With the game we played this weekend, we talked about the beta-test
fleets and have some more thoughts.
1) Extended range and heavy weapon systems In particular to the extended range
PTL and the big beam weapon, instead of just having these two systems
introduced, how about introducing rules for a full range of alternate beam and
torpedo systems in keeping with the generic nature of FT, then state that in
the GZG setting, only certain combinations are available and only to certain
forces.
for example:
[These numbers may not be correct and balanced, but they should suffice
to illustrate what I mean.]
"Pulse Torpedo Launchers PTLs are available in both larger and longer range
models. PTLs firing heavier warheads are available. Those doing 2d6 damage are
1.5x the MASS, those doing 3d6 damage are 1.75x MASS, those doing 4d6 damage
per hit are 2x MASS. PTLs with longer ranges are available. For each 3 MU
increase in range band, double the MASS, so 9 MU (Extended Range) is 2x MASS,
12 MU (long Range) is 4x MASS, etc.).
These features can be combined. So, for example, a ER-PTL/2 would be
12 MASS + 3 MASS per added arc.
In the GZG setting, the NI fleet uses ER-PTL/1s."
and
"Beam Cannon and Extended Range Beams Beams are available in both longer range
models and those doing more damage. Beams with longer ranges are available.
For each 6 MU increase in range band, double the MASS, so 18 MU (Extended
Range) is 2x MASS, 24 MU (Long Range) is 4x MASS, etc. Beams that do more than
1 point of damage per hit are available. These are refered to as "Beam Cannon"
to differentiate them from standard beams. Beam Cannon that do 1d3 damage per
hit (light BC) are 2x MASS, those that do 1d6 damage per hit are 3x MASS.
These features can be combined. So, for example, a Light ER-BC/3 would
be 16 MASS + 4 MASS per added arc, while a ER-BC3 would be 24 MASS + 6
MASS per added arc.
In the GZG setting, the UNSC fleet uses ER-BCs."
2) Variable Hull Rows
> From the 2 games I have played with this, it seems a little too
3) New missiles Really don't like the AM Missiles. O.O. has said that Jon T.
wanted to
get the EFSB E-mine mechanic into FT. So how about a alternate warhead
for SMs?
e.g.
"Salvo Missile Nova Warhead" PSB depends on PSB of standard warheads. If
standard are conventional
or kinetic-energy, then Nova Warhead are nukes; if standard are nukes
then Nova Warhead are Really Big nukes (Mt range instead of kt range)
or matter-anti-matter, etc.
Works like standard salvo missiles except A) they do not move to attack a
target, instead detonating in place B) since they do not have a terminal
attack run, they are harder to
shoot down (how about a -2 DRM vs PD and AS fire?)
C) all missiles that survive anti-missile fire detonate. Figure damage
as EFSB E-Mine/Beta-Test AM-Missile with a stating number of dice = #
surviving missiles (e.g. if 4 missiles survive, then 4 dice to 1 MU, 3 dice to
2 MU, etc.) Screens subtract 1 point per die, to a minimum of
0 per die. Vapor shrouds act as level-2 screens.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 1) Extended range and heavy weapon systems
I'm glad you said that <g>
Increasing a weapon's damage is very simple to handle: if the damage is
changed by a factor X but retains the same armour penetration properties
and range profile, then the Mass and points cost increased by the same
factor X. The trade-off is between targetting flexibility (multiple
small weapons can engage multiple targets at the same time, a single big
weapon can only hit one target at a time) and repairability (multiple small
weapons take much longer to repair than a single large one). (If you use
weird values for X - eg. 3.5, like the UNSC Grasers do - you'll probably
have to change the cost/mass ratio in order to get reasonably close to
integer Mass ratings.)
You could also group several weapon systems together and say that "this group
of weapons is treated as a single system both for threshold checks
and damage control, and they must all fire at the same target". Gives roughly
the same effect as the above, though it doesn't require any actual
*new* systems and each "sub-weapon" would still roll to hit separately
from
the others (eg., two grouped P-torps would still roll separately to hit
and
to damage instead of making a single to-hit roll and scoring 2d6 pts if
that one roll succeeds).
Increasing the range bands is trickier. For P-torps it is relatively
straight-forward (50% more range costs ~100% more points), but when you
start tinkering with the ranges of beam batteries you immediately run into
the fact that the basic Class-2 Beam Battery is slightly over-powered:
its
3-arc version should "properly" have a Mass of about 2.33, but it was
left at Mass 2 both to avoid fractional Mass ratings and to ensure that the
"best" beam class is in the middle of the scale rather than at one of the
extremes. (The K-guns are similar; the K2 and K3 give the best bang per
buck, with the K1 trading damage for wider firing arcs and the larger
K-guns trading damage for increased armour penetration. But I digress.)
This means that if you increase the B2's range bands to 18mu and double its
Mass (let's call this a "B2L"), you end up with a weapon which on a
per-Mass basis is clearly superior to the standard B3 battery. That's
*not*
a good thing from the game-balance point of view, though it would be
paradise for min-maxers. If OTOH you adjust the cost of the range
increase
to fit the B2, you make all other increased-range weapons overpriced
instead.
All in all it would be very nice to have a set of rules for designing
custom direct-fire weapons, and we're looking at such systems for
potential inclusion into FT3, but any such system needs to keep the existing
standard
weapons worthwhile. Forcing players to re-design most of their existing
ship designs because some of their weapons have suddenly become obsolete
would form a major obstacle to getting players to switch from FT2.5 to FT3.
> 2) Variable Hull Rows
1st threshold = 5+, 2nd threshold = 4+ makes it worth the same as the
standard 4-row hull (ie. 2 pts/hull box). If the 2nd threshold drops to
3+,
it'd be worth slightly *less* than the standard 4-row hull (roughly 11/6
pts/box).
> 3) New missiles
What part of it is it you don't like? (I know what *I* don't like with
it -
the E-mine damage mechanic - but since that's the only thing you've
retained in your SM-AM variant you must have some other gripe with it.)
> Works like standard salvo missiles except
This is no different from the standard salvo missile game mechanic. (The
Salvo Missile *PSB* says that they move towards their target during their
attack, but the *salvo missile marker on the game table* is not moved -
all
anti-missile fire against it is resolved in the position the launching
player placed it.)
> B) since they do not have a terminal attack run, they are harder to
This makes it *easier* for AS fire to shoot down than normal SMs are, not
harder (standard SMs have a -3 target's DRM vs AS fire).
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> by the same factor X.
I was going by "value increases by SQRT(X)". <shrug>
> From our own emperical results with multi-dice damage PTLs in B5 and ST
<snip>
> Increasing the range bands is trickier. For P-torps it is relatively
<snip explanation of B2 balance>
> All in all it would be very nice to have a set of rules for designing
OK. Given a page or half-page of FB style text, the actual game play
changes to having higher damage ("Beam Cannon") and varying ranges is
small. How about a couple of tables of MASS/cost values for various
range bands (eg 9, 15, 18, 24, etc) plus one of multipliers to apply to
any range-band beam to get higher damage.
E.g.
"Short Range Beams (9 MU RBs)
SR-B1
SR-B2
SR-B3
etc.
Extended Range Beams (15 or 18 MU RBs)
ER-B1
ER-B2
ER-B3
etc.
Long Range Beams (18 or 24 MU RBs)
LR-B1
LR-B2
LR-B3
etc.
To make a Beam Cannon (higher damage) out of any Beam of any Range type, apply
the following multiplier to MASS (and maybe alteratio to
PV/MASS):
1 pt per hit: x1 2 pts per hit: X 3 pts per hit: Y etc. 1d3 pts per hit x2 1d6
pts per hit x3
> >2) Variable Hull Rows
<snip>
I understand that. It is just that I already see that 3-row is the
preference for everyone except those that are intentionally tying to avoid it.
I therefore conclude that as presented, they are either underpriced or need
some offsetting penalty. <shrug>
> >3) New missiles
First it's another weapon with the same placed mechanic as the RAW SMs, as I
outlined in one of my recent posts on SMs. As a SM variant warhead, It makes
me twitch less.
Second, as a single weapon, the degradation of effects per hit bothers me, but
as multiple warheads, I can live with it.
For our SM house rules, our Nova Warheads use a "-1 per die per MU"
mechanic, but I have no problem with the E-Mine mechanic.
> >Works like standard salvo missiles except
I mixed the PSB in with the rules to explain my reasoning.
> >B) since they do not have a terminal attack run, they are harder to
We haven't used the Beta fighter rules with SMs, so I didn't remember
the -3 DRM. However, there is no point in having a DRM over -3 against
beam die weapons. So maybe -2 vs PD and no AS fire allowed?
J
> I understand that. It is just that I already see that 3-row is the
I and my son deliberately avoid it...because we independently concluded
that 3 row is not worth the price. Does that count? :-)
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >Increasing a weapon's damage is very simple to handle: if the damage
Doesn't work that way, sorry. The "value increases by sqrt(X)" only works
if the unit has both firepower and hit boxes of its own - ie., it
applies to the entire *ship*, not to an individual weapon aboard that ship.
Consider this: re-arm a ship by replacing its single-damage weapons with
half the number of double-damage weapons, but keep the ship's armour,
hull integrity, thrust rating etc. constant. Half the number of weapons but
twice the firepower per weapon means that the ship's total firepower is the
same after the refit as it was before, so the ship's points value should be
the same as it was before; and since the only things which were changed are
the weapons, and the ship now has half the number of weapons it used to, it
follows that each of the new double-damage weapons must cost twice as
much
as the previous single-damage weapons.
> From our own emperical results with multi-dice damage PTLs in B5 and
That is effectively the same as saying that you believe that 2 P-torps
should cost only 50% to 75% more than 1 P-torp, since 2 P-torps inflict
twice as much damage as 1 P-torp does <shrug>
> >All in all it would be very nice to have a set of rules for designing
That's essentially the system we're looking at, yes. The devil, as always, is
in the details... and unfortunately there are quite a few details to exorcise
in this case.
> >>2) Variable Hull Rows
<chuckle> While you're not the only one expressing concern that 3-row
hulls are *under*priced, Laserlight and his son are far from the only players
who
consider the 3-row hulls *over*priced for the effect they have... and
when some experienced players consider them overpriced while other equally
experienced players consider them underpriced, they're probably about right
<g>
To check how much the 3-row hulls really cost, compare the points value
of
a ship with a 3-row hull with that of a 4-row ship with exactly the same
armament, screens and armour and with the first 3 hull rows the same length
as those on the 3-row ship (so it has roughly 30% more hull boxes total
than the 3-row ship). You might be surprised by how little you actually
pay
for that 4th hull row :-/
> >>3) New missiles
Not exactly true, since the AMT makes a 6mu secondary move after the ships
have moved but before the AMT detonates - since the area of effect is
measured from the location *after* the 6mu secondary move, this is a bit
different from the standard 6mu attack radius of SMs.
> Second, as a single weapon, the degradation of effects per hit bothers
What prevents the AMT from being a cargo round deploying multiple submunitions
before detonating? That particular PSB change has no impact on the game
mechanics... if it even is a change; the PSB description on the
beta-test page is a bit too vague to tell <shrug>
> >>B) since they do not have a terminal attack run, they are harder to
AS-mode fire can hit Plasma Bolts. Why would it be unable to hit AMTs?
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> That is effectively the same as saying that you believe that 2 P-torps
> should cost only 50% to 75% more than 1 P-torp, since 2 P-torps
In fact, there's an argument for having weapons that do 2x damage costing
*more* than 2x cost.
This is because a ship has only a finite number of repair crews.
Consider: a ship with 10 B2s vs a ship with 1 weapon that shoots like 10
B2s.
On a threshold, if the owner of the latter rolls unluckily, he loses the
lot: but usually won't lose anything. On average, the loss is the same:
1/6 of the weapons vs 1 in 6 of all weapons.
BUT... assuming a cruiser or larger ship, the owner will have 3 DC
parties ready to repair - for a 50% chance of getting everything back.
This is equivalent to having 3 repair parties for every damaged system.
One of the things that "balance" the otherwise underpriced B2-3 in
particular is the fact that if you festoon a ship with dozens of them, you
can't possibly repair them all as they get damaged.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
So two ships, each with the same amount each of hull, armor, FCS, and thrust,
but ship A has 2x PTL and Ship B has 4x PTL as their only weapons, then Ship A
costs X points and Ship B costs (SQRT(2))*X points?
> Consider this: re-arm a ship by replacing its single-damage weapons
As I understand from all you have said, the only established weapons that
would qualify as directly scaled without other modifiers such as
range included in the value of the weapons would be K-Guns 5+ and PBLs.
> Half the number of weapons but twice the firepower per weapon means
No. I mean that 1x 2d6-PTL is 75% to 88% of 2x 1d6-PTL, because the 2x
PTL1 has more chance to do *some* damage while the PTL2 is
all-or-nothing, though more on the "all".
> > >>2) Variable Hull Rows
<snip "if both sides are unhappy, it's probably right">:)
> To check how much the 3-row hulls really cost, compare the points
I have been considering only "X in 4 rows vs X in 3 rows". I will have to give
this new viewpoint some added thought.
> > >>3) New missiles
Not enough of a difference to make it no longer an "area denial artillery
round in space" IMO. <shrug>
> >We haven't used the Beta fighter rules with SMs, so I didn't
The point is "harder to hit than Standard Warhead SMs". If you want
Nova SMs to be the same as PBs, then SW-SMs should be easier than that
standard IMO, but I have no opinion on whether a Nova SM should be harder,
easier or equal to a PB. One could PSB any of those cases equally well.
J
Some quick comments before going on Easter holidays:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >>I was going by "value increases by SQRT(X)". <shrug>
Ship B *should* cost sqrt(2) * X points; but since the Fleet Book system is
intended to be useable with pen and paper and thus doesn't use the square root
function, it usually doesn't get it exactly right.
(FWIW Starmada's ship design system *does* use the square root function, so in
Starmada ship B *does* cost exactly sqrt(2) times as much as ship A.)
> >Consider this: re-arm a ship by replacing its single-damage weapons
None of the established systems qualify perfectly. The K5s and larger see a
slight increase in armour penetration with increasing gun size which disturbs
the linear scaling; PBLs fail the test since larger plasma bolts
take more damage from scatterguns and similar (and in the beta-test
rules also from rerolls).
Weapons which would qualify as linearly scaled are eg. your PT2 or upgraded
beam weapons with 12mu range bands which inflict 2 or D3 or D6 damage points
per hit rolled on the beam dice.
> >>From our own emperical results with multi-dice damage PTLs in B5
That 2x PT1 has more chance to do *some* damage - ie., hit with one
launcher where the PT2 would miss completely - is balanced out by the
fact that they'll also *miss* with one launcher on occasions where the PT2 hit
with its full-strength shot. The *average damage* for both sets of
weapons is the same; that the *standard deviation* is greater for the PT2
doesn't matter for the points cost.
The main balance issue here though stands between two more esotheric
characteristics: as Alan Brain pointed out the PT2 doesn't fail as many
threshold checks as the 2x PT1 together do, and when it does become damaged it
only takes one successful DCP roll to repair it; but this is balanced by the
PT2's inability to engage more than one target at a time while the 2xPT1 can
engage one target each if they need to.
***
The rest will have to wait 'til after Easter :-(
Happy holidays everyone,
> I wrote:
> Some quick comments before going on Easter holidays:
[...]
> So two ships, each with the same amount each of hull, armor, FCS, and
That was a bit *too* quick <sigh>
B should have cost sqrt(2) * X _if_ Full Thrust combat had been
simultaneous. Since it isn't, a force consisting of type-B gets to fire
more weapons faster during the combat phase than a similarly-priced
force
consisting of type-A ships could, giving B a better chance to knock out
enemy weapons before *they* can fire. This is one of the inherent advantages
the Full Thrust rules award to big ships. (There are others, too
- eg., B is likely to have more DCPs per ship than A, and thus more
likely
to repair damaged systems.) These "big-ship advantages" are also worth
points, which must be added on top of the sqrt(2) * X.
Gotta rush,