[FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak

I don't know but you might want to make KV armour lighter, say 3 armour boxes
for 2 mass at regular cost. That might solve the problem for the mid size
ships but you then might need to up the mass of class 3 rail guns, say 4
before extra arcs, to make the larger ships fit.

Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au

> At 01:07 19/11/98 -0800, you wrote:
Slit
> my wrists?

OK, how's this for on-topic?

I've got a small task force's worth of K'V minis which I'd love to get into a
Full Thrust game under fleet book rules. So, as per conversations some time
ago with Los, I've started converting them using More Thrust weights for
railguns and scatterpacks, and 90 degree firing arcs for K'V.

Keeping the same weapons fit as the More Thrust Kra'Vak, one gets the
following results:

http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/KV.html

in tabular form. Notice I'm not worrying about firing arcs in this, just
number of batteries and mass they take up. I'm more or less happy with most of
the capital ships, I had to fudge some of the results for
the escorts, but the whole bracket from Light Cruiser/Hunter all the way
to Battlecruiser just doesn't feel right. If I use the high speeds of More
Thrust, and average hulls, then I can't stick enough armor on to 'feel' right
to me. Any suggestions? Should I use weaker hulls and
more armor?  Adjust the weapons load-out?  Slow down the cruisers?  Slit
my wrists?

Hint, hint here: I'd really like to hear from people who've used K'V in FT:FB
battles. *cough*likerothafenforinstance*cough*:)

While I'm at it, I redid my Law Enforcement page IAW Mr.Barclay's
Non-lethal weapons rules, use above URL but substitute /cops.html

John,

Speaking as a KV player...

I noticed that in More Thrust, the going philosophy was that KV ships were
pretty tough.  They had strange armor that also acted shield-like.
(This from memory as my MT is on order from England. Nobody in the Local US
had it...) In battle, things seemed to deteriorate quickly on the KV ships.
But, all in all, the high thrusts and that little rule about being able to use
100% of your main thrust in maneuvers kept my guys alive for a while. Thrust =
Options = Life Trimming speed is bad....

Perhaps bumping the KV hull ratings up from average to strong. I don't
remember the exact wording but the feel of the KV section in MT was that they
had pretty sturdy ships.

It's funny how people playing FT show their Star Fleet Battle roots by
referring to Scatter_GUNS_ as Scatter_PACKS_.  <heh, I do it all the
time...>

Also, your KV page still says NEA RHOMAIOI.

-=Kr'rt

> ----------SNIP RESULTS------
Slit
> my wrists?

Kr'rt wrote:-

Perhaps bumping the KV hull ratings up from average to strong. I don't
remember the exact wording but the feel of the KV section in MT was that they
had pretty sturdy ships.

> --SNIP--
 Slit
> my wrists?

The exact quote is "their ship hulls are built with a much higher degree of
structural armour & integrity that human designs.." [MT Pg25] It sounds to me
that Kra'Vak ships should automatically have Strong hulls for the capacity of
average according to the design rules (thoughts?)

we use Strong hulls for smaller ships, and Super hulls for larger ships, with
the same equipment as in MT..

Steven

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Colin Nash wrote:

> Kr'rt wrote:-
<snip> >
> The exact quote is "their ship hulls are built with a much higher

Well, that's one way of looking at it - but I don't they should get
anything for 'Free'. my take on it would be that they should have Strong hull
integrity, and pay for it like everyone else. If you want a strong
hull integrity for the KV to only take 30% mass, fine - figure a new
progression of hull strengths vs% (maybe 8% per level instead of 10%?), and
then charge more per Mass of hull.

Quick example for hull, based on a Mass 100 vessel.
Human - Strong Hull - 40% (so Mass 40) at 2 pts per Mass - cost 80 for
the hull
Kra'Vak - Strong Hull - 32% (so Mass 32) at 4 pts per hull - cost 132
for the hull. They both have the same protection, but the Kra'vak has an extra
8 Mass for systems. This means that if Kra'vak weapons average out to the same
cost as human weapons (3 pts per Mass) Kra'vak will be more expensive
at the same size - but that's OK, as they will pack a larger punch to
compensate. Perhaps this could be offset by also increasing the size of their
engines to account for the greater maneuverability, if this benefit is to
remain.

Whatever you do, DO NOT give them the exact same system everyone else has and
charge less for it. If it is to be different, make it different! (hopefully
avoiding a recreation of the MT Kra'Vak imbalance)

Jared

"Colin Nash" <cmnash@dirtside.freeserve.co.uk> on 11/19/98 08:49:51 AM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: [FTFB] Fleet Book Kra'Vak

    Kr'rt wrote:-

Perhaps bumping the KV hull ratings up from average to strong. I don't
remember the exact wording but the feel of the KV section in MT was that they
had pretty sturdy ships.

> --SNIP--
Slit
> my wrists?

The exact quote is "their ship hulls are built with a much higher degree of
structural armour & integrity that human designs.." [MT Pg25] It sounds to me
that Kra'Vak ships should automatically have Strong hulls for the capacity of
average according to the design rules (thoughts?)
    Colin

> Jared E Noble wrote:

> Well, that's one way of looking at it - but I don't they should get

Or charge more mass on something else. I think the scattergun charges should
be immense. Think of how much mass you need to fill up a chunk of psace
withing 6MUs of your ship to automatically guarantee at least one hit.

For Kra'vak, I use the following (Beam class + 1/2 railgun class, round
up):
Class-1 railgun (3-arc) - 2 mass
Class-2 railgun (1-arc) - 3 mass
Class-3 railgun (1-arc) - 6 mass
Class-4 railgun (1-arc) - 10 mass, etc
Scatterguns - 1 mass each (6-arc) but uses PDS rules for targetting
ships (still d6 damage though). Drives cost 3x drive mass.
And doubling only occurs on a 5-6.  This makes the damage on par with
pulse torpedoes, Cruisers are designed with 5% mass as armour, Capitals with
10% mass as armour. This takes into account railgun damage with the changed
doubling.

With the new 6-arc weapons, a new symbol is really needed for railguns.
How about a hexagon with the class number inside?

Example: Kra'vak Patrol Cruiser Mass: 98 Hull: Ave (29); 29 Armour: 5;5
Thrust: 6; 29 FTL: Yes; 10 Firecons: 3
Railgun-2 (F) ;3
Railgun-2 (F) ;3
Railgun-3 (F) ;6
Railgun-3 (F) ;6
4 x Scatterguns;4

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
                       - Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".

[quoted original message omitted]

> Jared E Noble wrote:

> Well, that's one way of looking at it - but I don't they should get

> Or charge more mass on something else. I think the scattergun charges

A reasonable suggestion - what the exact values should be is a question
better left to those more knowledgeable than I. However, I stand by my earlier
statement (snipped) that that no new system should be exactly like an existing
system and cost less, or more for that matter. Make it
_different_ somehow, not simply the same thing done better and cheaper.

> Los <los@cris.com> Wrote:

> Or charge more mass on something else. I think the scattergun charges

While I may agree that scatter-guns need some adjustment anyway, the
hull problem needs to be resolved without resorting to changing the cost of
OTHER systems. Otherwise, they just won't buy the overpriced systems, and
stick to the "good but cheap" ones!!

One possible solution to the K'V hull problem, and keep in mind that this is
only off the top of my head...

Let the K'V hull chart read somthing more like:

Fragile - 10% of total Mass - Hull boxes=15% of Mass
Weak - 20% of total Mass - Hull Boxes=30% of Mass
Average - 30% of total Mass - Hull boxes=45% of Mass
Strong - 40% of total Mass - Hull boxes=60% of Mass
Super - 50% of total Mass - Hull boxes=75% of Mass

Cost = 1.5 per Mass

You might up the cost to two and give them an amount of "free" armor with the
hull as well.

> At approximately 11/19/98 10:16 PM, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> Let the K'V hull chart read somthing more like:

I like this, it's simple and changes little with the current system for
2.5.

> Cost = 1.5 per Mass

I'd go ahead and adjust the cost to 2 per mass. It makes them a bit more
expensive than the same sized human ship, however I've always been in the camp
of costing things a tad bit more expensive than the straight forward
conversion might suggest.  Maybe armor should be altered to - 1.5 armor
per mass at double the cost per mass.

Being able to jam more of this lower cost stuff on a ship hull makes them a
little more deceptive and efficient. It also gives a good reason (point wise)
for the KV to stay with armor over shields as mass for mass

armor will provide more defense (hence also the reason for doubling as there
was concern that armor may already be more efficient than shields
-
IIRC).

I don't like the "free" armor part. It's harder to balance the point system
and makes it more likely to need a total mass per armor chart or some other
system that easier to exploit advantages (like cut off or rounds off).

> Or charge more mass on something else. I think the scattergun

Scatterguns are believed to be based on technology like metal storm.
If you do the maths 6MU is 6000km - whats that - ~ California to New
York yes you'd need a *lot* of projectiles to hit something the size of a
missile at that range.

It must be a directed stream of a lot of projectiles. If its a undirected
cloud then as you suggest it would have to be immense (very). Alternatively
reduce its range or charge mass for range.

<psb>
The SG system is thus quite a heavy abstraction and must be based on
technology
we haven't seen yet </psb>

> Tim Jones wrote:

> Scatterguns are believed to be based on technology like metal storm.
Alternatively
> reduce its range or charge mass for range.

Me personally, that's how I envision scatterguns, and that's how I explain it
in my
story. I liken it to a big phalanx system firing garbage-can sized
cannister rounds that are timed and set to go off in front of a ship's vector.

> One possible solution to the K'V hull problem, and keep in mind that

Fair enough, let's give it a try...

> Let the K'V hull chart read somthing more like:

OK, that part looks pretty good. Assuming I understand it correctly, KV
get half-again the number of Damage Points for a given mass dedicated to
hull - certainly makes them beefier.  I kind of like it - at least it is
relatively straight forward.

> Cost = 1.5 per Mass

BZZZ...WARNING!...WARNING!...Error Detected...WARNING! ;-)

OK, here's where I have a problem, again assuming I understand your proposal.
It seems to me that if 10% Mass gives 15% in Hull Boxes, and 1 Mass of Hull
boxes costs 1.5 points, that means 1 Hull box costs 1 point. Is that a correct
understanding?

Alternatively, you may mean that instead of buying the basic hull for 1 pt per
total mass, you buy it for 1.5 per total mass, and that the cost for Hull
integrity remains unchanged. I'll examine this one second (it only occured to
me halfway through this post.)

Let's continue assuming my first interpretation was correct:

=====  Interpretaion 1 =====
Mass 100 Human Ship - Avg Hull
30% Mass (30 Mass total) yields 30 Hull Boxes for 60 pts

Mass 100 Kra'Vak Ship - Weak Hull
20% Mass (20 Mass total) yields 30 Hull Boxes for 30 pts

Mass 100 Kra'vak Ship - Avg Hull
30% Mass (30 Mass Total) yields 45 Hull boxes for 45 pts

Now lets look at those numbers. If you want to design your Mass 100 ship
to have 30 damage boxes -i.e. be as strong as the 'Average' human ship,
Not
only does the hull for the Kra'vak mass only 2/3 as much, it's half the
price! I think it's cool if you want to make the Hull more compact - but
please make it more expensive in that case!

=====  Interpretation 2 =====
Note that for this interpretation in one small way. In these calcs Kra'vak
Hull Integrity does not cost 2 points per Mass spent, but rather 2 points per
hull box.

Mass 100 Human avg hull
30 Mass / 30 Hull boxes / 60 points + 100 basic hull = 160

Mass 100 Kra'vak weak hull
20 Mass / 30 Hull boxes / 60 points +150 basic hull = 210

Mass 100 Kra'vak avg hull
30 Mass / 45 hull boxes / 90 points +150 basic hull = 240

That looks a little better - can't say if it is balanced exactly, but it
certainly feels like it's going in the right direction. Compare average hulls
between the 2. The Kra'vak ship has 50% more hull boxes at the same Mass,
which costs 50%. If anything it should be a little more expensive.

My rough estimates would suggest that this would change the Average
price/Mass of a Kra'vak ship over 4, whereas human ships seem to hover
right around 3 1/3 per Mass.  Since the Kra'vak will be tougher at a
given size, and probably more maneuverable, this is a good thing.

> You might up the cost to two and give them an amount of "free" armor

I'd say no. If you want to make armor for the KV progress at the same rate
of 1 Mass = 1.5 armor points while costing 2-3 pts per Point of armor,
fine
- but please leave out the freebies.

> Schoon

Looks good

> Jared E Noble <JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:

> Cost = 1.5 per Mass

You're correct. Human hull integrity is cost 2 per mass

What I should have said was that K'V hull integrity is cost 3 per mass to
match the 150% in hull boxes.

Jared,
...snip...JTL
> My rough estimates would suggest that this would change the Average

Guys, Another possibility for the Kra'Vak would be: Divide the number of hull
boxes by five and consider the first row to be the armor.

Just a thought, Bye for now,

Sounds simple, effectively the Kra'vak are paying for Strong hulls, but with a
layer of armour to protect it's systems.

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
                       - Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".

> -----Original Message-----

> Guys,

I'd vote against this simply because it takes out some ship individuality; you
couldn't make a Kra'Vak freighter without it being armored to the gills.

Speaking of which... any comments on the Kra'Vak stuff I posted?

I can think of a couple of things (if anyone actually receives this!)

Your railguns don't really mass enough compared to beam weapons. A
better comparison is the damage potential of P-Torps.
Damage per mass point (unscreened target)
                        range 0-6"      range 24-30"
class-1(6-arc)          0.798           0.000
class-3 (1-arc)         0.599           0.199
P-torp (1-arc)          0.720           0.145 (no rerolls)
railgun-1 (3-arc)               1.340           0.350
railgun-2 (1-arc)               1.340           0.350
railgun-3 (1-arc)               1.012           0.262
(Schoon's railgun versions - with reroll damage)

As you can see, the railguns are about 60% more efficient against an
un-screened ship, which argues for at least a 50% mass increase for
railguns.

The scattergun would be better to compare to a sub-munition pack rather
than class-1 due to it's expendable nature & higher damage curve (2.396
damage per mass at 0-6").  Leaving them as mass 1 but reducing the
antiship/antifighter range to 6" still makes it more efficient than
human tech, but running out of fighter defences is a Bad Thing (tm).

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
                       - Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".

[quoted original message omitted]

> As you can see, the railguns are about 60% more efficient against an

Good point on the damage vs. mass. I hadn't considered it; I was just going by
average damage at range. If we multiply the masses by 1.5...

Class 1 RAILGUN - 2 MASS, 4-arc fire
Class 2 RAILGUN - 3 MASS, 2-arc fire
Class 3 RAILGUN - 6 MASS, 1-arc fire
POINT COST = 3 per MASS

This makes them quite a bit more massive, and ups the cost as well. I'd be
very interested to get some playtest reports back from those who have time to
give these a whirl.

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:27:06 -0800, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker writes:

O.k., here are some Railgun ideas bantered arround the MCollective a while
ago. See what you think:

Railguns roll to hit like Pulse Torps.  2+ to hit at closest range
bracket, and getting one point worse per range bracket. Railguns ignore
shields, but do NOT get a reroll on damage. They do damage
like before.  one a roll of 1-3 they do level in points, on a 4-6 they
do 2x level. We also decided to give the railguns different range
brackets depending on type.  Brackets 4/6/8 for type R1/R2/R3.

R1 1.5 mass each (3 arc) R2 6.5 mass each (3 arc) 4.5 mass (1 arc) R3 10.5
mass each (3 arc) 7 mass (1 arc)

Now, heres the analysis. Its a little large I warn you. I need to redo it with
rerolls, but its still interesting. One question is how to rate the ignore
shields bit.

first colum is average damage per weapon at that range, second is damage per
mass assuming 3 arcs (including rerolls, but no shields)

range:	     0	  5    10   15	 20   25   30	35   40   45   50

L1 0.66 0.66 ------------|

L2 1.33 0.66 ------------|
   0.66 0.33              -----------|

L3 2.00 0.33 ------------|
   1.33 0.22              -----------|
   0.66 0.11                          -----------|

L4 2.66 0.19 ------------|
   2.00 0.14              -----------|
   1.33 0.10                          -----------|
   0.66 0.05                                      -----------|

PT 2.92 0.49 ------|
   2.33 0.39        -----|
   1.75 0.29              -----|
   1.17 0.20                    -----|
   0.58 0.10                          -----|

(single arc weapons)

L3 2.00 0.50 ------------|
1  1.33 0.33              -----------|
arc0.66 0.17                          -----------|

L4 2.66 0.33 ------------|
1  2.00 0.25              -----------|
arc1.33 0.17                          -----------|
   0.66 0.08                                      -----------|

PT 2.92 0.73 ------|
1  2.33 0.58        -----|
arc1.75 0.44              -----|
   1.17 0.29                    -----|
   0.58 0.15                          -----|

(First Set of Rail guns is assuming Range brackets of 4/6/8 and hit on
2+
at closest bracket)

R1 1.25 ???? ----|
   1.00 ????      ---|
   0.75 ????          ---|
   0.50 ????              ---|
   0.25 ????                  ---|

R2 2.50 ???? ------|
   2.00 ????        -----|
   1.50 ????              -----|
   1.00 ????                    -----|
   0.50 ????                          -----|

R3 3.75 ???? --------|
   3.00 ????          -------|
   2.25 ????                  -------|
   1.50 ????                          -------|
   0.75 ????                                  -------|

Comparing the above guns to beams, R1 to L2, R2 and R3 to L3 we get roughly
the following masses for 3 arcs:

R1 1.5 mass each (3 arc) R2 6.5 mass each (3 arc) 4.5 mass (1 arc) R3 10.5
mass each (3 arc) 7 mass (1 arc)

All of the above does NOT take into account re-rolls, screens, armor
penetration, etc.

Is ignoring screens equal to not getting a re-roll?  If so, the above
railgun masses aren't bad.

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
XXX You are correct, I was not thinking in terms of 'civilian' ships. However,
the other side of the coin is: What if this is right? What if the 'K' use a
'weak' but armored hull for the transport ships assign to the support duties
of the fleet and transportation services. What if like 'COSCO' (Chinese Ocean
Shipping Company) the 'civilian' 'K' ships are just an extension of the
military transport service. Statements exist in the background of the 'K' that
infer that this
could be the case.   JTL
XXX
> Speaking of which... any comments on the Kra'Vak stuff I posted?
XXX Having pressed the right button (or wrong button is you prefer), comments
follow:
1)   I feel you have thought things out pretty well. (compliment)
2)   I have severe reservations about the usefulness of any one arc
     system.   (railgun in particular)
Reasons:
     1) The 'To Hit' falls off with range, this is not true w/beams.
2) As the 'To hit' increases the ability to keep the enemy in the 'effecive
area' decreases. (with 1 arc type 3) Note: the actual solution to this problem
is to buy massive numbers of type 1 railguns (since they have the same range
and to hit as the type 3, and a larger fire arc.) (The same is true of beams,
but the best is the type 2 in this case.) 3) The damage 'reroll' rule makes it
highly desireable to
	throw more dice.   This will generate more 6s, and therefor
	more rerolls, and therefor more damage.   JTL
XXX

> Schoon

XXX Before I close the 'Blast Doors', just remember that I do play
Kra'Vak.   I created and pushed the three to two Kra'Vak to Human
ratio concept (for FT2). Perhaps I just feel that the FTFB didn't really
'solve' any problems, it just made everything 'vanilla' and moved the problems
to a new location. JTL XXX

Actually, keep up the good work, it will take some time to work out the bugs
(it's a Joke).

Bye for now,

> You are correct, I was not thinking in terms of 'civilian' ships.

I see your point, but I would still vote for the option that allows for more
individuality. I suppose it depends on whether you think the "K" armor
everything or not.

> Reasons:

Excellent point here. Matthew has me convinced that the re-roll option
for railguns is probably not the best idea, and in light of this, I'm inclined
to agree.

The problem might be solved by varying the effective range brackets - as
Matthew suggested - to some multiple of the railgun class (he suggested
4/6/8, and I countered with 3/6/9).

> Actually, keep up the good work, it will take some time to

I actually like criticism, so I'm pleased to get great input like this. I'll
get back to work...

> brackets depending on type. Brackets 4/6/8 for type R1/R2/R3.

I retract my "no" to this idea, but I still like 3/6/9 better. John
pointed out the potential problems involved with a "constant range" weapon.

> Excellent point here. Matthew has me convinced that the re-roll option

It just reduced the number of dice you have to roll (generally a good thing).
Also, Depending on the way you do rerolls, damage can get high quickly.

> The problem might be solved by varying the effective range brackets -

The trouble with only a 3" bracket for the R1's is that it only shoots out to
15". And that smaller brackets mean more fiddly measuring. And 9" brackets on
the R3 means it shoots out to 45". The only other weapon that can touch this
is a Class 4 beam. Do we want to give the
Kra-Vak that much of a range advantage?  And if we do that sucker had
better be really massive. I don't want small fast ships sitting out of range
playing tag type game.

> Actually, keep up the good work, it will take some time to

I can be talked into 3/6/9 brackets, I'm just worred that it makes too
much difference between the classes. And that the R3 gets really REALLY nasty.

Matthew
...snip...JTL
> The trouble with only a 3" bracket for the R1's is that it only shoots
...snip...JTL

> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:50:14 -0800, John and Roxanne Leary writes:

> It is my personal opinon that no one will ever mount type 4

The question is, does that work if your enemy can outrage you by 50%. Sure you
can go fast, but so can he.

How about I build a ship with R3 railguns (range 45") aft and forward. You
come after me, and I break into two groups. You case one, and the other chases
you. With the extended range, I can hit you from outside your range pretty
consistantly. If you turn arround to take on the chasers who are firing at
you, the leaers turn arround and become chasers. Not much fun.

Fighters and special super fast attack ships can of course close the range,
but it might be hard to get your battle line to engage.

> The trouble with only a 3" bracket for the R1's is that it only

> It is my personal opinon that no one will ever mount type 4

John,

Matthewseidl@cs.colorado.edu
...Snip...JTL
> >

I must admit I never considered the ship I was going to enguage would be
modular and continue to break down into smaller parts!!!
However, back to the type 4 weapons.   I'll still stand by the
original statement.

Bye for now,

I haven't gone through all of the recent posts yet, but I think that:
1) Railgun mass should be along the lines of "class+1" (i.e. 2,3,4) and
that
they should mostly be 1 (60-degree) arc.  _Perhaps_ 2 arcs for the Class
1.

2) I really don't like the K'Vs having anti-fighter\anti-missile weapons
other than the Scatterguns, or for that matter ADFCs. SGs are so damaging to
ships that there ought to be a serious reason NOT to fire them at ships. I'd
also make them 2 mass each to keep them expensive in space and keep their
numbers down, so a K'V admiral has decisions to make about their use.

3) To offset a lack of ADFCs, I'd let SGs fire at any fighters in range and
which are NOT attacking friendly ships.

Hmm- a possible second thought (2 in one day, I'll have to go and lie
down!)- perhaps I might allow K'V ADFCs but rule that the "defended"
ship
takes a half-strength SG attack.

Rob