Hi All,
I've been following the whole WotW thread, and though I'm not really keen on
offering specific advice on each weapon, I do have some
general thoughts on how EMPs ought - or ought not - to work.
1) They should affect a set number of systems - not a ship-wide
blanket. This is for balance.
2) They should have a clearly defined, simple list (did I mention simple?) of
the systems that they affect, and in what order. If you involve attacker or
defender choosing, they'll take forever to do it, and no one will be
completely happy with the results anyway. Nail it down, define it! That way
there's nothing to argue about.
3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps record
keeping and superfluous rules down to a minimum. KISS.
G'day Schoon,
> 1) They should affect a set number of systems
OK then for arguments sake say it was Weapons Electronics (FC etc) Criticals
How would you deal with the case where there were 3 hits but 5 weapons? And
how do you stop people saying OK we do the 3 class 1s first then the class 2s
(sorry, but I'm in a pernickety mood today).
Cheers
Beth
> OK then for arguments sake say it was
My version of this list would be
Drives Screens Weapons Electronics... or something like that, but that's not
the point
> How would you deal with the case where there were 3 hits but 5 weapons?
With multiple systems, I would say go from least MASS to largest MASS; with
the idea that larger MASS systems would have more
shunts/breakers/protection
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> G'day Schoon,
Shipboard systems with respect to EMP weapons fall into three categories: 1)
Systems that are trivially easy to shield in a conductively hulled ship
2) Systems that handle sufficiently large energies that an EMP is less severe
than switching it on or off, or using it (the bulk electrical grid no longer
worries about lightning, the voltages of lightning strikes are too low, only
hundreds of thousands of volts).
3) Systems that do not fall within groups 1 or 2.
The only plausible PSB for an EMP missile is that it generates a very large
EMP event VERY close to the hull (probably within the hull via cascade
ionizing radiation). Every other EMP weapon only causes threshold checks for
group 3 systems, which only includes sensors, fire control systems, area
defence
FC's,
and weapons which incorporate their own fire control (PDS, spicules, and
scatterguns[so far]). For simplicity, we can assume that standard sensors are
optically isolated, and sufficiently small and cheap, that there are enough
multiply redundant arrays that new can be popped out as needed (or they would
take up mass, surface area, and volume like they do in Star Cruiser).
So EMP afflicted ships roll for group 3 systems, and on the following turn
(when replacing their burned out normal sensors) consider all targets that
they were not tracking as cloaked [requires additional bookkeeping of
recording what
> I've been following the whole WotW thread, and though I'm not really
Howza bout the following - something I've been thinking about for a few
months, jsut found it on my hard drive and blew off the cobwebs....
Damage and Damage Control:
"Damaged" means inoperative until repaired. "Destroyed" means permanently
incapacitated until a shipyard repairs the ship.
(Optional) The first time that a system has a repair attempt, on a roll of 1
the system is found not to be damaged but destroyed, and the box should be
filled in, to note that it's not repairable. For campaign purposes, Systems
not known to be destroyed should be diced
for between games : 1 indicates the system is destroyed, 2-6 indicates
it has been repaired.
Important Exception: Needle hits always destroy the system they hit.
(PSB/Justification - adds flavour without affecting the game much,
balance-wise)
MT Missiles
These move as per fast fighters, with a 2-turn endurance. They home in
on the closest target when their endurance is exhausted. Note that like
fighters, they can burn the second endurance for an additional move of up to
12", so they can usually make sure the desired target is the closest one if
fired at close range.
Warheads:
Normal -
Does 2D6 damage if it hits, half penetrating.
ECM
Hits by ECM - or "Blinder" Missiles do 1 pt of damage. Their other
affects are confined to Fire Control Systems and Special Sensors. Each ECM hit
causes an instantaneous threshold check to all FC systems
Hi all,
How about for a general EMP weapon, we use the same concept as the Needle
Beam, but make it more effective?
Attacker chooses one system,
Defender chooses two systems,
D6 = 5, 6Â: Systems chosen are taken out.
It's simple:Â only one roll, no bookeeping and it's definately more effective
than a needle beam.
Just my $0.02
How about defender (the person hit) shooses which weapons, electronics, etc. I
say this because the amount of hardening each system is going to have will (in
general) be in proportion to its importance. And, theoretically anyway, the
person hit will choose to lose the less important systems. Makes sense?
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
> Beth wrote:
> and Noam wrote:
"That
> system's already damaged"? "Hey, you chose something that wouldn't
These situations are one of the reasons why I left weapons out of my 'list'
for Ion Cannons. Taking out Fire Cons is more effective anyway.
The list I use again: Screens Special Electronics (Sensors, ECM, etc.) Fire
Controls FTL Drive Main Drive (Back to top of list)
The defender would have some choice on the order of Special Electronics, but
all other systems are not arc specific so whether the 1st or 3rd fire con is
marked off, it doesn't matter.
From: Dean Gundberg Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com
> These situations are one of the reasons why I left weapons out of my
> The list I use again:
How about ADFC?
> Laserlight wrote:
It would fall in the Fire Controls section, the player of the target ship
could select to roll for this system before or after the normal fire controls
but it would still get a roll before the FTL Drive is checked.
> Schoon wrote:
> I've been following the whole WotW thread, and though I'm not really
More accurately, this is to maintain the current imbalance between large and
small ships. An imbalance I for one would be quite happy to
see reduced, though those who routinely fly all-SDN fleets or single
superships might disagree :-/
The ship-wide blanket effect of the MTM-EMP (and its proposed
direct-fire relatives) is one of the very few FT game mechanisms (as
opposed to arbitrary scenario restrictions or tournament rules) which *can*
reduce this particular imbalance, which is why I'm not prepared to accept
Schoon's first point for all EMP weapons.
(OK, you *could* multiply the ship's NPV by NPV^(something)/NPV, where
IIRC "(something)" is in the 1.15 - 1.2 range - but only if you like
maths and have a good calculator handy. Not a solution I'd recommend,
really...)
Schoon's second point only applies if you have already accepted the first one:
> 2) They should have a clearly defined, simple list (did I mention
If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to argue about,
it'll still take almost forever to evaluate, only the rule's author will be
completely happy about it, and the list will *not* be simple. Noam and Beth
have already pointed out some of the reasons why this is so, so I won't repeat
them here.
The version of the "defender chooses system to roll for" which Brian
posted early in the WotW2 thread - ie., the EMP weapon determines the
maximum number of systems *lost* instead of the number of systems *to
roll for* - works quite well without any list whatever. (I first saw it
described by Pat Shepard a fair while back - possibly pre-FB1, but I
don't remember exactly. I've used the mechanic occasionally, but not
enough to determine how much it is worth :-( )
The defender simply chooses the systems to roll for, but since he has to keep
choosing systems to roll for until he has lost the number of
systems specified (or he has rolled for all (non-Core) systems on the
ship), he may very well end up losing the important system he saved for last
rather than the PDSs he picked first <g>
> 3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps
Either a normal threshold, or use whatever table the MTM-EMPs and
SM-EMPs use. (And those two should use the same table, too :-/)
Regards,
> On Wed, 14 February 2001, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> Shipboard systems with respect to EMP weapons fall into three
If I remember my physics classes, it's pretty easy to protect against EMP. You
run a charge through the hull of the ship and it should protect the inside
from EMP.
Of course, what happens when you lose hull integrity due to holes? An external
EMP should probably be more effective as a ship takes more damage.
> The only plausible PSB for an EMP missile is that it generates a very
Why not just have the thing puncture the hull and send in a blast of EMP from
the inside? Granted you should be able to protect internally, as well, to a
certain degree.
As for the systems that can be affected, you could argue "every system",
but I like the idea of a weapon targeting non-weapon systems only.
Firecons, sensors, drives... that sort of thing. Of course, the worth of such
a weapon goes up once sensor rules are created for the FB rules.
> On Wed, 14 February 2001, "Alan and Carmel Brain" wrote:
> The first time that a system has a repair attempt, on a roll of 1
The idea of a "completely destroyed" versus "damaged" system is interesting.
For simplicity sake, a single line through it (a "/") indicates a failed
threshold check on the system. Two lines through it (an "X") mean that it is
gone completely, and can not be fixed.
> On 15 Feb 2001 agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 February 2001, "Alan and Carmel Brain" wrote:
Oh. I guess that'd work. I had been using a hole punch for those unrepairable
systems...
:-)
Mk
> More accurately, this is to maintain the current imbalance between
I do neither of those things and actually feel that escorts have a very
important place in the battle line, but that's a whole other
debate. Of course large ships are more powerful - and they have the
point cost to prove it. We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for
another time.
> The ship-wide blanket effect of the MTM-EMP (and its proposed
The same EMP weapon hits an SC and an SDN, causing blanket threshold rolls on
both. What is it's point value?
> If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to argue
Not true: I've seen several simple, short lists that look perfectly
acceptable.
> Either a normal threshold, or use whatever table the MTM-EMPs and
With this I heartily agree!
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> More accurately, this is to maintain the current imbalance between
Hear, hear! That's one of the reasons I thought of ash Shaulah strikers armed
with needle beams. "Okay, you have a SDN, fine, ZAP, ZAP, now you have no Main
Drive. Oh, look, all my other ships have
> Schoon wrote:
> More accurately, this is to maintain the current imbalance between
I was more thinking of Mark Siefert's former gaming aquaintancies <g>
> Of course large ships are more powerful - and they have the
Incorrect. Large ships are more powerful, but their points cost does not
reflect their privilige of taking fewer threshold checks than
smaller ships - and that is a quite big advantage indeed.
Given the same thrust ratings and equipment mixes on both sides, a single ship
is invariably more powerful than the sum of two smaller ships with the same
total NPV due to the fact that the small ships take thresholds and lose
weapons earlier even if they taken together have the same total numbers of
hull and armour boxes.
> We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for another time.
No, we can't. Unlike many other game balance problems, the dynamics of this
imbalance only depend on the size ratio between the individual opposing ships
and not on the total size of the battle; the imbalance between a TMF 1400
supership and a mixed fleet led by TMF 250 SDNs is just the same as the
imbalance between a couple of TMF 250 SDNs and a
force of DDs and smaller led by a couple of TMF 45 CLs/DHs, or between
a single TMF 120 BB and a squadron of TMF 22 FFs and smaller, or
between a single TMF 60 CH and half a dozen TMF 10-12 CTs/SCs.
> The ship-wide blanket effect of the MTM-EMP (and its proposed
Same question seen from the other perspective:
Eight DDs have the same total nominal points value as one SDN, but have a
rather less than 50% chance of defeating it in battle. What is the *real*
points value of the DDs (or of the SDN)?
> If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to argue
Sounds like you've only looked at those lists without actually trying them out
in a game, or else haven't read Noam's and Beth's comments to them. One of
your conditions was to nail things down hard enough to leave no room for
arguments, but short lists leave a lot of room for arguments.
Regards,
> From Schoon:
> The same EMP weapon hits an SC and an SDN, causing blanket threshold
For the scout it's almost a nil or kill effect. For the SDN it's substantially
higher than nil, but never close to a kill. Plus and SDN stands a much better
chance of a) healing the EMP damage, and b) Preventing further EMP attacks.
> (Oerjan)If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to
> Not true: I've seen several simple, short lists that look perfectly
Acceptable if you want to blur the line between a threshold weapon and a
needle weapon. The short simple lists Perhaps Dean's and BIF's recent lists
are OK for a "strictly defined" EMP weapon a la Richard Bell, but that
over-restricts the "threshold weapon" mechanic, which is what the MT EMP
missile introduced, and what the Scrambler Pulse, for example tries to
translate to Direct fire.
> From Beth:
> (Noam)Having the target choosing
> I'm obviously in a difficult mood this week as I just don't see the
Probability. For limited checks, I as the target will pick the systems least
likely to affect me during the scenario first (i. e. Fighter bays of
launched fighters, PDS in a non fighter/missile game, class 1's, off arc
weapons, FTL, etc). If I only have to knock off two systems, I' m hoping that
probability will hit early rather than late. Of course it may
not, and I may have to lose that 3-arc Class 3 beam, or a firecon, but I
try to "shield" those with my earlier choices.
In other words, if I only have to nix one system, every system I choose
instead of my firecon reduces the chance of having to lose it by (on
average) 1/6 (for thresh 1). If the attacker chooses the firecon first,
then
it's got a straight 1/6 chance of going away - just like a needle.
> >Most people can, after a few games,
> I agree, but I still think that a simple designation system and rolling
I'll give you that. As long as it's "defender chooses", I can live with it.
Then Donogh suggested:
> >Attacker chooses one system,
> Noam probably won't go for this, but of all the compromises called for
> today I like it the most. It captures Noam (and others) "defender
> preference as well as giving the firer some chance of knocking out the
> thing they really wanted to get rid of in the first place.
You're right, I still don't like it. If the attacker wants to take out
specific systems, they should be using needles, not threshold weapons.
Eventually we'll have a WotW on the needle missiles/fighters/Heavy
Needle beam, etc, but that's not, or IMO shouldn't be, the mechanic we deal
with here.
> From Laserlight:
> Roll 1 die: On 1-3, no effect; 4-5, all systems down for 1 turn; 6,
Well, it's simple, I'll give you that. I'd be fine with it if the target
counldn't take damage while it was out of comission.... Now there's an idea.
Something like a Stasis Gun (or missile).
> >Of course large ships are more powerful - and they have the
Both small AND large ships take 4 thresholds (though in select cases, the
small ship may take 2, 1, or none). I think what you meant to say was that the
larger ships have to take more damage before taking their first. True.
However, even though the same percentage of systems will break in both cases,
more systems will go down on the larger vessels. In other words, the same
percentage of MASS will go down in both cases.
> Given the same thrust ratings and equipment mixes on both sides, a
Assuming that same weapons mix and damage potential in both cases
(statistically speaking), it balances out. If we have a 40 HP big ship vs. 2 x
20 HP smaller ships, each doing an average 1 point of damage per 4 HP (10, 5,
5), they will all die gloriously together. Even though the smaller ships make
more frequent threshold checks, the big ship must either split his fire or
concentrate on 1. Let's say that he concentrates, and at the end of turn 2, he
has 20 HP left (2nd threshold) and there is one destroyed and 1 untouched 20
HP ship. The overall damage potential is still the same.
> >We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for another time.
See above. While I don't deny that FB1 escorts would loose against a larger
ship of equal thrust, FB1 large ships have lower thrusts, and
FB1 escorts are mostly hampered by their lack of long-ranged weapons.
> Sounds like you've only looked at those lists without actually trying
I would have to disagree here. (and I have read the posts, thanks ;-)
Take (as stipulated in one of my replies):
1) Drives 2) Electronics 3) Weapons 4) Fire Control
Within each category go from lowest MASS to highest MASS (or vice versa, it
doesn't matter for the purpose of my example).
That's a short list, and it really doesn't leave alot of room for argument.
However, if you mean that the list itself is open to argument (in other words,
you think that Weapons should be the first thing tested), then we can dance
about all day.
> For the scout it's almost a nil or kill effect. For the SDN it's
Preventing
I'd agree generally with (a), but I'm not as sure about (b)
In message <200102151948.UAA07412@d1o901.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Schoon wrote:
Hmm... good point, so we could balance a 'blanket threshold' weapon against an
'average sized' ship, this would make it over expensive vs.
smaller ships (but if you _must_ use a sledgehammer to crack a nut...
:-), and underpriced vs. larger ships - which _could_ be an incentive to
create fleets with a proper distribution of ship sizes - if we handle it
right. This could also be considered an argument against my 'virtual damage'
mechanic - but I don't have a problem with that - it did have some
problems.
> Schoon's second point only applies if you have already accepted the
> >and no one will be completely happy with the results anyway. Nail it
I personally just don't like the lists - maybe because its something
else to look up, maybe I just feel that it doesn't fit FT.
> The version of the "defender chooses system to roll for" which Brian
Hmm.. that _could_ work, I suppose.
> >3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps
I vote for that, I just don't like the existing table for MTM-EMPs in
More Thrust :-)
> Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] However, if you have 2 smaller ships of the same mass, they will
take 6 threshold checks to the larger ship's 3 threshold checks. Furthermore,
they will take them quicker.
> >Given the same thrust ratings and equipment mixes on both sides, a
[Bri] Your example is flawed in that the larger ship would not have
reached the 2nd threshold by the 2nd round, but one of the smaller ship would
have left or been "mission killed" by the 2nd round.. Turn 1 both sides take
10 points of damage. The 40 point ship (Ship Z) takes
a 1st threshold check and is down to 8 points offense (30/4). The
damaged 20 point ship (Ship A) takes 10 points and is down 2 thesholds, so it
is down
to 3 points offense (10/4 = 2.5). The other 20 point ship (Ship B) is
untouched. Round 2 Ship Z takes 8 points of damage (22 left) but not another
threshold check, so is still at 8 points offense. Ship A takes 8 points of
damage (2 left); and a 3rd threshold check, so is down to 0 points offense
(2/4); and leaves the battle (less than 1/2 last damage row left). Ship
B is untouched. Round 3 Ship Z takes 5 points of damge (17 left); 2nd
threshold
check drops it to 6 offense (17/4). Ship B takes 8 points of damage (12
left); 1st threshold check, so drops to 3 offense (12/4). Round 4 Ship Z
takes 3 points damage (14 left); 2nd threshold check drops it to 4 offense
(14/4). Ship B takes 6 poinst of damage (6 left); 2nd threshold check,
so is
at 2 points offense (6/4). Round 5 Ship Z takes 2 points damage (12
left); no threshold, so stays at 4 points offense. Ship B takes 4 poinst of
damage
(2 left); 3rd threshold check brings it to 1 offense (1/4); Ship B
leaves
the battle (less than 1/2 last damage row left).
Results: Ship Z leaves with over 1/4 of its hull intact and 40% of its
offensive effectiveness. And this does not take into account that a greater
percentage of systems are lost with successive threshold check, or that larger
ship can effect repairs more efficiently, or screens that multiply the
imbalance.
> > >We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for another time.
[snip]
> Schoon
My comment above marked by [Bri]
---
> [Bri] However, if you have 2 smaller ships of the same mass, they will
Furthermore,
> they will take them quicker.
Yes, but the equivalent effect is the same. In other words, taking one big
threshold check on 20 systems produces similar results to taking one threshold
check each on 10 systems.
> [Bri] Your example is flawed in that the larger ship would not have
[snipped excellent example]
Well done on this. I concede the point. However, I still disagree
that adding a large-ship killer (in EMP form or otherwise) to the
game is the solution.
I actually feel that the fleet construction limits (must have 1 escort for
every cruiser for every capital) is a reasonable way to limit abuse.
I've always played mixed fleets simply because I understand the purpose of
escorts in the economic scheme of things (you can't use an SDN as a customs
cutter).
> Schoon wrote:
> Of course large ships are more powerful - and they have the
So far so good.
> However, even though the same percentage of
Yes, BUT:
> Assuming that same weapons mix and damage potential in both >cases
This is where you go wrong. It looks as if you've fallen prey to an
over-simplified example - easy enough to do, I know (from bitter
experience :-/ ).
The main things you've ignored here are
* the effects of initiative-based fire (unless you use house-rule
simultaneous fire the big ship will almost always be able to knock out
some small-ship weapons before they can fire in a given turn), and
* the fact that one half-sized ship taking its first *two* threshold
checks will on average lose more weapons than the single big one loses on its
first *one* check (this remains true even if you use simultaneous fire).
There are some other factors favouring the big ship as well, as discussed
below.
Call the large 40 HP ship A and the 20 HP ones B and C. The number before the
slash is the HP remaining at the end of the turn; the number after the slash
is the average firepower of the ship at the end of the turn.
Simplifications:
* B+C always win the initiative (very unlikely, but gives them a
massive boost), * A can split its fire either equally or not at all
(reasonably realistic assumption for a BB or bigger, at least until A has
taken its 3rd threshold check), * All ships involved fight to the death rather
than break off (common
trait in players, but favours B+C (otherwise one of them will break off
rather than being destroyed)), * None of the ships ever lose all FCSs or
suffer incapacitating core
hits (favours B+C; in real games they do on average suffer such
disasters to *at least one* ship more often than A does, and having one of the
two ships knocked out prematurely is enough to give A the victory) *
Maneuvering, and therefore the effects of limited fire arcs is ignored (this
depends more on player skill than on anything else, and can strike either way.
On the whole I'd call this a slight bias in favour of A.)
* No repairs during the battle (favours B+C since they have fewer DCPs
available on the ship which has lost weapons). * All die rolls are exactly
average (neutral)
Taken together, these simplifications are quite heavily biased in
favour of B+C. With these simplifications, the example battle will on
average play out as follows:
Turn A B C Notes
1 32.2/10 20/5 10/2.8 Ship C takes 2 thresholds
before firing
2 24.4/8.3 20/5 1.7/1.4 Ship C fires first
3 18.1/5.6 15.9/5 Destroyed Ship C fires first
(otherwise it doesn't get to shoot at all, which is
slightly worse)
4 13.1/5.6 10.3/4.2
5 8.8/2.8 7.5/2.8
6 6/2.8 4.7/1.4
7 4.6/2.8 1.9/1.4
8 3.4/2.8 Destroyed
Ship A is badly battered to be sure, but it is *not* destroyed at the same
time as B is. On average it *wins*, in spite of both sides having exactly the
same total number of hull boxes, weapons and the identically same NPV, and in
spite of all the simplifications favouring
B+C.
What happens if some of the B+C-favouring simplifications are removed
or reduced? Let's look at what happens if A wins the initiative on
even-numbered turns (ie. giving B+C the opening shot of the battle but
then alternating the initiative):
Turn A B C Notes
1 32.2/10 20/5 10/2,8 Ship C takes 2 thresholds
before firing
2 27.2/8.3 20/5 Destroyed
3 22.2/8.3 11.7/4.2 Ship B fires first
4 20.8/8.3 3.3/1.4 Ship B takes 2
thresholds before firing
5 19.4/5.6 Destroyed Ship B fires first
Again A isn't destroyed at the same moment as B or C dies. In fact, this time
it has only just taken its 2nd threshold check when B blows up (and it hadn't
even taken the *first* check when C died)!
If A wins initiative on odd-numbered turns it suffers a bit worse,
destroying ship B just before A reaches its 3rd threshold. With random
initiative the results can of course range from A losing initiative all the
time to A winning initiative all the time, but the average outcome
is that A wins - and wins quite convincingly.
If you use a simultaneous fire house rule instead of the published
initiative-order fire A's margin of victory grows very small, but it
still remains larger than zero.
If you remove the other simplifications from the above examples - about
half of them biased B+C and the rest were neutral - A's average
advantage grows bigger still.
This example can be scaled as you like. It doesn't matter if you give the big
ship 4 HP and the small ones 2 HP each (a light corvette
fighting two scouts - the CT can't split its fire, but OTOH it'll very
rarely *need* to split its fire in order to avoid overkilling a damaged SC),
or the big one 200 HP and the small ones 100 each (a smallish "supership"
fighting two big superdreadnoughts); the big ship will still win the average
battle. Which is of course the very reason why I disagreed with your statement
that:
> We can save the Supership vs. Mixed Fleet debate for another
I take it that you refer to the above example in order to deny that cruisers
(or bigger) suffer disadvantages against ships twice their
size (since on average FB1 cruisers - as in "cruisers designed under
the FB1 design rules", not as in "the official FB1 cruiser designs")
aren't really higher-thrust or shorter-ranged than capitals.
However, as you can see above the example shows just the opposite - the
smaller ships *are* disadvantaged, and quite heavily so, against ships twice
their size.
> Sounds like you've only looked at those lists without actually trying
Either you haven't tried this out it in a game, or you had *extremely*
reasonable opponents when you did. I have tried similar lists (more detailed
than the above one though), but unfortunately my opponents are
only of average reasonability :-( Examples of arguments which would pop
up with the above list are:
FTL or normal drive first? (*Very* important for NSL-style capitals.)
Which of all the equal-Mass weapons should be checked for first - the
3-arc P-torp, the Mass 6 SM magazine or one of the 3-arc B3s (and
*which* of the B3s)? The SMLs or the all-arc B2s? The PDSs or the B1s
(I'm assuming that PDSs count as weapons here)?
Which of the equal-Mass electronics should be checked for first - the
individual ECM or the Superior Sensors, the area ECM or the screen?
With anything less than extremely reasonable players, the above list leaves
considerable room for arguments and is quite far from being "nailed down".
Regards,
> From Schoon:
> Take (as stipulated in one of my replies):
> Within each category go from lowest MASS to highest MASS (or vice
Have to disagree - with all 4 categories, actually.
Weapons: Take a Maria Von Borgund with the main threat coming from Port. As
the MVB, if I haven't fired yet, I'll want to check all my Starboard
facing,and possibly forward facing 3-arc Class 3's _and_ torps before
the port class 3's, and the attacker will want the opposite.
Fire Control: Take a game without fighters/missiles. I'd gladly roll my
ADFCs before my regular firecons, but the attacker would want he opposite.
Drives: Take the first blows of a long game, I'd want to thresh FTL before the
Main Drive, the attacker the opposite.
"Electronics:" - that's a non system in most games, since sensors/ECM
are far from uniformly applied or played with.
Schoon wrote in reply to Brian, who had written pretty much the same things I
posted minutes before I got his post so I've snipped that part of Schoon's
reply:
> Well done on this. I concede the point. However, I still disagree
The MTM-EMP is a large-ship killer? Not really. A large-ship softener,
but since it doesn't inflict hull damage or kill DCPs that's all it is.
Or *nearly* all it is - it is also a pretty good reason to stick
level-2 screens on your dreadnoughts and bigger <g>
> I actually feel that the fleet construction limits (must have 1
But you also can't bring a customs cutter to a fleet battle, unless you want
it to get destroyed for no return.
During many time periods fleets *in fleet battles* (as opposed to the total
fleet) weren't particularly mixed. The Napoleonic era in particular; small
ships simply had no chance against a ship of the line, so they didn't even try
to fight. They fled immediately instead, or surrendered if they couldn't flee.
Battle fleets usually consisted of a large number of ships of the line
("capital ships") and a few frigates ("cruisers") for scouting, with no ships
smaller than frigates (ie., no "escorts"). The smaller ships mostly fought
their own counterparts, in patrols and convoy engagements quite separate from
the fleet battles of the big boys.
However, in the Napoleonic era there were technology-imposed limits on
how large ships could be built, and the navies of that era were "playing a
campaign" so couldn't concentrate all their resources in one place. Those
small ships to maintain a presence, even though they didn't fight in the big
battles.
The FB design system currently doesn't have any limits on max TMF (and unless
you tie it firmly to one specific background it is hard to impose such an
arbitrary limit), and most FT battles aren't campaign battles. The result is
that superships, or in smaller battles merely large SDNs, are far more
overpowering than they would be "in reality".
Regards,
> Hmm... good point, so we could balance a 'blanket threshold' weapon
I know that I'm probably beginning to sound like a broken record here, but I
like to think that any given weapon is going to be balanced properly against
ANY ship.
While I see the point that people are making re: large vs. small ships, I
don't think that weapons mechanics are the proper venue to address that
imbalance.
> Either you haven't tried this out it in a game, or you had *extremely*
Yup. I hate rules lawyers.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >[Bri] However, if you have 2 smaller ships of the same mass, they
Furthermore,
> >they will take them quicker.
There are a number good ways to encourage the existence of small ships in a
campaign, without adding restrictions that appear completely arbitrary.
If it is a Traveller or Starfire -esque setting where the only way to
carry messages between systems is to transport them on a ship, small ships are
needed to run an economical courier service and maintain a presence in all
systems.
Commerce raiding also encourages the existence of smaller ships, as you have
to fill a large volume to find the convoys, and there are never enough BB's to
frighten raiders away from all of the convoys and a BB escorting a convoy that
isn't attacked is almost as good as destroyed to your enemies, as it is not in
the battleline.
My personal favourite is to allow players to specify the number and capacity
of their slipways (units of hull production). Each slipway represents a
valuable pool of workers and machine tools. Slipways are expensive to build,
but easily lost. Shipyards with no work go bankrupt and their workforce
rejoins the civilian economy. To maintain the resource pool of a slipway, it
has to be doing something, building a ship, doing a new threat upgrade,
repairing extensive damage, etc.
To maintain a high surge capacity in shipbuilding, the state must be keeping a
large number of yards busy, which is best accomplished churning out the kinds
of
vessels that are likely to be used up or lost quickly anyways-- scouts,
> My personal favourite is to allow players to specify the number and
When I was doing up the Scan-Fed history, I attempted to factor in a
limited number of yards that could actually produce larger hulls.
> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> I've always played mixed fleets simply because I understand the
And that's a big part of the big-ship problem. Even apart from playtest
battles, the vast majority of the FT battles I've played, seen or heard
of were not fought as campaign battles but as one-off encounters.
Regards,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> 1) They should affect a set number of systems - not a ship-wide
:-), and underpriced vs. larger ships - which _could_ be an >incentive
to create fleets with a proper distribution of ship sizes - if we
> handle it right.
Exactly. *If* we can handle it right, and also *if* we can agree on
what is a "proper distribution of ship sizes :-/ Unfortunately those
two are pretty big "if"s <sigh>
Later,
In message <200102192028.VAA17781@d1o960.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
which
> >>*can* reduce this particular imbalance, [ie. the one between few big
Well, if we come up with a cost for EMP weapons that is 'balanced' for
a particular range of ship sizes (say we use FB1/FB2 for the
distribution) we would tend to 'lock' players into using that size
distribution - _if_ they use EMP weapons - as those that tend to use
lots of small ships would tend find EMP weapons to pricey, while those that
field lots of big ships tend to find then cheap.
Well, it looks like these are always a problem - we could give a range
of costs for a range of size distributions (if you & your opponent use
different distributions - negotiate). But in general, it looks like a
nice idea that is very hard to implement in a generally accepted way -
oh well!
Maybe Needle Beam type weapons (nominated as next WotW) will be easier
:-)