I've got a thought for a rules set for PDS, beam batteries as point defense,
and scatterguns.
1. PDS fire as a single die BD+1 against standard fighters and
missiles, without rerolls. Heavy fighters and missiles remove the +1.
They fire the same against plasma bolts and anti-matter torpedoes. PDS
fire against ships is allowed at a 6 to hit for one point of damage.
2. Scatterguns fire as a single die with 2+ to hit, with the die facing
on hits being number of kills, -1 kills against heavy fighters and
missiles, and BD versus plasma bolts and anti-matter torpedoes.
Scattergun fire against ships is unchanged from FB2. 3. Human main beam
batteries fire as class 1 beams currently do in point defense mode per beam
die (i.e. 5 or 6 hits for one kill), without
rerolls, at 1/2 the normal beam range. They may also combine dice to
fire against plasma bolts and anti-matter torpedoes at 1 PDS die per 2
beam dice (rounded down). 4. Phalon pulsers tuned for close range fire 3 PDS
dice at 6 MU range for point defense. Medium range tuning is 1 PDS die at 12
MU range. Long range tuning is equivalent to 1 main beam battery at 18 MU
range. 5. All point defense fire may be employed against any fighter, missile,
plasma bolt, or AM torpedo within firing range. (Optionally, ADFC
allows a +6MU range upgrade to all point defense fire, whether from PDS,
pulsers, or main beams.) 6. Sa'Vasku spicules change with PDS, stingers with
beam dice, and interceptor pods with scatterguns.
My main goals for this are more or less to allow an upgrade to PDS fire like
what the playtest group proposed but with fewer dice rolled (IMO FT's main
weakness is in the sheer weight of dice needed to play), a very slight nerf of
scatterguns by allowing the possibility of a miss but where heavy fighters
don't downgrade the performance so badly, and generally allowing fleet book
human and Phalon designs to have better defenses against fighters overall.
Thoughts and opinions welcome.
E
> On Tuesday 09 November 2010 01:50:21 Eric Foley wrote:
Sorry, I meant to reply to this ages ago and got sidetracked.
One thing that I have been thinking about, is whether this makes sense to be
the other way around? i.e., beam batteries can fire at fighters at greater
than half their range (or possibly, only
at their most extreme range band, which allows B-1s to fire in
PD mode).
My reasoning is that the larger the turret, the less able it will be to track
fast moving targets close to it. However, at longer ranges it only needs to
move a few degrees to track the same target.
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Sun, Nov 21,
> 2010 at 5:22 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 November 2010 01:50:21 Eric Foley wrote:
Just one this morning. :-)
Your assumptions above don't take into account scale. If an MU is 1000 miles
(I believe that's what someone calculated out for 1 thrust point = 1 g), there
really isn't any turret tracking slew issues at whatever range.
Plus you'd want to presume turrets can track objects fast, anyway. Assuming a
1 MU = 1000 miles scale, starships traveling about at speeds of 15, 20, or
even Orjan Speeds (which outstrip fighter speeds by a factor of 2 or more) are
going fast enough to warrant fast weapons tracking.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI very rarely
reply, usually just read, but what if the beams aren't in turrets? What if
they're in banks ala ST:TNG? Then the tracking issue is more a problem of fire
control computers and tracking systems, right?
James
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 November 2010 01:50:21 Eric Foley wrote:
Assuming
> a 1 MU = 1000 miles scale, starships traveling about at speeds of 15,
> On Sunday 21 November 2010 16:33:14 James Moore wrote:
Well, I'm more thinking that it might be an interesting game mechanic
(fighters trying to get in close to avoid the larger weapons), and so could it
be justified in a sensible way without
assuming worse-than-modern weapon systems.
I don't watch ST, so don't know what banks are in that context, but you could
have lasers which are directed by mirrors or gravitic lensing, which would
allow instant targeting at any
range - so yes it's possible to come up with a setting in which
it wouldn't make sense.
> >> My reasoning is that the larger the turret, the less able it will
In the past, I've assumed 1" = 1000km, 8 thrust = 1g, 1 turn = 15minutes (all
values rounded for simplicity).
But yeah, with long turns like this it should be able to track pretty much
anything even at close ranges (unless you assume lots of dodging is involved).
Another scale I use is 1"=1km, 1 thrust = 1g, 1 turn = 10 seconds. This makes
it more plausible. I've got no idea how quickly large turrets on modern
battleships (or whatever the equivalent is these days) can track.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGravitic
lensing is probably the best PSB (if you'll pardon the loaded term) available
to explain the use of beam batteries as point defense. I initially resisted
the whole idea, but I can see the benefit in taking
FT further away from wet-navy analogs. Allowing only Beam-1s as point
defense smacks of "5-inch DP guns." That kind of hat tip is nice, but I
now am more comfortable going away from it. It leaves interesting design
tradeoffs in place, because using beam-2 and 3 as PD sacrifices a lot of
a ship's offensive punch at what might be a critical point in the engagement.
Another possibility is to make gravitic lensing (or whatever) a purchasable
technology upgrade, so there might be a "transitional" fleet
out there bristling with extra beam-1s as DP weapons, until they perfect
their gravitic lensing.
Best, Ken
> --- On Sun, 11/21/10, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
From: Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Beam batteries as point defense
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Sunday, November 21, 2010, 1:02 PM
> On Sunday 21 November 2010 16:33:14 James Moore wrote:
Well, I'm more thinking that it might be an interesting game mechanic
(fighters trying to get in close to avoid the larger weapons), and so could it
be justified in a sensible way without
assuming worse-than-modern weapon systems.
I don't watch ST, so don't know what banks are in that context, but you could
have lasers which are directed by mirrors or gravitic lensing, which would
allow instant targeting at any
range - so yes it's possible to come up with a setting in which
it wouldn't make sense.
> >> My reasoning is that the larger the turret, the less able it will
In the past, I've assumed 1" = 1000km, 8 thrust = 1g, 1 turn = 15minutes (all
values rounded for simplicity).
But yeah, with long turns like this it should be able to track pretty much
anything even at close ranges (unless you assume lots of dodging is involved).
Another scale I use is 1"=1km, 1 thrust = 1g, 1 turn = 10 seconds. This makes
it more plausible. I've got no idea how quickly large turrets on modern
battleships (or whatever the equivalent is these days) can track.
Well, as some others suggested, ships may well be flying past each other
at fraction-Oerjan speeds, and still are able to regularly hit each
other with beams, pulse torpedoes, and armor-penetrating cannons. If
they can pull that off, there's not that much reason why a fighter
should be hard to hit aside from being a smaller, inertia-less drive
version of a ship.
This kind of suggests a different goofiness in the rules, though: if Kra'Vak
can hit ships with cannons and humans can hit them with pulse torpedoes and
submunitions, why do guided missiles have to take pure guesswork? It's
something where the "try to hit a ship at Oerjan speeds by guessing where to
put the missiles down" framework just doesn't jive for me, when other solid
projectiles that are completely unguided don't have to go through the same
process. I wouldn't mind seeing these things converted over to a "guidance
versus ECM" mechanic similar to
what SG/DS use, and to see plasma bolts perhaps go with them.
E
[quoted original message omitted]