RE- HH missiles

Oerjan Ohlson wrote

> 'Course, I still don't understand why you insist on applying the

I`m trying to keep to the recognised mass scale as used in the game, because
it is a good scale for the weapons used in the HH universe. I THINK I remember
that the mass was given for a HH missile somewhere in the novels, but I cannot
fimd it at the moment (if it was even there, and my mind isn`t playing
tricks). Also, using the FT missiles give you the chance to overwelm the PDS
of the target.

> Means the HH ships can't have broadside-mounted missile launchers?

You could use a two arc launcher, but I prefer using 2 single arc launchers,
and the mid phase movement to bracket the target.

I did try using a 1 mass to 1000 tonnes ratio, but. the 1 mass to 100 tonnes
ratio seams to match the mass for the weapons better (plus a DD at mass 400,
with a thrust of 9, level 1 screen, ftl & F hull leaves a mass for weapons and
equipment of 120 (alot of weapons (he he))).

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just give the weapon the same stats as a

I`m trying to give limits to a weapon reversed engineered from alien tech, and
limiting it to only close range band makes the weapon dangerous (so you
wouldn`t mind using it instead of the normal human weapons you are used
to),but expensive (witch limits it`s use, especially with the limited range).

> Should be HULL(F); otherwise OK. (W) would be around 5 boxes.

OOPS, should have spotted that, sorry, typo error (that`s my excuse).

David Rodemaker wrote

> My only one is that a Mass is an abstract unit of measure that in the
Without
> dragging novels off the shelf I can only recall the crewing

And laserlight wrote

> FT ships are much smaller in "official" mass and crew than HH ships.
Of course, you
> can ignore the "official" scale and define it however you like.

Yup, a HH BC has a crew of 2105 for a tonnage of 879 000 tonnes. If using FT
mass ratio the mass would be 8790 mass, and the crew would be roughly 4x that
as given by DW for the HH HMS NIKE BC. Of corse, you could always reduce the
tonnage to mass ratio by a quater to reduce the crew ratio to FT
norms (i.e.-1 mass =400 tonnes aprox.), but the ships will still be big.

> remember that the mass was given for a HH missile somewhere in

        50-75 tons IIRC from Basilisk Station :)

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in er ror, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the
information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of this
message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless
specifically stated.

bif smith

> 'Course, I still don't understand why you insist on applying the

There's no generic "recognised mass scale" in FT. The Tuffleyverse, with its
rather small ships and crews, use one scale. If you use FT for any other
background, use whatever mass scale you like.

Like, for example, the way you did the Arachnid SD designs. In the
Starfire background they're between 150'000 and 200'000 tons - if you
had stuck rigidly to the *Tuffleyverse* mass scale with them, they
would've been 8-10 times bigger than they are.

> because it is a good scale for the weapons used in the HH universe. I

50-75 tons for "normal" missiles. Don't think I've seen any figures on
the advanced ones featured in "Echoes of Honor" but they reduce magazine
capacities by 18% so should be around 90 tons each. With the
Mass scale you use, 0.5-1 Mass - but that in turn means a damage of
between 1D3 and 1D6 if you want to maintain the game balance, and that
low a damage per missile makes them rather weaker than the ship-killers
they are in the novels.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just give the weapon the same stats as a

Pulsers are limited to a single setting during a battle, and that's what the
points system is designed for. They're not priced for campaign
play where the re-tuning ability makes them kind of "modular"... so
simply say that "it's a Pulser-C which can't be re-configured". No need
for extra complication <shrug>

Later,