[GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

9 posts ยท Sep 28 2005 to Sep 30 2005

From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:29:08 -0400

Subject: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

(Note this post was written backwards, but I've taken the extra
precaution of reversing it _again_ for added encryption value)

There has been some discussion on Dean's Starship Combat News Forum, of
varying utility, regarding Grasers, Long Range Pulse Torpedoes, and the
revised fighter rules.

The LRPT discussion had (IMO) the most feedback value. LRPT's (and I
might add Class 3 grasers and/or Class 4 beams) are much more
playable on larger (and/or floating) tables, and thus seem limited
when played on smaller, fixed tables. LRPT's are much more directly analogous
to Class 4 Beams than to pairs of PTorps or Pairs of Class 3 Beams, which is
what I was thinking of pitting them against most often. I'm still trying to
see if it does what I want, or whether a different "heavy" weapon for the New
Israelis might be a better choice.

---

"Ah! You seen one Earth, you've seen them all."
   - Jack Schmitt on the moon, Apollo 17, 118:08:10

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:41:46 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 9/28/05, Noam
> Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

.timmaD

kM

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:42:40 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

Skaerf lla er'uoy. Skaerf.

Sdnah ruoy no emit hcum oot YYYAAAW htiw skaerf.

)-;  Kcehclleps, ydnI dna.

"dnuora yapl ot emit"

Ffuts skik s'taht,esaelP?"yapl", naem I.

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:43:03 -0400

Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

Sorry:)

From: david garnham <garnhamghast@f...>

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:56:22 +0200 (CEST)

Subject: RE: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

Noam -
Are there any plans to use your fusion flare launcher weapons? I thought those
had good possibilities. How about other things like the "Hellbore" PT? I've
always been a fan of the PT and think the range increase is a good idea.

From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:43:16 -0400

Subject: RE: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

> From: david garnham <garnhamghast@fsmail.net>

David, the Fusion Flare/Fusion Torpedo (and combined NIF-Torpedo) are
strong candidates in my mind if the LR-PT turns out not to be the
right thing.

In fact, now that I think about it, a Long Range Fusion weapon might
substitute for an LR-PT _but_ it's not perfectly balanced against a
B4. If a LR-FF or LR-FT has 8 MU range bands, it's about 17% weaker
than a B4, and if it has 9 MU range bands it's about 6% _more_
powerful. The difference for the 9 MU version may be enough in the noise not
to worry about, and might be offset by costing the Long
range versions a bit more (4/mass) but I'd have to defer to Oerjan's
thoughts on that.

Another alternative is to give the Fusion weapons yet a different profile:
Have them deliver no damage under 18 MU, but behave like and
FFlare or FTorp at the 18-24, 24-30, and 30-36 MU range bands, and
give screens no effect. This is decidedly "odd" or complex for FT, and I don't
think it would meet with much official approval, but it balances just about
with a standard B3 (though the effectiveness of this weapon would depend a
great deal on how well you can maneuver.

An SFB-style Hellbore PT doesn't work in the granularity of the FT
system. Since there is no directional system damage, the enveloping effect
going for weaknesses in shielding doesn't apply. At FT scale,
the effect of a Hellbore would probably be to apply _all_ damage to
armor first, with no penetration. However, Zoe Brain did come up with
a version that is basically a P-Torp that gets to reroll damage rolls
of 6. Mass is 5+2 per extra arc.

---

"We ARE as gods and might as well get good at it." -- Whole Earth
Catalog

From: david garnham <garnhamghast@f...>

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:11:12 +0200 (CEST)

Subject: RE: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

However, Zoe Brain did come up with
a version that is basically a P-Torp that gets to reroll damage rolls
of 6. Mass is 5+2 per extra arc.

Yup, that was the version I had in mind:)

War! What is it good for? Er.....gaming

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:54:45 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

" Ffuts skik "?

Pot? Kettle? Black?

;->=

The_Beast

Adrian wrote on 09/28/2005 10:43:03 PM:

> Sorry :)

What he said...

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:58:11 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] Feedback, if not AAR's

" Ffuts skik "

And, remember what the Golem said when his creator discoved he'd only stomp on
holographic images...

'Silly Rabbi, kicks are for trids...'

The_Beast