textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Missile Arrays [used by Tauri in Stargate FT adaption]
Mass: 1 mass/2 missile tubes (array size is measured in tubes)
Cost: 2/mass
Range: 30" Arcs: all (360 degree, homing) Damage: 1 pt per missile Mechanics:
- Does not require launch during ordinance launch (does not have a
placed marker)
- Launch is indicated during 'fighter and missile attack allocation'
(this allows engagement by screening fighters or PDS)
- During launch, missile array salvo should place a marker at the target
ship or otherwise indicate to target ship's player that a missile salvo is
targetted there and how big the salvo is (a salvo from an array is of array
size or half array size after 1 threshold)
- Missile count is based on mass of array and is halved at the first
threshold
- If not shot down, missiles will hit target (not like unreliable SM
targeting) doing 1 point per missile
- Missile array has no ammunition limitation
- Missile array requires a working FC to target but may share that FC
with other weapons targeting the same target
- Fighters screening a ship may engage missile array as per SM
engagement by fighters
- Fighters in open space may not engage the missile array projectiles -
they move fast and are many and are resolved more like a direct fire system
I used this at ECC to simulate the SSN/SSBN like missle arrays the Tauri
ships had. The defending ships had to decide to use fighters (or not) to
screen their ships or devote their beams to engage the incoming missiles.
The damage is a lot lower than an SM's on average and definitely maximum, but
it is continous (no ammo), doesn't miss like SMs (not targeting, missing
marker placement), and it has a 30" range.
This is essentially a direct fire solution for missiles. It probably ignores
some alien weapons like PBLs or shrouds (or at least, I haven't had to
consider how to deal with them) and their effect on missiles so in that
sense, it operates more like a K-gun or other high velocity kinetic.
Comments? Opinions on cost? Suggestions on additions to cover other systems
that should be considered
as defenses/counters?
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
(this
> allows engagement by screening fighters or PDS)
to
> screen their ships or devote their beams to engage the incoming
How well did this work out in practice in the game, Tom? My immediate
reservation is that it's an "auto hit" weapon (well, OK, an "auto hit unless
defended against", to be more exact) which is something I'd generally tried to
steer clear of in FT. How much do you think it would alter things if, for
example, each missile getting through the defences did 1 "beam die" of damage
(ie: 0, 1 or 2 points) rather than just an automatic 1 point?
> How well did this work out in practice in the game, Tom?
It is a bit different. But compare it to SMs for instance....
a) Has a bit more range than standard SM, less than SM-ER
b) It can strike repeatedly (but how many strikes practically occur in a game?
I'd say 2 for SMs, 4 for Missile Arrays maybe if the ships live long enough)
c) Average SM damage, undefended, is 12.25 points for 3 mass or 9 points d)
Minimum damage on an undefended SM is 1, maximum is 36 e) You can entirely
miss with an SM if you can't aim well e) With the Missile Array, you don't
miss if in range f) The Missile Array's average damage is 2 per mass, so for 3
mass is 6 which is half that of an undefended SM (average damage in a round
advantage goes to SM by an order of 2) -- and the cost of 3 mass is 6
so its a bit cheaper because it lacks the upside potential of the SM g) The
Missile Array cannot score more than 6 points damage, the SM can score 36
(huge upside potential for the SM) h) The Missile Array is not going to do 1
damage, so that is an advantage for the array over a double 1 SM roll (number
of missiles, damage per missile)
i) Note the above comparison is to the SM + launcher... once you have
this, subsequent SMs I think get cheaper in mass and cost so this is a worst
case on the SM side.
j) A PDS will average killing 0.8 missile per, so a typical 2 - 4 PDS
ship will neutralize between 2 and 4 missiles from a salvo, which is
equivalent to 1 to 2 mass of missile array
In practice, in the Stargate game, these were defended against by screening
fighters (since fighters don't do much against ships) for a time, until the
humans got in there and thinned out the Lucians' fighter screens. There were a
few conventional beams used to defend
against them as B-1s, but for the most part, the Lucians would rather
have those dice to use against enemy ships. They ate the damage as 'cost of
doing business' which is kind of how the missiles behaved in the genre. The
only things missiles blew up in the genre were badly damaged ships whose
shields had been attrited or were otherwise ineffective at defense.
This weapon is more or less a slow attrition weapon versus most moderate sized
ships. If they have dedicated PDS (not present in the SG universe really),
then they can shoot down some of the incoming
missiles. Beyond that, B-1s could too.
The difference between doing a strict 1 point and 0.8 pts on the die (if you
called it a beam die) is just the mechanical issue of rolling more dice. The
Stargate scenario had made two playtest iterations whose objective was
reducing the die counts to manageable, so adding
extra didn't enter my head. Plus 2 pts damage for a mass and 2 CPV/NPV
seemed like a reasonable trade off. 0.8 seems a bit overpriced to me but might
not be (I defer to superior numbers geeks). Lacking the huge upside alpha
strike potential of any SM that gets through (1 getting through can do 6
points), they seemed reasonably balanced.
But I wasn't trying them out in all situations. I'd have to match them up
against a variety of FT ship sizes and technologies to really
figure out if there are balance issues. Certainly K-guns have the same
sort of range and slightly average damage for K-1s (without going to
look) if a hit is scored and can't be shot down or intercepted. The real issue
is how much interception is available. That's the challenge of balancing
interceptable systems versus true direct fire. K guns are
expensive but they are both penetrative and non-interceptible.
The other trick is most weapons have damage profiles that are strong at close
range, mediocre or worse at medium ranges, and weak at long
ranges. This one, like SMs, simply has a flat damage profile - not
terribly impressive at close range, competitive for mass at medium range, and
maybe good at long range.
I think of these as something that won't, in one lucky salvo, kill a ship
(unlike SMs). They are a constant painful attrition if you don't have
reasonable defenses.
FT (and not by itself in this by any means) is always sort of
paper-scissors-rock. If you bring a mass of fighters and the other guy
doesn't or doesn't bother with PDS, he's toast. This might have a bit
of that flavour, though less of the knife-edge issue.
It would certainly be worth trying with the beam dice, although it would add
some more die rolling if the pricing wasn't too high. That would turn an
average 8 point salvo (for instance) into a 6.4 point salvo and maybe that's
better for balance. 1.5 mass per damage seemed too expensive, 1 mass per
damage seemed okay but for a very limited test environment. By going to a beam
die, you'd be at 1.25 mass per damage and that might be better.
I will try it out on various sizes of ship versus some classic ships and see
how it plays.
TomB