Has anyone tried using KV equipment (railguns, scatterguns) in the new FTFB
design system? I was looking over the rules again last night, and they would
seem to be real shipkillers. I also figured that the mass for the
railfuns would go along the same lines as the beams (1/2/4/8...).
Railguns
would probably fire thru 1 arc only, with maybe the class-1s having a
120
or 180 arc - the sidemounts then continue to make sense in the new 6-arc
system. A couple of design flurries also seemed to show that KV ships will
mount a nasty number of railguns, but it would be tempered by the installation
of lots of armor. I'll post some designs once i get them cleaned up. They're
frightening. BTW, I also assumed that KV get a bonus in manuver (full thrust
rating available for rotations & maybe pushes), and that railguns do roll up
on a 6 (yikes!).
> -----Original Message-----
No I haven't due to the fact that they are due out in FB2, I'm not that sure
they are backwards compatible with the FB1 design system, as you go on to
prove.
> design system? I was looking over the rules again last
Maybe - but given that you get a lot more bang for the buck
they are likely to be more prohibitive in FB2 (cubed maybe)
Railguns
> would probably fire thru 1 arc only, with maybe the class-1s
I agree they will hopefully be constrained as limited arc weapons
> A couple of design flurries also seemed to show that
Their design doctrine for MT states that they use a lot of armor, so I would
assume this would continue to be the case. This as you state will use up mass.
If the rail guns are massive enough then it would limit their number within
the design system.
> I'll post some designs once i
Which suggests the FB2 KV will be very different as JT promised to sort out
the aliens in FB2. Your conjectural designs would be interesting in the short
term.
> At 08:37 AM 7/7/98 -0500, Noah V. Doyle wrote:
> would seem to be real shipkillers. I also figured that the mass for
<snip>
Haven't tried them using the FB design system yet since I haven't got one yet.
:(
I did try using a watered-down version of the railgun in my background
universe a human (ie "low tech") equivalent of the pulse torp. I felt they
were closer in function than beam and railguns were. You may be right about
the masses, though...I'll have to run the number when I get a look at the
actual book.
In my FTII house rules for railguns, the smaller caliber railguns were assumed
to have shorter accelerator tracks and lower muzzle velocities. As a result,
they were less accurate in each range band than larger ones and had a shorter
effective range. To compensate, I made each of the larger caliber railguns
progressively larger (I think it was mass 1, 3 and 6 respectively). I juggled
the numbers until they came out similar to the way beams work now; small
caliber railguns had shorter ranges but slightly higher damage than an
equivalent mass of larger, more accurate, and
longer-ranged large-caliber guns.
As for the scatguns, I'd have to say that as anti-ship weapons they are
just too nasty for words.
I've heard that PDS now have some limited offensive capabilities but not any
specifics. I suspect that for my universe, this may represent autocannon,
small caliber turreted railguns, etc. for the humans.
> On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 08:37:23 -0500, Noah Doyle writes:
> would seem to be real shipkillers. I also figured that the mass for
Railguns
> would probably fire thru 1 arc only, with maybe the class-1s having a
Here's some ideas I had along this very same line:
Class X railgun, mass X*3 (one arc. +X mass to go to 2 arcs)
Range 36", hit auto at under 6", then decreasing by one per 6" out.
Damage is 1-3: X points
4-5: X*2 points
6: X*2 points + reroll
No armor penetrating, but ignores screens.
Might be too long range. Maybe go back to the MT ranges.
Rail guns shouldn't go up by squares unless the larger ones have longer ranges
than the smaller ones like beams do. Really, a class 3 railgun is the same as
3 class 1 railguns except when taking thresholds. So, opinions on the above. I
thinks this tracks well with the new beam and PT masses, but I haven't play
tested it.
True, but I thought that they were supposed to be really powerful for their
mass. And with as much armor & hull as they will be paying for, jacking
the mass costs up may not result in a similar ship (but then again, Jon may
not want the KV to be the same...heh, heh). So far they seem to be a lot
of 'fun' - huge damage potential, but limited by range.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
Auto hit at 6" or less? Yikes, that's really scary! I don't think I would
include that. I always felt that the 30" range was pretty good,
balance-wise, and that the range was more of a function of projectile
speed as opposed to size of firer. A railgun fires rounds at, say 3 to 10
km/sec, whereas a particle beam or laser fires its' 'rounds' at about
300,000 km/sec. The range of a beam in the game is limited by how much
energy it can put on a target effectively; it takes a bigger emitter (PB or
laser) to point at the target, and pass that energy through. Since things
like beam pointers and on-mount fire controls are subsumed into the
weapon itself, that mass is counted towards the weapon. Beams probably extend
far past their max range on the table, but the ranges given are max
'effective' range. A bigger railgun can put out a bigger slug, or more of
them, but
there will be some acceleration limits due to materials. I think your
masses for the railguns is a bit high - I think that they were supposed
to be more effective than beams, for the mass. But yes, screens do zilch
against railguns, and armor helps, but that double damage with reroll is a
real killer...heh heh.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:55:47 -0500, Noah Doyle writes:
Yea, I was torn about that. But since PT's got some extra range I felt bad
about not giving RG's a boost.
> there will be some acceleration limits due to materials. I think your
I want railgun technology that I can take up against beams without having to
work out a handycap like the current 3 for 2 point rule against the Kre'vac. I
mostly just want the alternate weapon system with a different feel when
designing different fleet from the same universe. You know, give one heavy
beams, another SML's, another PT's, andother railguns, etc.
3 for 2 point handicap? Is this something I missed? I'm not sure that I
understand. And for the RG vs. Beams, I always thought about extending the
base range for RGs to 8', but the 6" auto-hit may be better - easier to
figure (ok, a cop out, but true), and it gives them that extra bit of range.
I'll have to do some RG vs. PT comparisons, i was solely considering Beams
(not HBWs, either).
Noah V. Doyle
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:46:57 -0500, Noah Doyle writes:
Just the fact that an equal number of points of humand and Kre'vac ships is
quite an advantage for the Kre. Railguns and scatter guns are cheap and light
in MT compared to the human equivelent.
> And for the RG vs. Beams, I always thought about extending the
> figure (ok, a cop out, but true), and it gives them that extra bit of
I've been trying to compare penetrating weapons with other penetrating ones,
and non with non. Since PT's ignore shields like RG's, I was trying to compare
them. I probably need to go back and redo some calculations now that there are
only 2 levels of screens, and beams
can re-roll 6s. Changes the dynamics some.