In my FT 2.0 railgun "house rules" I reduced the effectiveness of the smaller
caliber railguns by a range band each and increased the mass of the larger
ones on the rationale that a larger railgun was longer, gave a higher
acceleration to its projectiles and was thus more accurate at longer ranges
and did more damage.
I think it was:
Class "3" Mass:6 Max Range:30 Damage:3 (no doubling) Class "2" Mass:3 Max
Range:24 Damage:2 (no doubling) Class "1" Mass:1 Max Range:18 Damage:1 (no
doubling)
I was also considering allowing the class "1" guns to be used in turrets and
as auxiliary point defense, like class "1" beams.
The general consensus from the playtesters was that they were STILL
bog-nasty compared to most other weapons.
I haven't gotten around to revising my house rules for FT 2.5 yet. With the
changes in the FB, railguns definitely need to be worked over, but I'm not
sure which way to jump with them since in my universe it's the Humans
who use low-tech railguns. My take on them is that they would probably
be nasty at short ranges, but inaccurate as hell at long. Something in line
with the PD-as-weapon rules. And if RGs are so butch, while did anyone
every develop beam weapons?
For my background at least there should be a distinction between the
low-tech near-future electromagnetic RGs with relatively low velocities
and
the Kra'Vak high-tech alien grav-based RGs which are firing projectiles
at relativistic speeds. I like the distinction in Master of Orion between mass
drivers and gauss cannons; similar principles, more "oomph" and most
importantly -- different names.
:)
Jeff
------------
> At 07:19 AM 10/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
[This one is faster to answer than Chad's post <g>]
> In my FT 2.0 railgun "house rules" I reduced the effectiveness of the
Ie, the R1 hits at 4+ at range 0-6, etc?
> and increased the mass of the
Assuming I understood you correctly, in FB you get:
Weapon: Damage/Mass at range...
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30
R1 0.5 0.33 0.17 - -
R2 0.44 0.33 0.22 0.11 -
R3 0.42 0.33 0.25 0.17 0.08
Class-2 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 -
(unscreened target)
Class-2 0.63 0.63 0.32 0.32 - (lvl-1
screens)
Class-2 0.47 0.47 0.23 0.23 (lvl-2
screens)
Class-3 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.23 0.12 (lvl-2
screens)
The values for the Class-2 battery assumes a 3-arc mount; the Class-3 is
single-arc (just like the R2 and R3) and both use re-rolls.
While the balance between the various railguns looks OK - the R3 isn't
enough better than the R2 that the greater risk of losing all of it in
treshold checks or to needles is overshadowed, and the added point defence
capabilities of the R1 make them nice as well.
However, none of them can really stand up to the (3-arc) Class-2 battery
even against heavily screened targets. (OK, the R3 outranges the Class-2
by 6 mu, and the R1 is marginally better at range 0-6 against lvl-2
screens... not good enough, though :-( ) I don't mind this - I don't
have any Kra'Vak ships, and use the tech only rarely <VBG> - but it
changes the flavour of the Kra'Vak a whole lot. Mind you, much of this is
caused by the re-roll option, which downgrades shields quite a lot even
against beams.
> I was also considering allowing the class "1" guns to be used in
Hm. Only against lvl-2 or -3 screens, if you use the old FT2 weapon
masses for the A-, B- and C-batteries. The Mass 3 A-batt equals them
even
against lvl-2 screens..
[snip]
> And if RGs are so butch, while did anyone every develop beam weapons?
Because it's hard as hell to *hit* anything with a
(considerably-slower-than-c) railgun slug compared to a (close-to-c)
particle beam :-/ The Kra'Vak have figured out how to do it...
Later,
Concerning Railguns...
Just my 2 cents. In our house rules, we mandated that EACH railgun required a
dedicated fire control system. This fire control system cannot be shared with
any other system, not even another railgun.
You may consider this a severe limitation so twiddle with it a bit if you like
the idea but not the severity. I should note that I decreased the mass and
cost of extra fire control so people could buy extra firecontrol if they
desired to.
What this rule does is make the Railgun 3 more desirable than 3 Railgun 1's
(only 1 firecontrol to fire vs. 3).
Pete
> Peter Caron wrote:
> Just my 2 cents. In our house rules, we mandated that EACH
This has two effects:
First, the Mass result using the FB design rules is the same as my (Class
+ 1) Mass scheme for railguns, and has the same problems - ie, R1 and R2
are not only a lot weaker than the bigger weapons, but also than many
non-railgun weapons, without having any real range or set of targets
where they are prominent :-(
Second (and worse, IMO), it makes the railguns *much* more vulnerable to
treshold checks. In effect, each of your guns has to survive two treshold
rolls in each check - OK, it isn't quite that bad since you can assign
the firecons as you wish each turn (I hope, at least!), but still the
survivability of the railguns drops dramatically :-(
Later,
> On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Peter Caron wrote:
I originally upped the mass of the railguns also, but wasn't satisfied with
the results. Personnal taste I suppose. I would prefer a 1 Mass Railgun to a 1
Mass C beam (FT2 rules) anyday. 30" range vs. 12" range is a significant
advantage, IMHO. However, others may view this differently.
I agree that the Railgun 3 is better than a Railgun 1, but I did that
intentionally. RG 1's show up on small vessels in our games, not big ones.
Adding an Extra Firecontrol is pretty cheap also (Mass: 1 Cost: 5... house
rule). Still, this is a matter of taste. As I don't own FB yet I can't comment
on the Railgun's strengths or weaknesses in the new ship design rules. I
understand they've undergone a MAJOR change.
> Second (and worse, IMO), it makes the railguns *much* more vulnerable
On Escorts, with 1 firecontrol anyway this doesn't matter. On larger vessels
with multiple Fire Control, this can be a factor but given the costs of Extra
Fire Control in our house rules, it's not difficult to buy 3 Extra fire
control for your Big guns for 3 Extra Mass and 15 extra points. It DOES mean
that building starships with ONLY railguns might prove dangerous. We like to
mix our designs up with Beams AND railguns.
It doesn't weaken Railguns too severly... It also helps that Railguns aren't
affected by screens... Works for us. 'Course, it really depends on your
personnal tastes...
Thanks for your comments, however... I'm always looking for different
ideas/viewpoints... keep 'em com'n :)
Pete