to each weapon system. That is if you reduce the range
bands of a Beam by 1mu, that is only 1/12 change, but for a P-Torp, it
is
1/6 (2x the difference). Perhaps this was addressed.
On the other hand, screens vs 1-roll weapons (combined to-hit & damage
roll)
and -1 vs 2-roll weapons (those who roll to-hit and then roll damage),
seems like it would be better placed as some type of Shield system (see
earlier thread, especially Oerjan's comments).
Of the 2, I would prefer (A) Range band modifications. But I fear that this
may get too complicated with seperate range bands for 12mu based, 9mu based
(SV Stingers), 6mu based, and close (fighters, missiles, etc.).
Also, range band reduction seems to have more than a linear effect. Noam may
wish to post a 2nd thread posting our conversation about Sa'Vasku 9mu range
bands in the PBEM game Sentient Strife (or he may wish until the game is
finished). At this point, I will just say that 9mu range bands MAY be too
limiting for SV under vector.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
I like option A. It seems more elegant and has room for tech level of stealth
system.
--- Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
wrote:
> Well, I've decided to run a small poll:
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D470232EA49@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> Hmmm.
Noams proposal was (IIRC) reduce 12mu to 9mu, and 6mu to 4.5mu for
Stealth-1, further levels reduce 12mu bands by a further -1, and 6mu
bands by a further -0.5.
Or, rounding to the nearest mu:
Stealth Level 12mu bands 6mu bands
1 9 5
2 8 4
3 7 4
> On the other hand, screens vs 1-roll weapons (combined to-hit & damage
I've been taking to think of the former as 'beam-class' weapons and the
latter as 'bolt-class'. I do remember the thread in question - the one
that concerns the possibility that a 'universal' defence system (which
stealth _almost_ is) would devalue k-guns.
I have a (possible) counter argument - a hypothetical 'universal'
defence system that gave the same defence against all weapons is (disregarding
threshold rolls) equivalent to the ship carrying it having
more hull boxes - so, do not 'Strong' or 'Super' hulls devalue K-guns?
- That's something to think about! ;-)
I don't actually remember this complaint when this mechanism was proposed for
Holofields.
> Of the 2, I would prefer (A) Range band modifications. But I fear that
Hmm... we seem to have forgotten about the 9mu stinger range band proposal, I
guess we use the following:
Stealth Level 9mu bands
1 7
2 6
3 5
> Also, range band reduction seems to have more than a linear effect.
Noam may
> wish to post a 2nd thread posting our conversation about Sa'Vasku 9mu
[snip original]
Is that more than linear by the amount of range band reduction, or more than
linear by the mass of the carrying ship?
From Brian Bell:
> Of the 2, I would prefer (A) Range band modifications. But I fear
based
> (SV Stingers), 6mu based, and close (fighters, missiles, etc.).
For this, I think you can rest easy. Having played now with both SV and
Stealth vs. "standard" ships, the different range bands are no harder to
keep in mind than the standard beam and p-torp ranges.. It's not like
every weapon has a different range and damage profile that you have to keep on
your SSD...
> At this point, I will just say that 9mu range bands MAY be too
Yep. I'll want to open this up, but would like a bit more data from the game
first.
From Charles:
> Noams proposal was (IIRC) reduce 12mu to 9mu, and 6mu to 4.5mu for
Yes. Stated more generally, Stealth 1 reduces opponent effective range
bands by 1/4 (round up for range). Stealth 2 by 1/3. Stealth 3 is
something Charles raised for the blindfield (or was it voidfield). I'm not a
big fan of stealth 3, since it doesn't make a nice easy fraction.
I'd rather skip to Stealth 4 at a more astronomical cost/mass (5 or 6x
stealth 1) for 1/2 size range bands or perhaps only 4x, but with firing
penalties (i.e. reduced to stealth 2 or 1 if stealth ship fires weapons).
For SV 9 MU stingers would indeed be 7 and 6 vs. Stealth 1 and 2 respectively
In message <200108141118.f7EBI5U02268@soda.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes. Stated more generally, Stealth 1 reduces opponent effective range
> bands by 1/4 (round up for range). Stealth 2 by 1/3. Stealth 3 is
> not a big fan of stealth 3, since it doesn't make a nice easy
> stealth 1) for 1/2 size range bands or perhaps only 4x, but with
Well, I agree that as simple 'stealth-4' wich halves range bands is
simpler - especially if we limit it to things like the Blind Field that
affect the carrying ship as well.
> Well, I agree that as simple 'stealth-4' wich halves range bands is
Hmmmmm, this sound like the modified Cloak I use for my conversion of Aquarian
ships from Starfleet Wars
(http://starranger.homestead.com/Aquarians.html) who in their original
game had an 'Invisibility Field' that took a lot of their power but still
allowed them to fire but not as well since they had limited power left.
Aquarian Cloak (Invisibilty Field) 10% mass of ship, cost is 10x mass used.
When cloak is active, enemy knows a ship is there but can not identify size or
type. Fire from a cloaked ship treats beam batteries as 1 class smaller (ie a
Class 3 Beam rolls is treated like a Class 2 Beam when the cloak is active).
No other weapons may fire when cloaked. Fire targeted at a cloaked ship
doubles effective range (this
gives the Aquarians the ability to fire at ships with B3s from 18"-24"
when opponents B3s can't touch them.)