IJN/UNSC technology

Does this include life support? J

> At 13:27 01/03/2002 -0800, you wrote:

Dr PJD Lambshead Head, Nematode Research Group Department of Zoology The
Natural History Museum London SW7 5BD, UK.
Tel +44 (0)20 7942 5032
Fax +44 (0)20 7942 5433

Looking at the beautiful model of the Musashi class dreadnought, I think
the Japanese need some sort of spinal mount weapon. The Beam-4 doesn't
have quite the right flavor to me, it seems to bulky and notsufficiently
powerful, while the Nova Cannon and Wave gun are too implausible and
cartoonish for my taste. The Kr'vak K-gun or the 'big beam" (I forget
what it's called) from Jon's B5W adaptation seem the closest to what I have in
mind. Has anyone adapted the B5 big beam to Fleet Book stats?
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:
Does this include life support?
> [quoted text omitted]
J
> [quoted text omitted]
Lurk field off
> [quoted text omitted]

> [quoted text omitted]
Has anyone come up with weapon/technology
variants to give an alternative flavour to the IJN/UNSC ships over the
rest of the Big Boys?
> [quoted text omitted]
The main variant for the IJN, that I would use,
would be the miniaturization of certain ship systems, at 1/2 mass - 3 x
cost.
> [quoted text omitted]

> [quoted text omitted]
Comments ideas?
> [quoted text omitted]

> [quoted text omitted]
Engage field

Dr PJD Lambshead
> [quoted text omitted]
Head, Nematode Research Group
> [quoted text omitted]
Department of Zoology
> [quoted text omitted]
The Natural History Museum
> [quoted text omitted]
London SW7 5BD, UK.
> [quoted text omitted]
Tel +44 (0)20 7942 5032
> [quoted text omitted]
Fax +44 (0)20 7942 5433
> [quoted text omitted]
<A TARGET="Link" href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/home/lambshead.htm"
eudora="autourl">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/home/lambshead.htm</A>
> [quoted text omitted]
<A TARGET="Link" href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/nematode/index.html"
eudora="autourl">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/nematode/index.html</A>
> [quoted text omitted]
What a wonderful thing is the cat! on making it God said "That's that!
> [quoted text omitted]
Supurrnatural selection has brought us purrfection -
> [quoted text omitted]
which is a great relief to Me after My earlier mistake with the nematode worm
> [quoted text omitted]
(Rowena Sommerville)
> [quoted text omitted]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 10:34:30AM -0500, bob_eldridge@mindspring.com
wrote:
> Looking at the beautiful model of the Musashi class dreadnought, I

Your best bet there would be to look at Noam Izenberg's WDA:
http://homepage.mac.com/nizenberg/Weap-Def_Archive.htm

This contains most of the weapon ideas which have been thrown around the
list, with some notes on how balanced they look. As a short-term
solution, picking things out of there is probably the best bet.

As for _official_ UNSC and IJN stats, I believe that St^3 Jon is
planning to release another Fleet Book at some point, which would certainly be
likely to include such stats.

> bob_eldridge@mindspring.com wrote:

THere are some floating around out there somewhere (I don't remember who has
the latest; Brendan, maybe??). My B5 rules are a few years out of date, alas.
However, if you want to look at them for inspiration, leap on over to:

Have a look in the archives for Heavy Beam Weapon (or HBW). It was discussed
at some length a while ago. I can't remember the conclusions
off-hand - there were several competing variants at one point with
greater or lesser levels of complexity and record-keeping.

> bob_eldridge@mindspring.com wrote:
href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/home/lambshead.htm"
eudora="autourl">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/home/lambshead.htm</A>
> >
href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/nematode/index.html"
eudora="autourl">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/nematode/index.html</A>
> >

Thanks, I'll check it out
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:

Thanks, I'll check Noam's archive out. While I know FB3 will be out soponer or
later, and probably include the Japanese, I want to play with
them now - well as soon as I finish painting them anyhow<g>.
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:

Your best bet there would be to look at Noam Izenberg's WDA:
http://homepage.mac.com/nizenberg/Weap-Def_Archive.htm

This contains most of the weapon ideas which have been thrown around the
list, with some notes on how balanced they look. As a short-term
solution, picking things out of there is probably the best bet.

As for _official_ UNSC and IJN stats, I believe that St^3 Jon is
planning to release another Fleet Book at some point, which would certainly be
likely to include such stats.

Roger

Thanks, Indy, I will.
> gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:

THere are some floating around out there somewhere (I don't remember who has
the latest; Brendan, maybe??). My B5 rules are a few years out of date, alas.
However, if you want to look at them for inspiration, leap on over to:

http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/new-rules.html

They were designed pre-FB1. But could be relatively easily updated (if I
had more time :-/ ).

Mk

On 3/1/02 7:34 AM, "bob_eldridge@mindspring.com"
> <bob_eldridge@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Looking at the beautiful model of the Musashi class dreadnought, I

I'd say that in general, there should be spinal mount rules, replacing the
outdated Nova/Wave Gun rules with something more general.

In message <003101c1c168$70c36e20$05067ad5@pcuser>
> "Anthony Leibrick" <A.Leibrick@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> Lurk field off

Well, I've considered equipping the UNSC ships with 'disabling' weapons, such
as Needle Beams and EMP missiles.

My current designs (still under development) tend to put needle beams on some
designs (capitals who will [hopefully] survive to get close enough to use
them, and Patrol Cutters, who shouldn't bee in a major battle anyway), and
missile racks to carry EMP missiles.

I may well adopt some of the WDA weapons, such as Noam's Heavy Needles,
and Multi-Arc Needles.

For IJN, well, Spinal Mount Nova Cannon and Wave Guns are 'traditional', as
are missile swarms and mecha (and look at the photos on the GZG site
- a mecha!), I think the Reflex Field in More Thrust was inspired by an
Anime source as well (Space Battlecruise Yamato). The SMNC, Wave Gun, and
Reflex Field need updating to match the Fleet Book rules, and perhaps expanded
to allow different classes for different
sized ships. All this has been discussed at length on the list before -
check the archives. Likewise, there has been intense discussion about
'Mecha Fighters' some of it very recently :-)
In fact, there was a recent list discussion about IJN ship designs in general.

A good source for variant weapon systems is the Weapons/Defence Archive,
found on Noam's website:

http://homepage.mac.com/nizenberg/Weap-Def_Archive.htm

But I would say that, anyway :-)

I guess until FB3 (or whatever) is published, it is a case of "do as thy
will shall be the whole of the law" :-)

In message <B8A4EA54.2B24%s_schoon@pacbell.net>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 3/1/02 7:34 AM, "bob_eldridge@mindspring.com"
Hmm, thinking about that - you could used the BITS (British Isles
Traveller Support) Traveller Full Thrust rules for spinal mounts - I'll
see if I can find a URL, but IIRC, they had the following features:

Forward Arc only Automatically hit 1 target in range (long range) Did a number
of D6 damage (possibly based on class) Fire once per 2 rounds Cannot fire on
first turn of battle

I don't remember what their mass or cost was - probably quite high! :-)

I'd modify them to use the Fixed Fire Arc rules from the WDA (but then
I would, wouldn't I ;-) - ie'. their fire arc is a 30 degree wide wedge
centred on the ships centreline. (Essentially, the weapon is fixed, the narrow
fire arc represents the granularity of the Full Thrust turning rules).

Lurk field off

Has anyone come up with weapon/technology variants to give an
alternative flavour to the IJN/UNSC ships over the rest of the Big Boys?
The main variant for the IJN, that I would use, would be the
miniaturization of certain ship systems, at 1/2 mass - 3 x cost.

Comments ideas?

Engage field

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 3/1/02 1:10 PM, "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Hmm, thinking about that - you could used the BITS (British Isles

I'd be very interested in seeing these.

On 3/2/02 11:29 AM, "Anthony Leibrick" <A.Leibrick@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> Details:

OK, if I'm reading this right:

Grazer 4 - MASS 8, POINT COST 32
Grazer 5 - MASS 16, POINT COST 64
Grazer 6 - MASS 32, POINT COST 128

My gut reaction, without plugging it into any spreadsheets, would be that
they're under-MASS-ed, and that with the new MASS they should be
"massaged" so that they keep the 3xMASS point cost that the rest of the
weapons generally keep.

Oh statisticians...

In message <B8A67D93.2BF6%s_schoon@pacbell.net>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 3/1/02 1:10 PM, "Charles Taylor" <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> > Hmm, thinking about that - you could used the BITS (British Isles
Well, I saw them at Gen Con UK 2001, but they do not yet appear to be on
the website :-(

http://www.bits.org.uk/
for anyone else who wants to look...

But I found a picture of several of the games...

http://www.cybergoths.u-net.com/BITS_website/Con_Pictures2.html

I found your Mayday_M4 rules however :-)

From: "Anthony Leibrick" <A.Leibrick@btopenworld.com>

> How about a Grazer as the name has not been used for a weapon by the

> list.

Here's a back of the envelope damage profile comparing average damage of

Beams 4,5, & 6 with the Grazer A, B, C as I understand them (vs. unscreened)

        MU      0-12            12-24   24-36   36-48   -60     -72
Beam 4 3.3 2.4 1.6.82 Beam 5 4.1 3.3 2.4 1.6.82 Beam 6 4.9 4.1 3.3 2.4 1.6.82
Grazer A 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.2
Grazer B        3.5             3.5             3.5/2.3         2.3
2.3 Grazer C 6.9 6.9 6.9 4.6
       4.6     4.6

The A is roughly equivalent to the Beam 4 - Its superiority at lonvest
range IMO makes up for the weaker performance closer in. The B and C are

both vastly superior to Beams 5 and 6 respectively. The C blows everything out
of the park.

Schoon wrote
> OK, if I'm reading this right:

I thought I had undercosted them based on the damage they can do

<we are being scanned, engage field>

> Anthony Leiback wrote:

> How about a Grazer as the name has not been used for a weapon by the

A "grazer" is someone who "grazes". According to my dictionary, "to graze"
either means "to eat grass" or "to touch/scratch lightly". Cows are
examples of the former type of grazers, and from your description of the

weapon the latter meaning of the word is completely inappropriate -
either it hits hard or it doesn't hit at all, but it doesn't scratch.

A "graser" is short for "gamma-ray laser", which could work OK as a
starship weapon.

> My concept:

If this is "one to-hit roll per weapon" (as for eg. P-torps), this is
*vastly* less accurate than the beams.

> Damage:

Ie. same armour penetration as SV Lance pods

> If the target is unshielded rolls of 5 and 6 are re-rolled and damage

Average damage per die is 5.25

> If target has shield 1, only rolls of 6 are re-rolled

Average damage per die is 4.2

> If shield 2, no re-rolls.

Average damage per die is 3.5

> Phalons shrouds as in FB 2 are treated as shield 2 but Phalon carapace

Why not simply use the standard Phalon-armour-vs-K rule?

> Cost:

Can't say I agree with Noam's BoE analysis :-/ I get the average damage
against unscreened targets to:

MU              0-12    -24     -36     -48     -60     -72
Beam 4 3.2 2.4 1.6.80 0 0 Grazer A 1.75 1.75.875.875 0 0

Beam 5 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.6.80 0
Grazer B        3.5     3.5     3.5/1.75        1.75    1.75    0

Beam 6 4.8 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.6.80 Grazer C 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 Grazer C (3die)
5.25 5.25 5.25 2.625 2.625 2.625

Screens have a similar effect on these grazers as they have on beams -
the
grazer is degraded slightly less by level-2 screens, but that difference
is small.enough to disappear into the background noise and can be ignored.

Looking at the above figures I'd rate the Grazer A as seriously inferior to
the B4, the Grazer B as somewhat stronger than the B5 and the Grazer C as far
more powerful than the B6 no matter whether the Grazer C rolls 3 or 4 dice to
damage.

Assuming a cost of 4xMASS I get the following MASS ratings:

Grazer A                5 MASS +1 or +2 /extra arc
Grazer B                16 MASS +4/extra arc (same as B5)
Grazer C (3 dice)       42 MASS +11/extra arc
Grazer C (4 dice)       56 MASS +14/extra arc

> Schoon wrote:

> ...that with the new MASS they should be "massaged"

Err... weapons don't generally keep a 3xMASS points cost. Look in FB2 for
several examples to the contrary :-/

Regards,

"Noam Izenberg" <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu wro on Saturday, March 02, 2002 6:06
PM
Subject: Re: IJN/UNSC technology
> Here's a back of the envelope damage profile comparing average damage

I assume it would be less overpowering if the Heavy(C) was reduced to 3 dice
of damage, but how do they compare against screened targets. What would be
needed to balance them versus other systems?

> On 3/3/02 12:51 AM, "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Err... weapons don't generally keep a 3xMASS points cost. Look in FB2

Right you are; touché.

True. But _HUMAN_ weapons do.

In message <E83E983C3EC9DD45A40B24C4BA3A60756AE9F6@col1smx01.USE.AD.DLA.MIL>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:

[re-ordered]
> Oerjan Wrote

Well, the official ones published so far...

I se no reason while a new 'cutting edge' human technology could not
have a cost of 4x (or possibly even 5x) the MASS - infact, I think I'd
prefer it.