From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> "Beam Bridge"? Is this what connects the forward hull and the after
Funny you should ask...
I think that no more comments on #8 allows us to put it to bed. I'll update
the WDA soon.
As for the brdge and sabot; From the WDA:
Weapon/Defense Archive: Weapons: Other
Beam Brirdge
Mass: 1, Cost:4
Beam Bridges allow multiple beams of smaller classes to fire as larger
classes. A bridge always joins two equal class beams, and multiple beams must
be cross connected for multiple effect.
Examples: Two beams joined by a bridge can fire as a single beam one class
higher. Three beams joined by 3 bridges (each beam is joined by a bridge to
the other two) can fire as two classes higher, and so on. (4 beams beed 6
bridges for 3x, 5 need 10 for 4x.
Bridged beams can only fire as the higher class in arcs that all connected
beams can fire through; e.g. a bridged FP/F/FS
Class 2 beam bridged with a F/FS/AS beam can only fire as a class 3 in
the F and FS arc.
Every time a bridged beam is fired, _all_ connecting bridges roll
threshold at current level. If the roll fails, that bridge is damaged, the
Bridged beam does not fire. Also, both beams the damaged bridge is connected
to roll threshold checks as well.
Bridges that take threshold damage from normal ship combat (i.e. not while
firing) do not force additional checks on the beams they connect.
For WoTW discussion in particular:
ALTERNATE-1: Beams don't need to be crosslinked by extra bridges. (3
beams need 2 bridges, 4 need 3, etc..). Bridge cost is 6
ALTERNATE-2: Bridge threshold is rolled after Bridged Beam fires,
guaranteeing at least one shot.
E/M Sabot
Same purpose, function, and cost as Beam Bridge, but designed for Torpedo type
weapons.
For Pulse Torps, for example, a single bridge can allow two standard
P-Torps
to fire as a single Heavy P-Torp (See WDA). 3 bridges can allow 3 Light
P-torps to fire as one Heavy.
Alternate rules same as Beam Bridge
I think that the mass/cost is way too low.
Consider using Class-1 beams (all arc):
# Beams # Bridges Combined Mass Equivelent Beam Eq. Beam Mass
2 1 3 2 3
3 2 5 3 9
4 3 7 4 18
If it was limited to shifting the combined beam class up by one, it may be
workable.
I would suggest that you make it less complicated. Each Beam Bridge would have
class. The class is the maximum beam equivelent that it can output. I.e. a
Class 3 bridge can combine
3 class-1s or a class-1 with a class-1 to get a class-3 beam
output. Mass of the Beam Bridge is equal to the mimimum arc mass of a Beam
with the same rating. That is, if the Bridge is rated at
Class-3, it has a mass of 4. If it has a rating of Class-4, it
has a mass of 8. If it has a rating of Class-5, it would have
a mass of 16 (a Class-2 bridge is possible at mass 2, but not
very efficient).
Remove the auto-check for failure. But the bridge is subject
to normal thresholds/needles.
Anyway that's my take on it.
---
Brian Bell bbell@insight.rr.com
http://www.ftsr.org
---
---Original Message---
As for the brdge and sabot; From the WDA:
Weapon/Defense Archive: Weapons: Other
Beam Brirdge
Mass: 1, Cost:4
Beam Bridges allow multiple beams of smaller classes to fire as larger
classes. A bridge always joins two equal class beams, and multiple beams must
be cross connected for multiple effect.
Examples: Two beams joined by a bridge can fire as a single beam one class
higher. Three beams joined by 3 bridges (each beam is joined by a bridge to
the other two) can fire as two classes higher, and so on. (4 beams beed 6
bridges for 3x, 5 need 10 for 4x.
Bridged beams can only fire as the higher class in arcs that all connected
beams can fire through; e.g. a bridged FP/F/FS
Class 2 beam bridged with a F/FS/AS beam can only fire as a class 3 in
the F and FS arc.
Every time a bridged beam is fired, _all_ connecting bridges roll
threshold at current level. If the roll fails, that bridge is damaged, the
Bridged beam does not fire. Also, both beams the damaged bridge is connected
to roll threshold checks as well.
Bridges that take threshold damage from normal ship combat (i.e. not while
firing) do not force additional checks on the beams they connect.
For WoTW discussion in particular:
ALTERNATE-1: Beams don't need to be crosslinked by extra bridges. (3
beams need 2 bridges, 4 need 3, etc..). Bridge cost is 6
ALTERNATE-2: Bridge threshold is rolled after Bridged Beam fires,
guaranteeing at least one shot.
E/M Sabot
Same purpose, function, and cost as Beam Bridge, but designed for Torpedo type
weapons.
For Pulse Torps, for example, a single bridge can allow two standard
P-Torps
to fire as a single Heavy P-Torp (See WDA). 3 bridges can allow 3 Light
P-torps to fire as one Heavy.
Alternate rules same as Beam Bridge
---End Original Message---
G'day Noam,
> For WoTW discussion in particular:
For simplicity sake I'd go with this, but not sure what that does balance
wise.
> ALTERNATE-2: Bridge threshold is rolled after Bridged Beam fires,
Like this too.
Cheers
Beth
Modified both?
The base Beam Bridge is way undercosted even allowing for the threshold roll,
the mass is more efficient than the equivalent beam weapon.
Eg1: Base version: 8 class 2s + 27 Beam Bridges (at mass 1 each) = 43
mass with the ability to fire as a CLASS NINE BEAM (256 mass) with possibly 3
arcs.
Eg2: Alternate 1: 8 class 2s + 7 Beam Bridge (at mass 1 each) = 23 mass
with the ability to fire as a CLASS NINE BEAM (256 mass) with possibly 3 arcs.
*****
Beam Bridge: Mass: 2, cost: 8. 2 beam weapons can be joined to target together
to fire as the next largest size beam (maximum of 1 size larger). Everytime
the Beam Bridge is used, it rolls a threshold against itself and each battery
used.
Eg: 2 x class 2s + 1 beam bridge = 6 mass, fires as a class-3 battery
with threshold rolls.
Still undercosted, but better than a backdoor uberweapon...
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
Examples: Two beams joined by a bridge can fire as a single beam one class
higher. Three beams joined by 3 bridges (each beam is joined by a bridge to
the other two) can fire as two classes higher, and so on. (4 beams beed 6
bridges for 3x, 5 need 10 for 4x.
> For WoTW discussion in particular:
Or Class the bridge. The mass/cost of the bridge is equal to the maximum
class of beam that it can output with 1 arc.
So if you have a Class-3 bridge it has a mass of 4. But you can combine
3 Class-1 beams to have an all arc Class 3 beam. If you have a Class-4
bridge, it would mass 8, but could combine 4 Class-1 beams for an all
arc Class-4 beam or 2 3-arc Class-2 beams (with the same arc) for a 3
arc Class-4 beam.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD4718102C7C916@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Modified both?
Of cause, in Noam's original, you'd have to make 27 threshold checks
before you even get to resolve damage - which leads to the question - if
part of a multi beam-bridge [BB] network fails - does it fail to fire?
fire at reduced strength? or what?
If the former option, this weapon will very rarely work :-)
If the latter - large BB-nets will seriously slow down the game!
> Eg2: Alternate 1: 8 class 2s + 7 Beam Bridge (at mass 1 each) = 23
I'm thinking that perhaps the MASS/COST of the beam bridge should depend
on the class of beam that it is bridging.
Got to go now - more thoughts on this tomorrow!
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> The base Beam Bridge is way undercosted even allowing for the threshold
Not at all. Guaranteed that several of the 27 bridges will fail Threshold (On
average 4.5). The augmented beam will never fire, and several of the class 2's
will probably also short out.
> Eg2: Alternate 1: 8 class 2s + 7 Beam Bridge (at mass 1 each) = 23 mass
Same story (pretty much guaranteed that one of the 7 bridges will fail the
threshold), although an extremely lucky player might get one shot off. this
way. One beam die at 102 range isn't going to impress anybody.
Even Alternate 2 will be lucky to get more than one shot in with that many
bridges. The largest practical (IMO) set of bridges is probably 3, which gets
you a class 4 out of 3 C2's, or a Class 5 if using alternate 1, and even that
will have close to a 50% failure rate each shot. I don't want to do parallel
bridges, since that adds too much complexity, but if you really wanted them,
you could tie two beams together with more than one bridge. That way if one of
them failed, you could still fire the augmented beam (if
both beams survived _their_ thresholds induced by the bridge failure).
> Beam Bridge: Mass: 2, cost: 8.
> Still undercosted, but better than a backdoor uberweapon...
This is certainly another route to go. I disagree that the original is
anything approaching an uberweapon.
From: "bbell1@insight.rr.com" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
> Or Class the bridge. The mass/cost of the bridge is
> So if you have a Class-3 bridge it has a mass of 4. But you can combine
> 3 Class-1 beams to have an all arc Class 3 beam. If
This adds more complexity than I would like and has less flexibility. Would
you eliminate thresholds? I don't see buying this over another beam
In the original concept, 3 bridged Class 2's (same arcs) can fire as one class
4, or any two of them could fire as a class 3 if one got damaged
(assuming they were all cross-strapped - With alternate 1, if the center
beam was damaged, the outer two couldn't combine.
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
> Hmm, I have a problem with the fact the beam bridge allows you to fire
That's exactly what I didn't want to do. I wanted to have something that
allowed higher beam power without buying the full mass of the beam. The
tradeoff is you only get to shoot once or twice before thresholds take the
ability away, and you always risk losing beams as well as bridges.
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> Of cause, in Noam's original, you'd have to make 27 threshold checks
Exactly.
> which leads to the question - if
In the original, yes. In alternate 2, it always gets to at least once because
threshold checks happen after firing
> fire at reduced strength?
No.
> If the former option, this weapon will very rarely work :-)
Unless you use it reasonably and don't use more than a couple bridges for any
grouping. Which was the point of the design.
> If the latter - large BB-nets will seriously slow down the game!
Which is why I wouldn't do it that way.
Well, I've had a number of thoughts about Beam Bridges and the E-M
Sabot.
One (actually brought up by Adam) is that probably the easiest way to
represent such a system is simply to have it as one big beam battery, with the
PSB that it is a number of smaller batteries 'bridged' together.
As a development of this, consider the 'bridged' beams as a group of
beam batteries - for example.
2 1-arc B-3's bridged together as a B-4.
This does damage as follows:
Range Dice
0-12 don't use bridge so does 6 (2 B-3's)
12-24 ditto so does 4
24-36 ditto so does 2
36-48 use bridge, so does 1
This is almost identical to the damage vs. range profile of a B-4 and a
B-2, except for the 2 extra arcs on the B-2.
Comparing MASS and COST
2x B-3 plus a Beam Bridge is a total of 9 MASS and 28 COST
B-4 plus a 3-arc B-2 is a total of 10 MASS and 30 COST, ok, it is 1 MASS
and 2 COST more, but doesn't threshold and has 2 extra arcs out to 24 mu.
More complex is the case of 2 3-arc B-3s that only share 1 arc.
This case cannot be exactly simulated using just beam batteries, but a
reasonable representation could be, say 1 x 1-arc B-4 + 1x 5-arc B-3
(MASS 16, COST 48), compared with the Beam Bridged system (MASS 13, COST 40)
this is a bit more, but does more damage in the combined arc (1
extra dice out to 36 mu) - and does not need to make threshold checks
when fired at long range.
The benefits of doing it this way increase compared with more complex
multi-beam bridge networks :-)
Similar arguments could be applied to the E-M sabot (just use several
pulse torps, perhaps with a house rule to allow them the option of using a
single hit determination roll?)
On a related note, however - what about a 'beam combiner' or
'multi-beam' where several ships can combine there firepower into one
large beam - this is a 'genre' weapon, and one I have seen several times
(and even had described in a SF novel).
I'm not sure how to handle it, except for firing order - where the
'combined beam' gets resolved when the _last_ ship generating it is
activated.
Any thoughts?
Sorry,
Yes, I intended dropping the extra threshold rolls (it must have gotten lost
in quick edit) but keep the cascade effect if the bridge is lost.
If a Class-1 is lost, the bridge acts as 1 class lower. If the bridge is
lost, all connected Class-1s make a threshold check (6 to fail), the
remaining Class-1s act as normal. It also cuts down on lines drawn on
the diagram. With 4 CB1s the original concept would need 3 bridges - 7
symbols on the SDD. Would the beams be cross-linked to the various
bridges or would you limit it to 1 link per beam?With my suggested
alternative, there would be only 1 bridge (unless you added others as
backups).
Less flexible than the original. Less powerful. But more simple and less
rolling to fire.
Tradeoffs vs Larger Beam: Cons:
- More vulnerable to threshold checks.
- 1st arc costs 1 mass (not free).
- Cascade effect if bridge is lost.
Pros:
- 1 mass per additional arc.
- May split fire for close targets (Class-1s).
- Limited PDS ability (Class-1s).
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> Well, I've had a number of thoughts about Beam Bridges and the E-M
> One (actually brought up by Adam) is that probably the easiest way to
I'm not particularly in favor of it becuase it doesn't simplify things
_and_
loses flexibility. Every "banked weapon" will have its own firing profile and
range rules, whereas beams with bridges use the simpler logic of each to
dictate. My counter example is 3 3-arc Class 3 beams (F/FS/AS, FS/F/FP,
AP/FP/F cross-bridged (each beam connected to the other two). This would
entail quite the writeup as a single bank. But its easy to determine with beam
and bridge rules.
F arc can fire a single die out to 60" by combining all 3 beams, or 2 dice out
to 48" (with three or two thresholds depending on whether you're using the
alternate 1 or not.) FP or FS can fire a single die out to 48" by suitable
combinations of 2 beams. Everything closer uses the individual beams.
From: "Brian Bell" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
> Yes, I intended dropping the extra threshold rolls (it must have gotten
I think this could work. Could you write it up as a "classed beam bridge"
entry for the WDA?
However, I still don't like the loss of flexibility though, and prefer
multiple bridges. The largest practical bridge array is 3 bridges (50% failure
rate when all are used), which ties 3 beams in the original concept or 4 beams
in Alternate 1. That's really not so bad on an SSD, as FT SSD's are among the
least cluttered of all the space games I know.
From: "bbell1@insight.rr.com" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
> I think that the mass/cost is way too low.
This is only for the alternate that doesn't require cross-strapping,
_and_
ignores the changes of failure before firing, which are 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6
respectively for the example above, and 1/6, 3/6, and 6/6 for the
original concept. I think that's not undercost, and possibly overcost. But
YMMV.
Personally, I'd rather simply have another beam than a classed bridge, but the
concept sounds viable.
My message was sent on 5/21/2001 and took 10 days to arrive through the
E-mail aether.
Weird.