Most conversions of Trek ships to FT allow only one P-torp to be
mounted, due to mass limitations on a heavy cruiser. However, everyone knows
that even in Classic Trek, the Enterprise shot spreads of 3 torps at a time
(best
special effect of the series). So, to convert the P-Torp to the feel of
the classic Trek Photon Torpedo, I came up with the Stutter Torpedo (in two
flavors - only one of which tries to emulate the Photon torp).
Stutter Torpedo - Pulse torpedo refinements, divide energy from pulse
torps
into smaller packets. Stutter-3 (S3) produces 3 shots (a-la Classic Trek
torpedo spread). Stutter-6 (S6) produces six shots (similar perhaps to
B-5
Pulse Cannons). Damage per shot is less, but the overall effect of the energy
packetization increases efficiency of damage delivery to target.
3-Torps are approximately 28% more efficent than regular P-Torps,
6-Torps
are 72% more efficient (chances to hit are the same for each shot, but
average total damage is higher for stutter torps - e.g. at range 0-6,
2.9
damage average for a P-Torp, 3.7 for 3-Torp, 5.0 for 6-torp. Table shows
weapon statistics. Optional: On the start of a given turn (while writing
orders), S6 Torpedos can be set to Interceptor mode. This takes a dedicated
firecon for each torp so used. Interceptor mode allows the S6-Torp to
act as a PDS in the arcs it faces (all torps can have 3 arcs maximum).
Torp Type Abbrev Mass Cost # shots Dmg/shot
SSD Symbol
Pulse Torpedo P-Torp 4+1/Arc 4+1/Arc 1 1-6
Standard P-Torp
Stutter 3 Torpedo 3-Torp 4+1/Arc 6+1/Arc 3 1-2
P-Torp +3 lines in white part
Stutter 6 Torpedo 6-Torp 4+1/Arc 7+2/Arc 6 1
P-Torp +6 lines in white part
Another PSB way of thinking about this is as technological improvements to
P-torps.
Noam,
I'm a firm believer that MASS is a more serious design restriction than
points. I think if the 3-torp or 6-torp does more damage per MASS, then
it's the better weapon, no questions asked.
To that end, I might be tempted to make the 3-torp do 1 damage on a 1-5,
2 damage on a 6. Different mechanic, same damage. If you opt for more damage,
increase the MASS.
The 6-torp is interesting. I don't think I'd give it PDS ability, and I
think MASS would have to be up around 7 for one arc and 2 MASS per extra arc.
Well there is a caveat to the more damage more mass idea. That rule
should apply when everything else is equal - range, hit probabilities
etc. If, for instance a system does twice the damage, but has half the range
I'd be willing to let it go for the same mass. This is currently seen with
Class 1 Vs Class 3 batteries - you can choose more damage at shorter
ranges and get a limited PDF capability or more range for equal masses.
Perhaps someone is willing to create a formula where you can equate mass,
damage, range, hit probabilities, and fire arcs to a set of numbers that would
allow direct comparison of various weapon systems. This would probably break
down when you hit the extremes of the system (light damage at extreme ranges
or heavy damage at very short ranges) but at least it would give an idea if a
weapon was balanced compared to the known weapon systems.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> Most conversions of Trek ships to FT allow only one P-torp to be
Just say the normal P Torp is a spread of three shots, and how many hit
(or,
in Indy's case, miss) is reflected by the damage roll.
> Just say the normal P Torp is a spread of three shots, and how many
> Hey now! I got one or two [rather minor] hits in at GZG-ECC II...
Those were actually random particles of antimatter created by vacuum
fluctuation which annihilated against your opponent's ships before they could
sink back into the quantum foam. Sorry.
> Most conversions of Trek ships to FT allow only one P-torp to be
Hey now! I got one or two [rather minor] hits in at GZG-ECC II...
Mk
> From: "Tom McCarthy" <tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca>
I think that gives point balance short shrift. Forcing MASS to be the only way
to measure wepaons keeps your universe at a roughly constant tech level.
Miniaturizing or improving efficiency of weapons, or other "advanced"
technology is best done IMO by manipulation of point costs. This is less
straightforward than Mass, but can be worked out with playtesting.
> To that end, I might be tempted to make the 3-torp do 1 damage
That mecahnic is not bad for the 3-torp. It's a matter of taste, I
think.
> The 6-torp is interesting. I don't think I'd give it PDS
That'd make it far less efficient than 2 P-torps. There's damage/mass
and
there's damage/cost/mass. I think they can all be figured in. It can
make things harder to calculate, but gives you more freedom in design.
> From: Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com>
You could work it that way. Simply redefine the PSB. Annoyingly simple and
elegant, Laserlight. Thanks. ;-)
However, I still think the issue of balancing systems with points as well
as/instead of mass is worth more discussion.