The question is; how to apply game effects. This is the only balanced way I
can see at the moment.
Kinetic shields Cost: as per energy screens Symbol: screens inside a hexagon.
Pulsetorps: reduce each hit's damage by shield rating. Submunitions: normal
shield reduction applies as per beams
K-guns: reduce each hit's damage by shield rating (after
doubling) MKP: reduce each hit's damage by shield rating. Scatterguns: no
effect No other effect against energy weapons that affect energy screens.
Only one type of screen can be active at one time & must be physically written
in the orders which is active.
****
Not overly effective, but retrofitting into existing ships becomes easy.
They shouldn't be allowed in one-off games against KV, as it gives human
ships a slight advantage. Should be alright for campaign or tournament play,
where energy fleets can return the favor.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> Kinetic shields
This works fine.
How about a symbol of a solid hex with "hex-lines" in front,
essentially the same symbol, but with the circles turned into hexagons.
The hex would be too small to draw freehand. Small hexes look too much like
circles when you draw them freehand.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
My deflector symbol is based off of the screen symbol only it has the the two
concentric arcs drawn North, South, East and West of the center circle.
Pete
> From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
> like
> The hex would be too small to draw freehand. Small hexes look too much
Silly me. That's what I get for using good graphics software ;-)
Am I the only one that feels like the FT/FB1 point system is severely
broken when talking shields/K-guns?
Well, that's the problem, they aren't really shields, they're "screens" which
in FT is more of an electronic disruption field for beams.
I'd like to see an actual official shield in FBIII (even if it's in a genre
section but preferably not) which works against everything. It doesn't have to
work like Star Trek, but I'd like to see it more universally effective.
> --- Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:
Hi Roger!
I don't think the Humans/Kra'Vak/Phalons are out of balance.
I don't think the K-Guns are out of balance with screens any more than
P-Torps or Salvo Missiles are. None of them are effected by screens. But
each has other balancing factors (K-Guns (C3+) are 1 arc, Salvo Missiles
are subject to placement and PDS).
Are K-Guns out of balance if placed on non-Kra'Vak ships? Maybe. Part of
the balancing factor of the Kra'Vak is that they have no armor or screen
technology. If you allow for cross-species systems, you might end up
with
ships with Phalon Armor (to help protect against K-Guns) and Level-1
Screens
(to protect agianst beams) on a ship with K-Guns as weapons.
I didn't mean to imply by MY post that there was a play balance problem. I
don't know about Phalons because I haven't played with them much, but the
Kra'vak seem play balanced. I do feel a little sick
with my shield 2/armored ships against the Kravak
and feel better protective measures should be available. I also feel that
armor should have more effect (spreading out the damage more than it does) but
I have no reason to believe this isn't accounted for in the costs.
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
> > Am I the only one that feels like the FT/FB1 point
Do you think that the FB points system is severely broken when talking
screens/P-torps as well? After all, the P-torps inflict about as much
damage per Mass as the K-guns, and P-torps are cheaper...
> David Griffin wrote:
> Well, that's the problem, they aren't really
You could get that, provided that the "shield" is considerably less effective,
or more expensive for the same effect, against the currently
screen-skipping weapons (P-torps, K-guns etc.). Phalon multi-layered
shell
in FB2 is one such system - you need 2 layers to stop P-torps, missiles
and most beams from penetrating; you'll need... more than that to completely
stop the bigger K-guns, but you can do it if you shell out enough money.
The various screen-skippers were all balanced around the fact that they
aren't degraded by screens, so if your "shield" degrades them by the same
percentage at the same cost as it does beams you effectively make all
screen-skipping weapons useless :-(
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> The various screen-skippers were all balanced around the fact that
You just increase the cost propotionally.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> >I'd like to see an actual official shield in
That's a bit of an exaggeration. After all beams aren't "useless" just because
there are screens. If a "kinetic screen" or a Star Trek shield bounces
pulse torpedoes or K-gun damage, then it should
be expensive enough to play balance out. My guess is such a screen would
reduce the amount of damage delivered by these weapons. Or, it would absorb a
specific amount of damage every turn and then get overwhelmed. Either would be
a powerful effect, but it doesn't make the pulse torpedo or the k gun useless.
Tell you what, you take such a screen and I'll sit outside with 30 pulse
torpedoes and we'll
see how it goes ;-).
I figure if it was possible to balance screens against beams it's possible to
balance a kinetic shield (or a universal one) against the rest of the game.
After all, every game with shields does it (Renegade legion interceptor,
renegade legion centurion, renegade legion leviathan, FASA starship combat
simulator, Star Fleet Battles, and so on).
In SFB, shields bought you an ablative resource that protected you for a
while. In FASA it bought you a selective way to reduce the damage coming into
the ship each turn (never enough to stop much, but enough if you have the
shield up to make it a lot easier to take). Renegade legion shields are
impossible to shoot through period, EXCEPT that you can't have them on all the
time. So, they flicker in and out. That means that some percentage of the
shots get through. In effect it makes you harder to hit based on your flicker
rate. You can simulate SFB with armor, IF it works against armor puncturing
weapons. You can simulate FASA with the mass energy screen in the weapon
defense archive (I think). RL shields would make you harder to hit, so
maybe each level of RL shield would be a -1 to
hit for any weapon (and it would be incompatible with screens).
> At 12:08 2001-06-06 -0700, you wrote:
You have to increase the cost of *all screen-degraded weapons* in
proportion to their normal degrading by screens for this to work... which
means that ithe basic FT screens become unbalanced instead :-/
Regards,
No more so than Beams are against screens. Or screen-skipping weapons
against armor.
You would just have to make sure that the mass/cost of the Shields would
be appropriately greater, are less effective against screen effecting weapons,
and/or have other factors that degrade the value (work both ways,
limited in number of damage it absorbs, etc.).
-----
Brian Bell
If you had a screen that degraded screen affected weapons more than screen
skipping weapons that should balance out also.
IE, Level 1 screens that behave as normal level 2s versus screen affected and
level 1s versus screen affected.
Roger
On 6-Jun-01 at 15:23, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
(Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
wrote: > No more so than Beams are against screens. Or screen-skipping
weapons
> against armor.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
which
> means that ithe basic FT screens become unbalanced instead :-/
Not of the weapons, the kinetic screen
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> >You just increase the cost propotionally.
I don't see this. After all the cost of beams don't change when someone
selects level 1 or level 2 screens. Some kind of kinetic screen which stops
projectiles or some universal shield has
some mass/point cost (I don't know exactly
what cost) which would make it expensive enough to balance the advantage of
taking less damage from projectiles (or pulse torpedoes whatever those are).
A universal screen would start out "including" screens in the sense that it
could not be more effective (or as effective) and lower cost. Then the extra
stopping power would have to cost some amount extra.
The idea of stopping a projectile is included in the Earthforce Alliance
sourcebook I think (written by Jon). There, there are no screens and beam
weapons can't be stopped, but pulse weapons (and projectiles I think) can be
intercepted by interceptor batteries. I seem to recall they cost about the
same as screens. Perhaps the added protection is worth double normal cost? I
think you'd have to playtest to determine what to price it at.
Remember, even if you have a screen that stops say 4 points of damage (which
in the mass energy screen costs a lot) I routinely get hit by 10 point hits
from Kra'vak and that 4 points of protection will be so expensive that my
firepower will be sharply reduced.
> David Griffin wrote:
> > You could get that, provided that the "shield" is
No, it isn't an exaggeration. The reason the beams aren't useless in spite
of the existance of screens is that the screen-skipping weapons are
about as powerful against unscreened ships as beams are against ships with
level-1 screens. If all ships always had level-*2* screens, then beams
would indeed be useless.
> Tell you what, you take such a screen and I'll
If the shields degrade beams and P-torps equally and we both take them,
it is quite easy to predict the outcome: my beams inflict more damage through
your shields than your p-torps do through mine (on average about 20%
more), and I win the battle.
> I figure if it was possible to balance screens
It was possible to balance screens against beams and P-torps because
they
were designed at the same time. It was possible to fit the K-guns into
the
scheme because they are very similar to the P-torps, and Pulsers because
they are essentially beams.
To add a shield which degrades P-torps, K-guns *and* beams equally means
that you'll have to re-balance all weapon in the game.
If you can design a shield which retains the relative penetration rates
between screen-skippers and beams, you're fine... but if you do that,
you could just as well say that the difference between a ship with shields and
one without them is the number of hull boxes
> After all, every game with shields
Can't speak for the Star Trek games - I haven't played the FASA one at
all,
and it was a long time since I played SFB - but in the RL ones each
level of shields gives the *same* level of protection against just about all
weapons... and the weapons were designed around this fact. In FT, the weapons
were designed around the fact that screens do *not* degrade them
all in the same fashion - which means that if you want a shield which
*does* degrade them all in the same fashion, you're putting a square peg in a
round hole.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> No, it isn't an exaggeration. The reason the beams
The word "useless" to me implies that they do no damage. Clearly that is not
the case. When a weapon is vulnerable to a defense, it is "worth less" perhaps
but it still causes damage. Lots of my ships have no trouble getting destroyed
despite the fact that they have level 2 screens. And this is against ships
with beams.
> >Tell you what, you take such a screen and I'll
No no, since p torps would be "useless" in this context, you don't get any
weapons! After all what do you have to fear from ships armed with a useless
weapon?
Now with tongue out of cheek, I'd like to suggest that there are already
things like this in the game. Consider the dilemma of a Kra'vak player up
against a human ship with no shields and very little armor who has a main
weapon consisting of beams. His weapons skip armor and shields, but there are
none to skip. He is on the other hand vulnerable to beams.
He is somewhat disadvantaged in that situation, but those k gun hits STILL
hurt and the kra'vak can still win. There is no such thing as perfect balance.
If you introduce such a system there will be combinations which turn out to
have unbalancing characteristics, but it seems to me that you could easily
come up with a number that is balanced most of the time, which is how the
systems in the game are balanced now.
...
> It was possible to balance screens against beams and
I would like to point out that K guns have very different behavior than
ptorps. They do damage differently, can double (where ptorps can't) and punch
through armor a lot more effectively than ptorps do. I for one would rather
take an average of 3.5 points, half to armor than a K5 hit that doubles 1
point to armor and 9 points to hull. Ask the Phalon players if they think
pulse torpedoes are equivalent to kguns. Maybe you can make a mathematical
argument that the expected damage from k guns is the same as pulse torpedoes,
I don't know, but I know they feel very different in play.
Even so, you can come up with a cost that balances the fight most of the time.
If I look at the 10 or so battles I've seen with the kra'vak, they seem to win
about as often as they lose. There's no obvious balance problem.
We are talking about systems for Fleet Book III (essentially FT3) here. If Jon
decided to add such a system, and if he believed as you do that it has
fundamental balance problems with other weapons (something that I don't
believe), it would be possible to integrate it into the costs for those
weapons with the new version of the ship construction rules. Anything taken to
extremes can be unbalancing, so you'd probably want to limit the shield level
just as the screen level was limited.
> Jaime Tiempo wrote:
> > >You just increase the cost propotionally.
which
> > means that ithe basic FT screens become unbalanced instead :-/
How do you make the kinetic screen cost more when it is hit by
"screen-skippers" than it does when it is hit by beams...?
Regards,
> David Griffin wrote:
> > You have to increase the cost of *all
If the shield degrades beams more than it degrades screen-skippers (as
pointed out by Brian and Roger), you can balance it against the existing
weapon types. If it doesn't - ie., if it degrades beams and
screen-skippers
*by the same percentage*, or, worse still, *by the same amount*, then you
screw the screen-skippers - just as you screw the screen-skippers if
none
of your ships use screens (or, in the K-gun case, armour), and as you
screw
beams if all of your ships use level-2 screens.
> The idea of stopping a projectile is included
The EFSB system has no points or ship construction system, and there was no
attempt made to make the ships in EFSB "balanced" against one another.
> I seem to recall they cost about the same as screens.
I very much doubt that you recall correctly, since there aren't any cost
given for any ship system in EFSB :-7
> Remember, even if you have a screen that stops
Sure. But 4 points out of a 10-point K-gun hit is a larger proportion
than 4 points out of the ~13 points of damage the beams you can buy for the
cost
of that K-gun routinely inflict on *his* ship in the same time. If both
of you use the shield, you go from an advantage of about 30% (~13 pts vs 10)
to one of about 50% (~9 pts vs 6). Had he used P-torps instead, he
wouldn't
have suffered as badly since the P-torp is cheaper than the K-gun for
about
the same damage/mass (ie., you wouldn't've had as many beams to fire at
him), but your beams would still outgun his P-torps.
In other words, you can either balance the shield for a ship which is armed
with beams, *or* for one armed with screen-skippers, but not both at the
same time.
(Also, in the above example the K-gun loses a large part of its one big
advantage - the armour penetration, which is the sole reason why it
costs
almost 20% more than the P-torp in spite of the fact that the P-torp
inflicts more damage per Mass than the K4 and up, and very nearly as much
as the K2 and K3 :-/ )
Regards,
> David Griffin wrote:
> > If all ships always had level-*2*
In that case you read something else into the word than I do. To me, "useless"
in this context means "consistently and massively outperformed by the same
cost of other weapons". Being able to dish out *some* damage is a small
consolation when your enemy can give twice as much right back at you.
> It was possible to balance screens against beams and
No, they don't. They have the identical same to-hit mechanic, the same
range, and very nearly the same damage/mass... the only real differences
are the improved armour penetration for the K3s and bigger (K2s have a
somewhat better armour penetration than P-torps, but very rarely enough
to matter; K1s have marginally better armour penetration than *beams*) and the
K-guns' greater cost.
> They do damage
The "can double" only means that they do about as much damage per mass on
average (or less, for all but K2s and K3s) than P-torps.
> I for one would rather take an average
But you won't take "an average of 3.5 points, half to armour" instead of
"a
K5 hit that doubles 1 point to armour and 9 points to hull". For the cost
of that one K5, you'll take *three* P-torp hits with an average of 3.5
points, plus a beam die or two thrown in for good measure... which is better:
~12 points, roughly 6 each to armour and hull, or 10 points of which 9 goes to
hull?
> Ask the Phalon players if they think pulse torpedoes
It is very easy to show that the total damages per mass are similar:
Expected damage per mass for a hit from...
1-arc P-torp: 0.875
1-arc K2: 0.889
K3: 0.9 K4 and K5: 0.833
If you look at total average damage per cost instead, the P-torp wins
hands down.
> but I know they feel very different in play.
That was intentional, yes. The difference which makes them feel
different -
the armour penetration - is why they're differently priced... and your
suggested shield would go a very long way towards *removing* that very
difference. (Hm... is that what you want - turn the K-guns into an
overpriced version of the P-torps?)
Regards,
You're quite right, interceptors aren't costed in the original work. There's
quite a good, professionally done netbook which I was confusing in my mind:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6990/b5.html
Before I saw this book, I did my own calculations based on what I thought
interceptors should cost and my numbers were similar to the ones given in this
book. This book is not of course official and does NOT have Jon's blessing. As
you say, they were trying to mimic combat in the B5 universe, not provide more
systems for full thrust (mores the pity).
That said, I think you still make too much of the new disadvantage screen
skippers would have. Since you couldn't do the mechanic like beams anyway (it
doesn't make any sense to say that a pulse torpedo doesn't hit on a 4), surely
you could adjust the mechanic for these weapons in some fair manner so as to
be balanced. I'm not a game designer, so I can't tell you exactly what that
mechanic should be. Frankly I don't care. I would like to have such a system,
and would like to see it in FBIII. I'm perfectly willing for it to fairly
costed and massed.
Given the presence of some kind of shield in many Science fiction genres, and
given FT tends to be used as a combat system in lots of those genres, I think
that a shield that blocks matter as well as energy would be a worthwhile
addition to the system, even if it turns out to be a genre weapon like wave
guns. I'll leave it to other more capable folks to decide how it should work
and what it should cost. I just want to use it.
> David Griffin wrote:
> You're quite right, interceptors aren't costed
I know; I have it. Unfortunately it is based on FT2, not FBx, so you can't
import the system costs into FBx.
[Long snip]
> Given the presence of some kind of shield in many
There is an alternative, fairly simple solution to your dilemma: If the
shields in your chosen genre stops all types of weapons, then don't use
FT's screen-skipping weapons. Not all genres have all weapon types,
after all.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> There is an alternative, fairly simple solution to
But Star Trek does. Granted pulse torpedoes make weak photon torpedoes, even
weaker quantum torpedoes and very weak transphasic torpedoes, but they're a
step in the right direction.
The same way you make armor cost more when it is hit by
"screen-skippers"
than it does when it is hit by beams. Unless you can explain how this was
done, you must also state that armor is out-of-balance and should be
fixed.
And if K-Guns are balanced with P-Torps, how do you make armor cost more
aginst P-Torps than against K-Guns (an "armor skipping" weapon)?
Armor is the precident in FT for equal protection from damage. The only
difference (and I admit it is large) is that shields would renew each turn.
Thus you have to make the protection to mass/cost of the shields less
that
that of armor (or make it have less covererage - i.e. directional). I
think
that it would balance somewhere in the range of 2-3 mass per point of
protection.
I am unsure that your statement of P-Torp/K-Gun equality holds true at
higher classes of K-Guns (especially against an armored opponent). I
would love to see the numbers. Intuition would indicate that in a comparison
of 1
Class-4 K-Guns vs 2 P-Torps (both 8 mass), the 2 P-Torps would have a
slightly better chance to hit, but the K-Gun would provide consistatly
greater damage per hit. Against an unarmored opponent (screened or
unscreened), the damage should be close to equal. Against an amored
opponent, the K-Gun would provide consistantly greater damage. The
greater
the amount of armor, the larger the difference between the K-Gun and
P-Torp.
Submitted with respect,
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> - --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> There is an alternative, fairly simple solution to
From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
> But Star Trek does. Granted pulse torpedoes
Beg to differ. Shields in Trek are proof vs. All damage until they go out.
Screen skipping weapons in Trek are technobabble-of-the-week plot
devices, and inherently unbalancing in game translation terms.
If you happen to translate pulsetorps as Photon torps then Q-torps and
'transpahsics' (eeeeeeewwwww, what a name) torps are also inherently
unbalancing, as they are supposed to _represent_ unbalancing tech
advances.
> On 7-Jun-01 at 17:07, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
> If the shield degrades beams more than it degrades screen-skippers (as
> pointed out by Brian and Roger), you can balance it against the
Given this, how about: Kinetic Shields:
Mass: 5% per screen level. Cost: Have to think about this.
Kinetic shields have 3 (5?) damage points per level. The subtract 1 damage
point per level from every beam die or damage die rolled against them. If the
weapon rolls no die for damage the subtract 1 per level from each weapons
fire. This ceases when the shield runs out of damage points.
So against the first shot from beams against level 1 shields the beam would do
1 beam die - 1 damage.
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
...
> From: David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com>
I'm not sure what you're saying. You're agreeing with me, but implying I
contradicted you? Yes, the few times shields have been skipped have been plot
devices. Usually that isn't the case. Such a weapon skipping a shield that
isn't easily skipped (like ST shields) would be at best a scenario device and
might NEVER appear.
> If you happen to translate pulsetorps as Photon
Well transphasics yes. Quantum torpedoes are supposed to be the next gen
Photon torpedoes (or the 3rd gen according to Last Unicorn, Photon Torpedo
mk.II being the 2nd gen). As such, they are not inherently unbalancing. Of
course the last good star trek combat game happened before quantums were
around. It will be interesting to see how it all comes together in ENGAGE the
new Star Trek game by Decipher if and when it arrives.
With Transphasics, we know they're powerful, but we've never seen them against
a normal opponent. Perhaps for some reason they're particularly effective
against the Borg. Maybe just because noone assimilated by the Borg has any
ideas of how to protect themselves from them. But they look like super
torpedoes for sure. If they're expensive enough, they could concievably still
be show up in a game. After all the Romulan R type plasma was a pretty
frightening weapon in SFB, but it had it's tactical limitations and by and by
it turned out it wasn't as uber unbalancing as it at first appeared.
> Brian Bell wrote:
> The same way you make armor cost more when it is hit by
Beams and screen-skippers are not balanced against one another unless
screens are used - if there are no screens, the beams win hands down. In
other words, if we removed screens from the game, we'd either need to increase
the cost of all beams (including Pulsers) or reduce the cost of
all screen-skipping weapons.
Removing the screens so armour is the only passive defence available is
effectively the same thing as introducing a shield which stops all types of
damage equally well.
> And if K-Guns are balanced with P-Torps, how do you make armor cost
K-guns cost more per Mass than P-torps, so armour is automatically more
expensive when compared to P-torps than it is when compared to K-guns. A
defence which removes the K-guns' armour penetration (eg. a shield) make
them pretty much identical to P-torps, but more expensive... sounds like
a good game balance, don't you think?
> Armor is the precident in FT for equal protection from damage. The only
That large difference causes quite a bit of trouble all on its own, but it
isn't the main problem.
> Thus you have to make the protection to mass/cost of the shields less
> I am unsure that your statement of P-Torp/K-Gun equality holds true at
<sigh> When weapons have different Cost/Mass ratios (as is the case
here), you need to look at the same *cost*, not the same *mass*. The K4 costs
8
pts more than 2 P-torps; 8 pts is ~0.4 more P-torps on human ships. In
other words, you're looking at a single K4 against roughly *2.4*
P-torps,
not 2.
> the 2 P-Torps would have a slightly better chance to hit, but the K-Gun
> would provide consistatly greater damage per hit.
The 2.4 P-torps have a better chance of getting some hits each turn,
yes.
However, the to-hit mechanics are identical for all weapons involved so
you can look at the average damages per hit directly:
1 K4 hit inflicts on average 6.67 pts (1 to armour, 5.67 to hull)
2.4 P-torp hits inflict on average 8.4 pts (4.8 to armour, 3.6 to hull)
While the target still has armour left the K4 inflicts some 60% more hull
damage than the P-torps. Armour evaporates quite fast when hit by
P-torps
though, so against most ships the K4 will only have this advantage for one
or two hits after which the tables are turned - the P-torps do all their
damage to the hull while the K4 still has to penetrate the armour with each
hit.
Regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Oerjan
Ohlson
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:03 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: Kinetic Shields
> Brian Bell wrote:
> The same way you make armor cost more when it is hit by
Beams and screen-skippers are not balanced against one another unless
screens are used - if there are no screens, the beams win hands down.
In other words, if we removed screens from the game, we'd either need to
increase the cost of all beams (including Pulsers) or reduce the cost of
all screen-skipping weapons.
[Bri] So the game is out of balance every time a ship without screens
are used?
Removing the screens so armour is the only passive defence available is
effectively the same thing as introducing a shield which stops all types of
damage equally well.
> And if K-Guns are balanced with P-Torps, how do you make armor cost
K-guns cost more per Mass than P-torps, so armour is automatically
more
expensive when compared to P-torps than it is when compared to
K-guns. A
defence which removes the K-guns' armour penetration (eg. a shield)
make
them pretty much identical to P-torps, but more expensive... sounds
like a good game balance, don't you think?
[Bri] No. It is the situation with Beams vs P-Torps with or without
screens.
> Armor is the precident in FT for equal protection from damage. The
That large difference causes quite a bit of trouble all on its own, but it
isn't the main problem.
> Thus you have to make the protection to mass/cost of the shields
> I am unsure that your statement of P-Torp/K-Gun equality holds true
<sigh> When weapons have different Cost/Mass ratios (as is the case
here), you need to look at the same *cost*, not the same *mass*.
[Bri] I disagree. Full Thrust has a 2 axis balance system. Mass and
Cost. I would agree that you would have to look how the systems compare on
BOTH axis, however. In your example below, you are not
accounting for how the reduced mass of the K-Gun makes every system
based on hull mass (engines, FTL, base ship cost) more cost effective because
you can mount the same cost in weapons on a smaller ship.
The K4 costs 8
pts more than 2 P-torps; 8 pts is ~0.4 more P-torps on human ships.
In other words, you're looking at a single K4 against roughly *2.4*
P-torps,
not 2.
> the 2 P-Torps would have a slightly better chance to hit, but the
The 2.4 P-torps have a better chance of getting some hits each turn,
yes.
However, the to-hit mechanics are identical for all weapons involved
so you can look at the average damages per hit directly:
1 K4 hit inflicts on average 6.67 pts (1 to armour, 5.67 to hull)
2.4 P-torp hits inflict on average 8.4 pts (4.8 to armour, 3.6 to
hull)
While the target still has armour left the K4 inflicts some 60% more hull
damage than the P-torps.
[Bri] About 125% more on a mass to mass basis.
Armour evaporates quite fast when hit by P-torps
though, so against most ships the K4 will only have this advantage for one
or two hits after which the tables are turned - the P-torps do all
their damage to the hull while the K4 still has to penetrate the armour with
each hit.
Regards, Oerjan oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- -Hen3ry
My comments above marked by [Bri]
I think that you are being too hard on the idea. Yes, there will be cases
where it will not be balanced. But there are already such cases (Beams vs
ships without screens [as you pointed out], large vs small ships matched by
either points or mass).
The trick to making it balanced as a whole it to cost/mass it at such
a value that it MUST be taken to have an effective fleet. Such a
system MUST cost and/or mass more than screens for protection against
beam type weapons. It MUST cost and/or mass more than armor for
protection against screen-skipping weapons. If it degrades Screen and
armor skipping weapons, it must pay a penalty in mass/cost. You try
to balance it against weapons it protects against. It does not make one or the
other weapon worth more than the other in all situations, just where the
system is used. And then if it would become a MUST
system, you apply a penalty (mass and/or cost) to make it less
desirable (even if balanced) to keep from having to redesign the Fleet Book
fleets.
Again, with respect,
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOyGGidOVrCdNYgyBEQIP4ACgmzU+rbpqYjCDRt/sETkUnJiqUL4AnjPR
MLmwsE7qqfDwzc2ryCIghh/a
=+JH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----