WotW #3 is, I think, now closed. I've updated the WDA to include the latest
discussions I've been able to track.
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/noam_izenberg/Weap-Def_Archive.htm
The next WotW is some unfinished business from several weeks ago. Hopefully
this can be a quick one, since we've already had a reasonable amount
discussion on it on a few threads.
WotW #4: Railguns
Matthew Smith Brought up the "OUDF railgun" (plus there's an "Earth Allieance
Railgun" on the WDA list). Here's the orginal Smith post and the last part of
the discussion (omitting quite alot) from early March. The WDA entry follows:
MS>Railguns come in classes 1-6 like K-Guns, and obey the same rules
with MS> regard to arcs of fire. MS>
MS> Roll to hit like K-Guns, but the ranges are doubled - 0-12 mu: 2+,
12-24
MS> mu: 3 +, etc.
MS> If you hit, roll 1 die per railgun firing, and take the result as the MS>
damage, BUT you cannot do more damage than the class of the firing MS>
railgun. For example, if you hit with a class four railgun, you would do MS>
the damage as on the die, but rolls of 5 or 6 would only inflict 4.
MS> Damge is inflicted as per K-guns with regard to armour / shell.
Screens
MS> / vapour shroud / whatever have no effect.
MS> A class 6 railgun is a lot like a super-long range p-torp, and based
on
MS> this I have come up with some ideas for mass / points.
MS> Class 1 Railgun (all arcs): 2 MASS MS> Class 2 Railgun (one arc): 3 MASS
MS> Class 2 Railgun (two arcs): 4 MASS
MS> Class 3 Railgun (one arc): 5 MASS MS> Class 4 Railgun (one arc): 6 MASS
MS> Class 5 Railgun (one arc): 7 MASS MS> Class 6 Railgun (one arc): 8 MASS
MS> All Railguns cost 3 x MASS.
NI>>> My personal bias is to just rename K-guns. There's not logic in
creating
NI>>> something that is basically a K-gun and give it a differnet
mechanic just NI>>> so Humans can use them.
MS>>I disagree. I think that just re-naming K-Guns removes some of the
MS>>individuality of both KVs and humans. KVs and Humans both have their own
MS>>very individual fighting style, and by porting the main KV weapon directly
MS>>to the humans this is spoiled.
NI>We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. FT is a KISS system, and
NI>creating a new weapon mechanic for a failry cosmetic difference adds
NI>unneeded complexity. If you want Human Railguns to be less
hard-hitting
than
NI>K-guns, limit humans to K-3 and under. You can make the weapons can
"feel" NI>quite different with a small amount of effort in PSB. The tactics
will
NI>_have_ to be different, since Human ships will not have Advanced
Drives.
MS>> The main human weapons are beams and (to a
MS>> far lesser extent) SMLs, giving them KV K-Guns provides a third
primary MS>> weapon option that does not fit with their "image".
NI>Don't forget Torps.
NI>Adding railguns as a "new" system in _any_ form doesn't change this
problem NI>at all.
NI>One alternative practical and KISS solution is renaming single or dual arc
NI>P-torps as Railguns. Easy mechanic, easy limitations. It's less
versatile NI>than most KV weaponry becuase it's not classed (unless you play
with the
NI>Heavy and Light torps), making up for it a bit by having up to 2-arcs
of
NI>fire where K-3's only get 1.
NI>Its less hard hitting because it divides damage evenly b/t hull and
armor NI>instead of penetrating after 1 point, and can't ever score more than
6
NI>points (like K-4+ can).
(From Brendan:) BR>Another easier variant to make human rail guns feel
different would be to BR>have them double on a roll OVER the class level (roll
of 6 always doubles). BR>This would make a bell curve for the weapon and
larger class railguns less
BR>effective (but still dangerous) with the best mix in the Class 2-4
range.
BR>Same mass as KV K-Guns. Costing them would be tricky, but an easy way
to BR>lend a different flavor to the same basic principal. PSB: KV gravitic
BR>technology is supperior allowing them to fire the heavier guns with greater
BR>efficiency (i.e. Human railgun projectiles slow as the mass of the
BR>projectile goes up, so the kinetic energy transfer curve flattens). Human
BR>long-range targeting systems are better (cross-bred from Class-3 and
4 BR>beams).
BR>Human Railgun K-Gun
BR>Class Average Damage on a Hit Average Damage on a Hit
BR> 1 1.83 1.17 BR> 2 3.33 2.67 BR> 3 4.50 4.50 BR> 4 5.33 6.67 BR> 5 5.83
9.17 BR> 6 7.00 11.00 BR> 7 8.17 12.50 BR>... BR>...
While this looks like it would work fines, its still a new mechanic for
something that doesn't need one. KISS again.
Earth Alliance railgun from Corye Seale on the WDA
WDA> As K3 w/2 arcs, Mass 6, 24 points
WDA>Comments:
WDA>(Oerjan) Mass 7 brings it better into line with the K2-2 and the
PT-2,
but 6 is pretty close too. WDA>The "real" value is somewhere inbetween.
> Noam wrote:
> WotW #3 is, I think, now closed.
With my latest comments of today, yes <g>
> The next WotW is some unfinished business from several weeks ago.
The WDA
> entry follows:
Essentially, Matthew wanted a long-range K-style weapon with mechanics
"different enough" to feel like a different weapon. His mechanics work
(roll to hit as P-torp but with 12mu range bands, roll to damage as
P-torp but max damage equals class of weapon, inflict damage thus
generated as K-gun hits), but the masses and costs need more work.
The debate then argued whether or not the mechanics *need* to be
different from K-guns in order to give a different feel, or if it is
enough to rename the K-guns and/or stick them into a
different-engined/protected/ whatever hull is enough. No conclusion was
reached on this point.
> BR>Another easier variant to make human rail guns feel different would
Costing them is very tricky if you want them to have the same mass as
the KV K-guns, since their powers relative to each other are completely
different from the K-gun classes. You end up with the BR-1 being almost
60% more powerful than the K1 (it needs to cost 8xMass to balance
against the K1 if both are the same Mass), whereas the BR-5 has just
over 60% the power of the K-5 (so would be overpriced even at 2xMass,
unless you also reduce its Mass).
> BR>PSB: KV gravitic
I don't see the better Human long-range targetting systems being
reflected in these mechanics, though... if they were, why not apply
them to the higher-velocity slow classes as well, to give them longer
range bands?
One fairly simple way to modify K-guns is the "9mu range bands for
twice the Mass, 4mu range bands for half the Mass (round up)" one. IME
this works OK for P-torps, and K-guns are similar enough to the basic
P-torps that it should work well for them too. (I haven't had time to
use modified-range K-guns much yet, but so far they haven't caused any
balance problems.)
Regards,
Amazing how my own argument seems so stale after this time. Forget my old
suggestion, I doesn't work well enough.
After thinking about it, Human railguns don't need a different mechanic and
doubling the range bands makes it too cheap compared to every other lightspeed
weapon (remember, kinetic projectiles are still sublight).
What about simply using the K-gun rules; negate the doubling roll &
reduce cost to 3 pts per mass (in line with other human tech), effectively
making it a fixed damage, armour penetrating weapon.
Damage Comparisons:
0-6; 7-12; 13-18; 19-24; 25-30
Ptorp 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.2 0.6
R-1 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2
R-2 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.3
R-3 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
K-3 3.8 3.0 2.3 1.5 0.8
R-4 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.3 0.7
A lot more inefficient mass-wise. The other option is to use the full
K-gun
rules, but add 1 mass to each class to account for the different tech base.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> What about simply using the K-gun rules; negate the doubling roll &
But won't sticking normal K-guns on wallowing Human ships with standard
drives account sufficiently for the different tech base? If you want enough
maneuverability to use K-guns as the KV do, you'll pay through the nose
in mass and not have as many guns.
> From: "Robertson, Brendan"
<Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> > What about simply using the K-gun rules; negate the
If you want enough
> maneuverability to use K-guns as the KV do, you'll pay
The Kra'vaks are really very efficient, but do not have as much range as the
ESU superdreadnought and it's hard to succeed from a long range, they are
weaker and are more expensive than humans, but not so much, too. But if you
reduce the mass of K-guns, so the price, even if you do
not double damage, they will be stronger, and it will be hard to play against
them.
Have you already eaten the 4 K-guns class 6 of their
superdreadnought? if you add K-guns with the mass you got
from the others, you will have other chances to roll your 6 at a range of 30".
I know it's not obvious, but play and you'll see that when you throw twice the
number of dice, you will approach the probabilities. Finally, Don't change an
army like this, or create your own game.
> YOY wrote:
> The Kra'vaks are really very efficient, ... [snip]
It's not a question of modifying the *Kra'Vak* weapons here. It's a question
of designing a railgun system (or system family) for the *human* forces.
> But if you reduce the mass of K-guns, so the price, even if you do
If you reduce the damage a weapon can inflict, you also have to reduce
its cost - otherwise it'll be *weaker* than the original, not stronger.
> Finally, Don't change an army like this, or create your own game.
I *strongly* suggest that you read the last paragraf on page 2 of the
basic rules (Full Thrust 2nd edition) :-/
Regards,
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89E01@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Amazing how my own argument seems so stale after this time. Forget my
I agree, another option is to keep the re-roll, but make Railguns more
massive than K-guns, thus:
Railgun Class MASS COST
1 (1-arc) 1 3
1 (3-arc) 2 6
1 (6-arc) 3 9
2 (1-arc) 4 12
2 (2-arc) 5 15
3 (1-arc) 6 18
each additional class adds +4 MASS, and +12 COST.
Note that the Class 1 has the same PDS capability as a K-1
_in_the_arc_it_covers_, also, the multi-arc RG-1s are increasing
inefficient compared to K-1s - this was intended.
As Noam points out, to get the best out of these, you need a lot of
thrust, probably at least Thrust-6 or preferably Thrust-8 or more.
Whatever version you use.
> From Charles:
> I agree, another option is to keep the re-roll, but make Railguns more
....table...
> Note that the Class 1 has the same PDS capability as a K-1
> As Noam points out, to get the best out of these, you need a lot of
Which makes the RG _doubly_ penalized vs. the K-gun. It's stuck on less
maneuverable ships _and_ costs more (or is less powerful if you use
other RG options). If you want to maneuver as well as a thrust 4 Advanced
Drive, you
need thrust 8, and have precious little room for normal K-guns, much
less
mass-penalized RG's.
I still see no compelling reason to create a new weapon metric (cost, mass,
_or_ effect). Sticking K-guns on human ships and altering the name
and/or
PSB will feel plenty different in combat and not be as "powerful" as
K-guns
on KV ships.
> From YOY (I'm having language barrier problems, so I'm not sure I
> The Kra'vaks are really very efficient, but do not have as
I don't know. I don't think any KV worth his dreadlocks would spend much time
in a Komarov's front arcs. The Komarov's range can't help it against attackers
that can maneuver to its aft and stay there pouring it on. An SDN vs. SDN
slugfest is one thing, but fleet vs. fleet?
> But if you
There are almost certainly balance points when you do the math. Though you
almost certainly have to increase cost/mass if you decrease mass and
vice-versa. Unneccessary complexities IMO.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9AEA9@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> From Charles:
Well, you have to build a bigger boat :-)
The effect I was trying to achieve is of a 'developing' tech that
perhaps isn't quite 'here' yet - useable (you can put a RG-2 into the
same space as a Pulse Torp - the PT does more damage, but the RG-2 is
better at armour penetration.
But, yes, it does add a new set of stats for a _slighly varient_ weapon,
I guess it depends if anyone thinks its worth it or not.
> I still see no compelling reason to create a new weapon metric (cost,
Granted - the most straightforward way of doing it - KISS principle &
all that.
Slighly of the main thrust of the topic- an all-arc K1 is MASS 2, how
many arcs would a MASS 1 K1 have? (I think 1, or 2) - might be useful
for something.
> From YOY (I'm having language barrier problems, so I'm not sure I
An SDN
> vs. SDN slugfest is one thing, but fleet vs. fleet?
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Slighly of the main thrust of the topic- an all-arc K1 is MASS 2, how
Less than 1 arc. The all-arc K1 is slightly overpowered (compared to
the other K-guns) as it is, but Mass 2 is closer to the real value than
Mass 3.
> Noam wrote:
> From YOY (I'm having language barrier problems, so I'm not sure I
It seems that YOY uses Vector movement, so even a Komarov should be
able to keep the KV in its front arc - particularly at long range.
Regards,