Hello all,
I've sifted through most of the day's discussion, and I think that we're
generally agreed on two points (with a few dissidents ;-) These two are
actually the easiest to implement as well.
1) Damage should be constant, without regard to range.
2) Firing arcs should be very limited to preserve the K'V "feel."
That leaves us with the "To Hit" mechanic and the mass vs cost stuff to hash
out.
a) I'm pretty sure that my original idea for a "to hit" scheme was dead
wrong - oops. As I understand it, people want a mechanic different from
Beams - very different. OK fine. I take it that my later suggestion of
rolling "beam" dice and using the number of hits as a basis for a damage
multiplier went over like a sack of mouldy cheese. So I guess I need ideas
from some one out there with a better understanding of the problem.
b) I've been swayed towards the heavier mass camp, but I'd pefer them to not
be too massive, if only so we can keep somewhat close to the flavor of the MT
designs. I must stress again that these systems must be balanced to avoid the
problems that MT caused.
Once we've hashed out the "to hit" and damage, the mass and cost will fall
into place by balancing against beam batteries. So I say that we stress that
aspect of the discussion.
I've been thinking again (*it hurts!*): Because of the change in firearcs, KV
no longer have access to a proper
broadside armament. I was thinking that the Class-1 railgun could fit
this role by giving it 2 arcs. It would allow some margin of error in their
movement, without being overpowering or too efficient for them.
BTW: Does anyone know if the chat interface at:
http://chat.mad-web.net/metro.asp
works properly? I can't test to see until the chat session starts. Otherwise
I'm going to have to find a 'net Cafe with ICQ (I'm using the work computer at
the moment).
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves, Did gyre & gimle in the wabe. All mimsy
were the borogroves, And mome raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".
[quoted original message omitted]
> Because of the change in firearcs, KV no longer have access to a proper
I would be inclined to agree with that.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Well, just what are the options for 'To Hit': Constant: Same as Beams
Short range/Low 'To Hit' number : Basically, what is in use now for
Kra'Vak ships. With increasing 'To Hit' due to range
and constant damage over range. (The Trash Can principle.)
Short range/High 'To Hit' number : With decreasing 'To Hit' due to
range and decreasing damage over range. (The Shotgun Effect)
Any other options out there?
Bye for now,
> John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> wrote:
> Well, just what are the options for 'To Hit':
I'm for the first option, the so called "trash can."
However...
I was just brainstorming different ways to use d6s to come up with some
sort of result - just trying to get something/anything different than
beams.
1) Roll d6s vs. a target number. Both target number and number of dice
decreases with range.
2) Roll constant number of dice (not necessarily just one) against a target
number that varies with range. [This is closest to the old mechanic.]
3) Target thrust capability determines number of dice thrown, which score
against a target number that decreases with range. # of hits may determine
damage multiplier. [This is sort of a variation of #1]
4) I'm running out of decent ideas... help
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> I'm for the first option, the so called "trash can."
XXX
A variation of the 'Shotgun Effect'. using more than one die to
determine damage at range, rather than simply reducing the damage on the
single die. This will work. JTL
XXX
> 2) Roll constant number of dice (not necessarily just one) against a
This puts the damage on a bell curve, not as nasty as the 2X damage of the
current system. The average roll will reduce the damage by (about) 33 percent
from current values. JTL XXX
> 3) Target thrust capability determines number of dice thrown, which
Ship thrust Modifier(to hit)
7/8 -2
5/6 -1
3/4 0
1/2 +1
The advantage here is that the chart can be memorized quite
easily and provideds a minimum of dice sorting/memorization/chart
referal ect. JTL
XXX
> 4) I'm running out of decent ideas... help
Bye for now,
> At 05:35 AM 11/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
I'm *ahem* still fond of my option...roll several dice with the range to the
target being your target number. I have to admit that of the above
#3
sounds good, PSB-wise--but I don't think that it would work too well on
the board. I can see too many people pushing their speeds up to the unhittable
velocities.
> 1) Roll d6s vs. a target number. Both target number and number of
We could say 6" range bands where target # drops by one for each band, and
number of dice drops one for each two bands. 0-6" hits on a 2-6. 6-12"
on a
3-6, etc. That gives a class 1 RG a 0-12 range, class 2 RG 0-24, etc. It
somewhat matches beam ranges, which I think is good.
> 3) Target thrust capability determines number of dice thrown, which
I'm against charts of modifiers. I'd rather keep it really simple. Besides,
verying the number of dice and modifying the roll with target thrust produces
very different results.
Say that regardless of class, RGs roll:
4 dice for Thr 1-2
3 dice for Thr 3-4
2 dice for Thr 5-6
1 die for Thr 7+
Combine it with the above concept of varying hit # with range...
Range 0-12: 2+ hits
Range 12-24: 4+ hits
Range 24-36: 6 hits
That's a VERY different mechanic which I think addresses many of the concerns
Then say that the number of hits determines the damage multiplier... I like
it.
> I'm for the first option, the so called "trash can."
I agree too, but not to the 'trash can' concept. MT talks about
hyper-velocity
penetrators, this leads me to believe the idea comes from armor piercing tank
rounds of today and that one 'shot' may contain 1 or more penetrator missiles
but so closely spaced the distinction between one big slug and several little
ones is moot.
So its more difficult to hit something at long range but if you do the damage
is the same as at short range. What do the classes give you perhaps a bigger
or faster slug, but we'll abstract to the fact that bigger RG's do more
damage.
> 1) Roll d6s vs. a target number. Both target number and number of dice
Against as too many variables require a number of die to range look up table
(not KISS enough). I think 2) is better, due to its simplicity.
> 2) Roll constant number of dice (not necessarily just one)
I think the old mechanic has a lot going for it in the simplicity department.
This with John C's suggestion of 3d6 would work, with to hit number based on
MU range. Simply brilliant.
You could even use the Silent Death approach and take the damage from the to
hit roll according to weapon class, to simplify things even more.
Damage from to hit die
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Class 1 highest roll Class 2 lowest & highest roll
Class 3+ sum of all three rolls
Example a Class 2 rail gun fires at a target at 10MU. The roll on 3d6 is 2, 3,
6 = 11, this is greater than or equal to the range so the RG hits and as its a
class 2 the damage is lowest (2) and highest (6) rolls a total of 8 damage
points.
> 3) Target thrust capability determines number of dice thrown,
I'm against this on the grounds of potential over complication i.e. range and
target velocity look up tables (not KISS enough) and the chance that it will
dictate high velocity as a standard though legitimate defence.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
...snip...JTL
> I'm against charts of modifiers. I'd rather keep it really simple.
Besides,
> verying the number of dice and modifying the roll with target thrust
Schoon,
I don't necessarily dislike the idea/concept, BUT what if a
'K' frigate with 4 X type 1s and 2 scatterguns flosts up to your
heavy cruiser sometime. what if he picks up 16 dice that hit
on a 2 or better, what if you take 13 hits, just what kind of damage
multiplier are you considering? Also consider the other frigate comes in next
turn.
Providing all with a wet blanket is sometimes ones lot in life. Sorry.
Bye for now,
> Tim Jones wrote:
...snip...JTL
> that it will dictate high velocity as a standard though legitimate
I must jump in at this point and correct a spreading misconception.
Velosity=Speed= the number of inches that a ship can move during a turn.
Thrust= The ability to change speed/direction and the measure of
how 'lively' a ship is.
Under the proposed rules speed/velosity does not alter the
'to hit' value, thrust does this.
I know what you were saying, I just want to define the term for the people who
may have become slightly confused.
Bye for now,
Greetings, While I am being a wet blanket, I thought I would drip on the
'armor penetration' division thing.
If the logic behind dividing the damage between the armor and the first damage
box row is a 'feel good' thing then fine. For all practical purposes the armor
is mearly an extension of the first damage box row.
Unless it could be a consideration for the 'K'. The RG
damage could be condidered AP and doing only 1 point to the armor and the
remainder as internal damage.
Oh boy, I just opened another can of worms. Oh well, I hear
they have a lot of food value, low fat and all that.
Bye for now,
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
This is what I had in mind when talking about fire modes. In Raking fire,
armour would be fully effective, in penetrating mode, maybe armour would be
ineffective or only max 1 point off.
> Greetings,
/************************************************
> John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> wrote:
> Unless it could be a consideration for the 'K'. The RG
Actually, asuming we end up opting for a multiplier based system (which is by
no means assured), you could say that the first "multiple" would be applied to
the armor, and any additional ones go inside.
> Actually, asuming we end up opting for a multiplier based
I would advocate something based on the RG class, like the MT system, its
simple elegant and logical.
> you could say that the first "multiple" would be
That makes sense.