_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lQui
ck question for the FT-BSG fans,
In the current rendition of BSG, we have these new fangled Cylon base stars.
Given that we've really seen little of their capabilities, other than
launching HORDES of missiles and fighters, how would *you* rate these things
in FT terms?
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA
wet dream for the FSE?
Vinny
In a message dated 3/8/2009 11:50:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> indy.kochte@gmail.com writes:
Quick question for the FT-BSG fans,
In the current rendition of BSG, we have these new fangled Cylon base stars.
Given that we've really seen little of their capabilities, other than
launching HORDES of missiles and fighters, how would *you* rate these things
in FT terms?
Mk
**************Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try
the new Email Toolbar now!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027)
VinsFullThrust wrote on 03/08/2009 11:09:20 AM:
> A wet dream for the FSE?
You sooooo naughty; you crack me up. ;->=
Oh, wait, your serious...
Have to say probably covers it; little to no beam punch, fragile but BIG,
H*U*G*E, no, SUPER H*U*G*E. Note, I'm not a fan, haven't seen that much, so
if anybody's witnessed one pulling off a wave-gun shot, or they've
scaled back the size WAY, all bets are off.
The_Beast
I wrote on 03/08/2009 12:29:56 PM:
***snippage***
> Oh, wait, your serious...
I HATE when I do that! It is, of course, 'you're serious'...
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDon
e that fer a campain here on the other side of the water. It was mainly a
carrier with missles and beam batteries with a healthy dose of PDS's. The
largest we could build was 1000 mass so that's what I built it. It had
movement of 4 and level 2 sheilds.
> --- On Sun, 3/8/09, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com>
Subject: [GZG] Cylon base stars
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 11:26 AM
Quick question for the FT-BSG fans,
In the current rendition of BSG, we have these new fangled Cylon base stars.
Given that we've really seen little of their capabilities, other than
launching HORDES of missiles and fighters, how would *you* rate these things
in FT terms?
Mk
> Charles Lee wrote:
> Done that fer a campaign here on the other side of the water. It was
Why the shields? From what little I know of neoBSG technology, defence is
armour, so why not simply use that?
To reply to the original question, various versions of the neoBase Star that
people on the SCN MB have put up or linked to tend to use FT
projectile weapons -- so K-guns, SML/SMRs, Submunition packs,
Scatterguns and MKP packs. Some designs use standard beams and PDSs as well or
instead of the Krak stuff.
Overall design philosophy seems to be vaguely FSE-ish, with a big
fighter complement and as much in the way of ship-to-ship armament as
can be crammed into the remaining space in the hull. But to make room for the
wepons and defences, hull strength tend to be on the low side.
The fine details -- thrust rating, how many of which types of weapon(s),
etc. -- varies widely according to the designers' ideas about the best
match to what has been seen on screen. It boils down to what each person
thinks best meets the armed carrier concept that is central to BSG combat.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
They are to a point a FSE Wet dream
Indy, be I can answer that, have U designed a Battlestar? Â If U build in
terms of FT, and keeping with "current" sizes.. Â It going be Large, Very
large.. Â Â I threw together a "quick model"
DOC BASESTAR
Mass 280
Hull of 40
Thrust of 2
PDS: 6
Screen: Lvl 1
2 Fire Cons
3 6 arc Pulsars for "backup" guns
30 Heavy Missile Racked (8 Long Range, 10 Medium, 8 Short, and 4 ECM)
or 5 Heavy Missile Launcher and 45 Missiles (allowing each Launcher 3 Long
range, 3 Medium, 2 Short, 1 EMP Missile)
10 Fighter Squadrons
If you use the HMR, this thing can "spray and pray with missiles from range"
and do really good at scaring civilian shipping, but when and if anything
closes in and starts firing directly at them they are going to pop easier for
their size. Â But they are backed by 10 Fighter Squadrons, and anything in
close, should be taking both Short Range Missiles and ECM Missile Strikes,
along with fighter runs. Â Hope U have really good PDS abilities.
From: Indy
Quick question for the FT-BSG fans,
In the current rendition of BSG, we have these new fangled Cylon base stars.
Given that we've really seen little of their capabilities, other than
launching HORDES of missiles and fighters, how would *you* rate these things
in FT terms?
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
The new BSG series
The galactica seems to have massed batteries of rapid fire weapons that seem
to be capable of both anti ordnance and anti ship fire. The shots also travel
very fast compared to the cylon missiles...
Base stars seem to be able to take quite a lot of hits even with a relatively
fragile hull so the individual weapons seem to do limited damage per hit.
So I'd think they are K1s
Both battlestars also seem to mount some larger forward firing weapons so
maybe some K3s or so.
Vypers seem to be classic FT Fighters as do the Cylon raiders.
The Cylons seem to have missiles but they are much smaller than the FT
missiles from the MT book. The Galactica gets hit fairly regularly and takes
damage but not much. An FT fleet carrier would be wrecked after
5-6 Missile strikes. So maybe you have missiles that do 1-3 points of
damage per hit but are much smaller in mass.
Thrust also seems to be quite low, the BSG ships don't zip around the table
like the ships in our FT campaign do. Maybe they are just doing vector
movement, but I'd rate thrusts at very low, maybe only 2.
Galactica also seems to have some anti ship missiles or nukes for ground
attack so maybe thay have some AMTs or larger FT missiles.
Base stars don't seem to have any point defence suggesting that the Galacta
attack isn't ornance based and they can stop missiles with their raiders.
With weapon fits like this you can scale to whatever mass you like.
Â
________________________________
From: Phillip Atcliffe <atcliffe@ntlworld.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Monday, 9 March, 2009 9:37:41 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Cylon base stars
> Charles Lee wrote:
> Done that fer a campaign here on the other side of the water. It was
Why the shields? From what little I know of neoBSG technology, defence is
armour, so why not simply use that?
To reply to the original question, various versions of the neoBase Star that
people on the SCN MB have put up or linked to tend to use FT
projectile weapons -- so K-guns, SML/SMRs, Submunition packs,
Scatterguns and MKP packs. Some designs use standard beams and PDSs as well or
instead of the Krak stuff.
Overall design philosophy seems to be vaguely FSE-ish, with a big
fighter complement and as much in the way of ship-to-ship armament as
can be crammed into the remaining space in the hull. But to make room for the
wepons and defences, hull strength tend to be on the low side.
The fine details -- thrust rating, how many of which types of weapon(s),
etc. -- varies widely according to the designers' ideas about the best
match to what has been seen on screen. It boils down to what each person
thinks best meets the armed carrier concept that is central to BSG combat.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:38 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Thrust also seems to be quite low, the BSG ships don't zip around the
Agreed. I'd go so far as to give the base stars Thrust 1. They seem almost
stationary in the show, moving VERY slowly if at all in a battle, though of
course off-camera their superior FTL drives give them more strategic
mobility. Galactica seems to have real thrust, though even then it's pretty
slow-- fast only compared to nearly stationary basestars.
Something else: people seem to be giving base stars beam batteries and point
defense. Granted I haven't seen season 4 yet, but I can't recall any time at
all that a basestar has used any weapons at all other than raiders, heavy
raiders and MT-style missiles. It seems like their only defense is their
fighter screen. Consider the rescue on New Caprica, when the colonial vessels
moved up close to the basestars and let loose with the direct fire. The base
stars didn't seem to shoot back.
A base star seems to take a moderate number of hits before it goes down, but
that's still consistent with a weak or even fragile hull.... a big enough
vessel still gets a decent number of hull boxes even with a weak hull.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Well, I will be honest I gave my "Basestar" the Limited guns (3 6-arc
pulsars) I did to simulate a 2nd Missile system and as a small nod to the
Orginal Basestars.? Just like the PDS was to be an limited
Anti-fighter missile system..? You could drop them both, and go to
straight HMR add 9 (or add 1 more HML and 9 more missiles as before and layon
massrest as a layer of Armor) more as it's sole onboard weapons, Fighter
squadrons not counted.??? As for why I gave a mine a shield was "added
protection" from Fighters, as most if not all of a battlestars weapons would
be Kinetics or Missiles something not covered by shield
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy
personal preference is a gigantic ship with:
Weak Hull No or Minimal armor FTL drive Thrust 1 (advanced) drive Tons of MT
Missiles and fighters
And just live with the consequences. Mostly, encounters in Battlestar seem to
fall into two categories:
1) Cylons Attack: One or more Basestars jump in well outside of gunnery range,
launch fighters and maybe missiles, and then sit there and wait. Enemy
fighters are intercepted by raiders. This doctrine has been followed so many
times you'd think it was in their holy books somewhere.
2) Colonials Attack: Galactica and/or Pegasus jump in close to the
basestars, launch fighters, and closes to gunnery range of (preferably) one
basestar at a time. Point-blank, the battlestar annihilates the
basestar, though it might take a pounding from enemy fighters and missiles.
Once in a while they might get clever and draw off the fighter screen, but for
a species with one (or two) capital ships left, no way to replace them, and an
enemy with virtually unlimited resources, the humans are pretty cavalier about
getting up close and personal. Vipers seem to be some kind of interceptor,
though they also can perform
anti-ship missions with missiles. Raptors are a kind of all-purpose
utility
shuttle-- a military role not directly modelled in Full Thrust but which
I think is fantastic and should be added.
Raiders seem to be all-purpose fighters. Either their AI is not as good
as a human pilot or they aren't optimized for dogfighting, since Galactica has
had pretty light losses compared to the massive number of fighters they've
killed. Heavy raiders seem to be like Raptors, though bigger and more heavily
armed.
Missiles seem to be very large "torpedoes" with very long range and hitting
power (much like a MT missile). Colonial ships also use smaller missiles that
can be mounted on raptors and vipers and seem to mostly be
anti-ship
weapons.
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote:
> Well, I will be honest I gave my "Basestar" the Limited guns (3 6-arc
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
can find some details buried in this wiki entry:
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Basestar_(RDM)
Of course, you'll need to scale down to something more reasonable in FT terms.
~800 fighters might be a bit too many for most people's tables. J
Tom
'What's that batting stretched across the table? Nebula? Dust cloud?'
'Nope, it's the launched Cylon Ready 5...'
Damn, been TOO long since you posted! Start making a habit of it again.
;->
=
The_Beast
Thomas Pope wrote on 03/09/2009 11:30:31 AM:
> You can find some details buried in this wiki entry:
> 'What's that batting stretched across the table?
Way back in my optimistic days (of last month) when I thought they only had
something like 300 fighters, I had this crazy plan to buy up scads of fighters
from Bergstrom and try to do a full set.
Of course, it didn't take long to come to my senses. While I could
paint up a ton of raiders with a basecoat/wash, I'd have to do the viper
striping by hand, and they'd probably take me 15 minutes each.
Didnât take long to do the math, even with the much more sane estimate
(varies depending on where you look) of "only" 80 vipers onboard.
...and 452 PDS mounts. :-)
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Galactica_type_battlestar
One of these days I'll scale everything down to something manageable and start
the project.
> Damn, been TOO long since you posted! Start making a
I haven't gone away, just been lurking, and life has remained
"interesting" for far too long. But I'll see what I can do. :-)
Tom
*drops out of lurk*
Based on what I've seen of the show (I own all the DVDs released to date and
have watched basically every episode), I think the Basestars would be properly
characterized as follows:
First Cylon War era basestar: mass ~250, average hull with decent armor, armed
pretty much entirely with long range heavy missiles and lots and lots of
fighter bays loaded exclusively with attack fighters.
Probably thrust 1-2, normal drives. These things were relatively
clunky, but more stoutly built than the modern basestars, and established the
Cylon combat doctrine of trying to stay on the offensive with raiders while
remaining at a distance to employ missile bombardment. They probably also had
at least some form of ECM or something else to represent their effective
electronic warfare suites.
Modern basestar: mass ~300 or more, weak-fragile hull, minimal armor,
armed similarly with long range heavy missiles, with heavier loadouts of
fighter bays to make up the extra mass. Thrust 1-2 again, advanced
drives this time. These things were a bit more nimble, although still not
particularly fast, and were built more for efficiency at piling on the fighter
payloads, so in game terms I'd make them larger, but lighter in hull points
with the extra space going to more fighter bays. Their electronic warfare
suites would be considerably superior to the earlier models as well as to the
Colonial battlestars.
The raiders themselves, I'd be pretty adamant in describing every one of
them as an attack-class -- none of the raiders are portrayed as being
nearly as good at dogfighting as the vipers they fight against, but when
they're left alone to attack actual shipping that isn't protected by
fighter cover, even the ones that aren't nuclear-armed seem to pretty
much tear the place up in hurry. To represent the quality gap between them,
I'd call the modern raiders heavy attack fighters, probably long ranged as
well to portray that they're much more able to travel on their own without
direct basestar resupply, both via FTL and otherwise, while the older raiders
from the first Cylon War would probably be straight up attack fighters. The
modern raiders would also mix in some torpedo bombers along with the attack
fighters to represent the ones that are armed with nuclear weapons. The heavy
attack qualities of the modern raiders would improve their rate of exchange
against even other fighters, but still, the only occasions in which even
modern raiders are shown as being a match for any model of viper whatsoever is
in the Miniseries where they've managed to shut the vipers down outright with
electronic warfare, so I figure this is modeled well by the fact that a heavy
attack fighter isn't much use against a normal fighter.
Conversely, I'd characterize a viper as being either a normal fighter or
maybe a cross between a fighter/interceptor that can still engage
shipping to some degree, and a battlestar as being a well armored mass
240-260 vessel, depending on whether it's a Galactica type or a Mercury
class, with various kinetic weapons mixed in with a somewhat lighter fighter
armament of vipers.
Still wishing I could play this game more often, haven't in about six years...
but nostalgic enough for it that I still watch the mailing
list. :/
Eric/Stilt Man
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Mon, March 9, 2009 16:52, Doug Evans wrote:
Reminds me of the bit at the end of Excession[1], after GSV Sleeper Service[2]
launches its offensive units.
(all from memory):
Killing Time[Ship Mind]: It's just launched a.. cloud of warships. Affront
commander: Cloud? Killing Time: Well, I'm aware that technically 'cloud' isn't
standard terminology, but I'm not sure what else to call a fleet of 81,328
ships. I'm running.
Of course, Offensive Units aren't fighters, they're warships, which puts
things on a slightly bigger scale (but then, GSVs tend to be built on a scale
that makes Star Wars ships look small).
[1] Iain M Banks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSV_Sleeper_Service
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> Reminds me of the bit at the end of Excession[1], after
I would kill for a game that did Iain Banks' Culture series justice...
Well, Legends of Galactic Heroes, mentioned in FTII, have fleets in the tens
of thousands, combined crews in the millions (NOT fighters, but ships). The
anime attempts to capture the concept visually as grids of dots with a haze in
the background for parts.
Strangely, the combat tends to bring Napoleonic maneuvers to mind...
I think one of the other series (late in the AT Votoms string?) tried the same
thing, much more of a bounded 'cloud' effect, though.
> Allen: I would kill for a game that did Iain Banks' Culture series
At some point, the whole 'We brake for nobody' gets a bit silly. Still, I
haven't read, I can't judge.
The_Beast
Samuel Penn wrote on 03/10/2009 07:22:57 AM:
> On Mon, March 9, 2009 16:52, Doug Evans wrote: