Ok, back to something OT.:)
New WUD (Weapon Under Discussion)
Sa'vasku Seeker:
Production: * Uses a drone womb to produce * Power comes out of repair *
Requires 1 biomass per seeker * Requires 1 power per seeker * Can produce up
to 6 seekers per womb
Attack: * Move of 24mu per turn * Flight endurance of 3 turns * Can use 1
endurance to make secondary movement * Can attack any ship within 3mu (vector)
6mu (cinematic)
Warhead Types:
* Explosive - 2D6 Damage
* Needle - Damages one system of choice
> On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 05:54 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Sa'vasku Seeker:
I question giving a seeking weapon a secondary move. It virtually assures a
hit on the target, assuming it wasn't launched too early in the approach.
...and with that assured hit, these damage ideas are a bit on the excessive
side. Consider that MT missiles are 2 MASS for their effects.
> Warhead Types:
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Same thing with fighters. They get an amost asured hit on target too.
Considering that MT missiles are considered to ahve advanced AI that pilot
them like fighters this has never really bothered me with seeking wapons.
> ...and with that assured hit, these damage ideas are a bit on the
And Seekers require 1 mass and 1 energy (which is mass used there where it
could be used somewhere else), same as a figher. Perhaps 2 energy then?
What has always been a ponderance to me is that MT missiles were designed to
attack MT ships. Now the ships have aprox. twice the hull space for the same
ship, and it's 3 times as easy to kill an MT missile yet their damage yield
hasn't changed. Maybe they were just too powerful under MT.
> On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 07:54 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Sa'vasku Seeker:
I'd go with at least 2 biomass and 3 to 4 energy. The lance pod cost 1 mass
and 3 energy per shot and although they penetrate armor a little bit better on
odds than does a pulse torp it's range and hit numbers are
downgraded. My thinking along adapting weapons that already exist to SV
use is to cost the same or a little more mass with the energy cost being
a penalty for the greatly increased flexibility that SV typically enjoy. Just
my 2 cents though.
> Attack:
The move of 24mu is 6 above the original MT Missile but then again things have
changed with FT2.5 (FB1 & 2). The secondary move concerns me though. No other
seeking weapon has this ability...yet.
> Warhead Types:
Before I go into my further thoughts on this idea let me preface things by
saying that since MT missiles are not balanced yet for the FB stuff balancing
this idea with MT missiles as they stand is probably an exercise in futility.
However, that said I go on. The concern I have here is SV carrier like ships
launching a horde of these things. 2 drone wombs would result in 12 seekers,
quite the swarm. Since they have a secondary move they'll never miss unless
they're launch at the
wrong time - very little guess or out thinking of the opponent is
necessary. Since it's been a while since I've dealt with MT missiles
and the issues brought up by the FB rules I could be wrong here - are MT
missiles treated individually? If they are they missile then defense can be a
crap shot, resulting in even good defenses missing a target or two.
We could compare these to SV fighters as well but there are more differences
and thus a harder comparison to gauge.
> ----------------------------
Interesting. Do shields affect them as they do against MT EMP missiles?
> -----------------------------
How about making the mass cost 1 per size. The balancing of this would be
easier then. Otherwise it's hard to balance the cost of these ship
construction wise if 1 mass can be used to make a huge PB - and as with
SV stingers some huge sized PBs could result - 50 energy for a size 10 -
ouch!
I hope these comments come across as helpful. I can see a possible place for
them but I tend to favor being conservative on costs and effects lest FT
become a game of who's got the latest new weapon. Of course I'm still hoping
we can come to a good solution for the current
SV problems. ;-)
Later,
> On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 11:58 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> I question giving a seeking weapon a secondary move. It virtually
True. From a balance point of view although fighters do have the secondary
move they only do on average approximately 0.8 damage per turn
(for a max of 6 turns, less if they do a secondary move) while the seekers do
all they're damage at once. Although fighters suffer a minor
penalty for performing a secondary move, one that may not always come into
play, seekers suffer effectively no penalty (one less turn of movement when
the secondary move is probably moving them into an attack anyway). Of course
there's always exceptions.
> ...and with that assured hit, these damage ideas are a bit on the
Lance pods are 1 MASS and 3 energy. MASS is probably a better balancing
factor with SV IMHO especially with a weapon that promotes use at longer
ranges.
> What has always been a ponderance to me is that MT missiles were
Good points. In MT I thought they were too powerful. With the FB changes they
took a real hit. Still if they're each treated as a
separate target vs. PDS systems they're some hope - not nearly as good
as they use to be though.
One thought - how about modeling seekers or something like them based
upon the FB missiles? Just a thought.
> Kevin Walker wrote:
hmm.. makes sense. I also look at the fact you have to spend mass to have a
drone womb or pod launcher to start with. It takes 2 turns to launch a drone
or a seeker so that already limits the number you can produce during battle.
So if you times it right you could launch 2 waves that could hit a target
simutaniously if you let the target close within one turn's movement of the
second launch.
Biomass and energy are the limiting systems in the SV. You can't afford to
have a lot of power since the hull will be weak and you can't use ordinance
and you can't have an over strong hull or you'll have an energy problem.
The mass and power to produce a seeker I took out of drone construction
specs. Perhaps 1 mass/2 energy would be better.
You have to also take into accound that pods can't be defended against while a
seeker you can hit with PDS. You get longer range, but only a 50% chance to
hit against 1 PDS.
> > Attack:
I'm of the opinion that MT missiles should move at 24mu and be able to make a
secondary movement. It's doesn't make much sense that a fighter can
outdistance a missile, since the missile doesn't have to deal with human
frailty.
Ships that are designed as missile barges can launch more MT missiles then a
ship of equal mass can produce seekers. It takes 2 mass to use a MT missile,
It takes 3 mass for the drone womb, 1 mass for the seeker, and whatever energy
is finalised on. That's already more mass. The deciding factor with the
envergy cost is how much of a penalty the SV will take to be able to produce
them.
> > EMP Pod:
Yes. Having double checked the EMP missile specs, they'd have the exact same
effect as EMP missiles.
> > Plasma Burst Pod:
hmm... yeah... I can see that being a problem... Change it to 1 mass/5
energy per level of plasma burst.
> I hope these comments come across as helpful. I can see a possible
They were quite helpful. I'm just one of those people who hate to see the game
disovle to bemas against beams. How boring is that? I like to mix in as much
of a weapons mix for specific purposes when I design fleets.
Current SV problems?I'm not sure what they are. The [Official] changes that
were made to the SV fixed what I considered the unbalancing aspects.
> Kevin Walker wrote:
And fighters are 1 mass 1 energy.
Ok here's the balancing points: Pods have a range of 24mu. With odds to hit of
6mu 66%; 12mu 50%; 18mu 33% 24mu 17% Seekers have a range of 72mu. With odds
to hit of 50% against 1 PDS.
The pod has an effective range of 12mu or 18mu(it varies to what you
definition of effective is) and the seeker has an effective range of 60mu.
There is no save against pod, just it's chance to miss. The seeker you can
kill with PDS. Nominally you need 3 PDS to take out a seeker. 2
technically should do it and 1 has that 50/50 chance but we all know how
the luck goes with the die.
I'm waiting for a third and fourth oppinion to offer some other alternatives
too.:)
> Good points. In MT I thought they were too powerful. With the FB
It does give them a little survivability that they have to be targeted
individually but it's still a 50% on 1 PDS, and they're doing 2-12
damage averaging 7.
> One thought - how about modeling seekers or something like them based
Mostly because I'm not a fan of salvo missiles. For hit and miss they're
worse then PTs. My dislike for them are: 1) too dicey with 1-6 missiles
that lock on, averaging 3.5, being able to be hit by 4+ and 2 on a 6
with PDS means that 3-4PDS should cancel a salvo; 2) They're too short
range, by the time you can use them the enemy is alread shooting at you; 3)
They're too bulky, you're looking at 5 mass for the first shot, and you
probably won't get more the 2 off, the 3rd is if you're really, really lucky,
so you end up spending 7 mass for 2 shots with them; 4) If you're working
against a mobile fleet you still have to get the targeting right. If you don't
you just wasted the shot. Against thrust
2-4 ships this isn't really a problem, but you can't always hope for it.
Jaime Tiempo replied to Schoon:
> > I question giving a seeking weapon a secondary move. It virtually
Sure, but they inflict *far* less damage than this "seeker". A single SV
drone inflicts on average 0.8 damage per attack (less against screens),
while this Seeker - which uses the *same* amount of bio-mass and energy
to
create! - inflicts on average 7 pts in a single blow - that's almost 9
times more than the Drone. Squadron-flying drones are also rather more
vulnerable to point defence fire than lone "seekers".
> Considering that MT missiles are considered to ahve advanced AI that
Considering that the current official rules for the MT missiles (which still
are those in MT) make the VASTLY less maneuverable than fighters, I don't
think I agree with this argument.
> >...and with that assured hit, these damage ideas are a bit on the
Compare the cost of creating an SV "seeker" with the cost of creating a single
SV Drone.
Regards,
> On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 09:58 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Same thing with fighters. They get an amost asured hit on target too.
Not really; with both fighters and SMLs, it allows them to attack the target,
which is not the same as doing damage. Fighters still have to go
through defenses, morale, and only then do they get to attempt to damage.
With your suggestions, the secondary move gives 2d6 damage - unless you
forgot to mention how they interact with various defensive systems...
> Jaime Tiempo wrote:
> The mass and power to produce a seeker I took out of drone construction
Gee, what a penalty. Only a 50% chance to hit against 1 PDS, at any range up
to 60mu from the launch point, no matter the facing of the mothership
when the "seeker" is launched.
The Lance Pod, which costs the same amount of bio-mass and three times
as much energy to launch, gets a 50% or better chance to hit out to range
*12mu* - provided, of course, that you managed to point its single-arc
launcher in the right direction to begin with.
> Ships that are designed as missile barges can launch more MT missiles
Excuse my french, but this is bull.
> It takes 2 mass to use a MT missile, It takes 3 mass for the drone
Six MTMs = 12 Mass, 36 pts
Six "seekers" + 1 Drone Womb = 9 Mass, 21 pts
> The deciding factor with the envergy cost is how much of a penalty the
Unless you attempt to grow the "seekers" when the enemy is already within
weapons range, the energy cost is virtually irrelevant. You don't have much
else to spend the energy on anyway - no need for radical maneuvers that
far away from the enemy, no need for defences, and even vast amounts of energy
put into Stinger nodes won't produce much effect.
> Current SV problems?I'm not sure what they are. The [Official] changes
Your "seekers" would put the unbalances right back.
Regards,
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Only fighters get a secondary movement, the SMLs don't.
> With your suggestions, the secondary move gives 2d6 damage - unless
Which you can't. Fighters get 6 beam dice if you don't take into accound
defensive systems.
I'm not sure what you're getting at since you made the same points I did which
supports a secondary movement.
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 AM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
How specifically do your seekers interact with defensive systems (PDS, C1 Beam
as PDS, screening fighters, etc.)?
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Identically as MT missiles.
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 12:16 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> How specifically do your seekers interact with defensive systems
OK, that's more reasonable. As it didn't mention anything in the initial
post, I thought they might not interact at all with those things.
I agree with an earlier post I saw suggesting that 2 biomass might be better.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> OK, that's more reasonable. As it didn't mention anything in the
Sorry. I ment to put it there.;)
> I agree with an earlier post I saw suggesting that 2 biomass might be
Probably right.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Considering that the current official rules for the MT missiles (which
Right. And I think the MT missile rules should allow them a secondary movement
and a 24mu move. It really doesn't make sense for them to move slower then
fighters.
> > >...and with that assured hit, these damage ideas are a bit on the
Which is why they're now up to 2 biomass and sundry energy.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> The Lance Pod, which costs the same amount of bio-mass and three times
Which I think is underpowered. Why you would ever use a lance pod escapes me.
> >Ships that are designed as missile barges can launch more MT missiles
> >The deciding factor with the envergy cost is how much of a penalty
Yes but you need so many power points to produce something. You can only put
so many generators on at once, so you're strike capabilities per salvo is
limited to how much power you have.
> >Current SV problems?I'm not sure what they are. The [Official]
I don't think they will once the final stats are hammered out. What I consider
the SV's problem is that tactically, they're limited to their stingers. They
can't produce drones in enough quantities, fast enough to keep pace with human
launches, and they don't have any long range weapons, and their heavy
ordinance weapons are only good at suicide range. All this leaves you with
nothing but sitting back and sniping with stingers. SV can't afford to get in
close since once they take one row of damamge they're working at a loss of
25%, 50% if they try and fix the generator. SV have a lot of punch at the
begining but they cripple quickly and easily.
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 03:06 PM, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> The Lance Pod, which costs the same amount of bio-mass and three
I've seen them used in games effectively, used like pulse torps but usually
used in the closer two range bands. They give an extra punch, especially since
they penetrate armor well.
> It takes 2 mass to use a MT missile, It takes 3 mass for the drone
I'd trim the consideration of the mass of the power generators down to
1/2 or 1/4 of the full value as the generators are useful elsewhere when
not applied to the seeker creation. The SV *carrier* demonstrates this issue
with being able to create a large number of drone squadrons, depleting itself
of a large amount of it's mass only to hang around at longer ranges using it's
large amount of now available power to do some heavy or long range shooting.
> Unless you attempt to grow the "seekers" when the enemy is already
With SV balance issues usually rear up with the larger ships, those that
tend to have a large number of generators. The FB2 SV Mothership could
generate over 18 seekers in a turn (assuming 2 mass and 2 power per) and
has enough mass for nearly double this amount over the space of the battle.
Once this much mass is used up all the ship commander has to do
is keep out of serious harm using the hordes of power now used for little else
to shoot the enemy, usually at long range.
If growing seekers is done via the same method (not costs) as drones then womb
space is the major limitation. A ship that cannot generate enough or spare
enough energy to do the maximum seeker growth in a turn just combines two or
more turns in generating the full swarms, waiting to launch them until the
full strike is ready.
> Current SV problems?I'm not sure what they are. The [Official]
The more I think about it the more I don't like the secondary move principal
for seekers (or MT missiles). It allows them to dodge out of the way of
defensive ship networks and area weapons like Phalon PBs. Some may like this
but if they can dodge like this it makes defense a lot more difficult. I'd
prefer that fighters be the only users of secondary movement, hence my earlier
objections to a weapon system that had an area effect that had a limited
movement in the secondary movement
segment...oh...I probably shouldn't mention that... ;-) Part of the
challenge to SMLs, PBs, and MTMs is the need to guess what the enemy is
up to - the secondary move makes it three times easier to guess unless
you're typically playing at the speed Oerjan is use to while using Cinematic
movement.
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> I've seen them used in games effectively, used like pulse torps but
Either I miss with them (range is too far) or the ship is getting too damaged
to use the power there. I put pod launchers on ships for fighter defence. If I
can use them against ships that's only a side bonus.
> I'd trim the consideration of the mass of the power generators down to
hmm.. I've always looked at using generators to build drones on the one turn
basis. But now that you mention it, having more wombs then you can power and
just growing a percentage of the wombs and launching at once
is very obvious. With that, yes, taking power into account @ 1/2 makes
sense.
> With SV balance issues usually rear up with the larger ships, those
and
> has enough mass for nearly double this amount over the space of the
The whole SV system starts breaking down as ship size increases. I'm not sure
where the balance limit is, I have Vorlon Heavy Cruiser which I run as 300mass
since that's how big it is, and it's pretty cheesy in power terms. I prefer
designing for heavy cruiser size.
> If growing seekers is done via the same method (not costs) as drones
Ok that all clicks. Then perhaps 2 mass, 4 energy per seeker.
> The more I think about it the more I don't like the secondary move
I look at it from what the unit should do, and then work the game dynamics for
it. To me SMs are basically unguided rockets that are launched in a general
direction and have minimal to target guidance, which is why they go in swarms.
PB are basically diretion fired artillery. Fighters work like small space
ships, but are far more menuverable because of their size. MT missiles are
like modern cruise missiles, that can guide themselves into the target much
like a fighter would. I can't see any reason to justify having fighters move
6mu more then missiles a turn. To me it doesn't make sense.
I orginally put it in that way to match in my mind how MT missiles should
work. What it really ment was that seekers would have the same system as MT
missiles.
So the current proposal would then be 2 mass, 4 energy, and have the same
mechanics as MT missiles (which is basically what I'm trying to duplicate).
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:24:51 -0800 Jaime Tiampo
<fugu@spikyfishthing.com> writes: <snip>
> The more I think about it the more I don't like the secondary move
Having a little experience with cruise missile dynamics - Cruise
Missiles don't evade.
As a fan of MT missiles, I think they should not have secondary movement
either. deapite the AI it's a matter of an agile Bull moving in for the kill,
not a ballerina moving in for a kiss.
Gracias,
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Having a little experience with cruise missile dynamics - Cruise
I have to disagree. If a fighter can get a secondary movement so could a
missile of comperable design. If it's purely for game balance then fine, it's
not a great thing, but sometimes you have to make compromises, but if you go
by the PSB in the book they should act more like fighters then they do.
> > As a fan of MT missiles, I think they should not have secondary
Jaime said:
> I have to disagree. If a fighter can get a secondary movement so
Concur. If a fighter gets a secondary move, then an AI-controlled
missile should too. If anything, it should be more agile--not limited
by the pilot's ability to withstand maneuvering gees, and doesn't have
> Jaime Tiempo wrote:
> It takes 2 mass to use a MT missile, It takes 3 mass for the drone
I know that you've upped the bio-mass requirement, but let's stay with
the original version for a while longer in order to see why I got so agitated:
If you include the +6 Mass for the generators, you must also include
parts
of the engines (everything above thrust-2) and a bunch of beam weapons
on
the *human* missile boat into the Mass devoted to the MTMs - because
that's what these SV power generators can do when they're *not* used to power
missile growth: they generate extra thrust and/or beam firepower.
(Spicules and Screen nodes are the same Mass as PDSs and human screens.)
Mass spent on MT missiles doesn't generate any thrust, and it doesn't generate
any beam firepower either. It also doesn't carry any extra MTMs
for a second-wave launch later on, but the Drone Womb and power
generators
can grow a second "seeker" wave if there's enough bio-mass available and
the enemy hasn't closed the range.
Simple test of the original "seeker" variant: compare an SV "missile boat"
with its human equivalent:
Human fast missile boat: TMF 24 NPV 86 Hull integrity 2
Thrust-6
FTL 1 FCS 6 MTM
Sa'Vasku "seeker"-launcher construct:
TMF 22 NPV 62 SV Engines FTL
Biomass 8 (ie., 2 "hull" + 6 for one full "seeker" salvo)
6 power generators 1 Cortex Node 1 Drone Womb
If the "seekers" use MTM rules for movement etc., these two ships are
pretty much equal - both can launch a single salvo of 6 MTMs/"seekers"
and little else. The SV ship can't maneuver in the turn it grows its
"seekers", but it is eminently capable of growing those "seekers" before any
human
ship gets within weapons range anyway - and a thrust rating of 7A on any
turn it *doesn't* grow "seekers" should allow it to get into attack position
in spite of that one single turn without thrust.
The SV ship costs less than three-quarters of what its human equivalent
costs, for what is essentially the same capabilities.
Even if you reduce the human ship to an immobile satellite - ie.,
thrust-0
and no FTL - the SV ship (which has full FTL capability and thrust up to
7A) *still* costs less!
Another comparison is with a thrust-6 human pocket carrier, with one
single squadron of torpedo fighters and nothing else:
Human pocket carrier: TMF 18
NPV 63+36 pts for torpedo fighters = 99 pts
Hull integrity 2
Thrust-6
FTL
The torpedo fighters are more vulnerable to point defence fire than the
seekers are, have to take a successful morale check in order to launch their
weapons, and a torpedo fighter which manages to launch its weapon
inflicts on average a little over one-third as much damage as a "seeker"
does (average damage 2.5 pts compared to 7 pts for the "seeker"). If the
"seekers" use fighter movement, the only advantages the torp fighters have
over the "seekers" is their minimal anti-fighter firepower and their
longer
loiter capability - and that's not nearly enough to outweigh their far
lower chance of attacking successfully and the far lower damage they can
expect to inflict with a successful attack.
BTW, this is why MT missiles will never get the same high mobility as
fighters unless their cost and/or Mass increase by a near-astronomic
amount
- with that much mobility each missile is worth roughly 3 times as much
as one Torpedo fighter with launch bay... ie., around 30 points (not including
hull and engines of the launch platform). At the moment, MT missiles cost 6
points each. With fighters currently being one of the two
main balance problems in FT/FB (the other being large ships), it really
doesn't look like a good idea to introduce a system which is not only head and
shoulders, but also body and tail ahead of the fighters...
> Yes but you need so many power points to produce something. You can
As long as you have enough power to grow at least *one* Womb-ful of
"seekers" per turn, the strike capabilities per salvo is limted to how many
Drone Wombs you have. There's no requirement to launch the "seekers" on the
turn after they're grown.
Furthermore, while you "can only put so many generators on at once", those
generators can be used for whatever the ship needs to do at the moment -
as discussed above.
> I don't think they will once the final stats are hammered out.
Keep hammering. The torpedo fighters are the closest official system to
balance your current version of "seekers" against.
Regards,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:11:00 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> > As a fan of MT missiles, I think they should not have secondary
YMMV - Depending on the PSB it may make sense but that ugly play balance
issue has merit too.
> >Concur. If a fighter gets a secondary move, then an AI-controlled
I don't think I could say "missiles should be *less* agile than fighters" with
a straight face unless you start giving the fighter jocks some serious psionic
abilities.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
It's tiAmpo.
> >>>It takes 2 mass to use a MT missile, It takes 3 mass for the drone
Ah constructive criticism. I've been waiting for you to give this. Sorry. But
I've come to expect useful critisism from you and I had hoped for something
more then, "You're a moron."
I never said I had great idea, just that it was an idea, that I wanted to
bounce around. I thought the idea of the SV having some sort of missile like
weapon was a good idea.
I usually under cost things when I first put them out so that people will over
cost them and eventually decent stats can be produced. The discussion as to
why something should cost a certain amount is just as important as the cost
itself.
> If you include the +6 Mass for the generators, you must also include
(Spicules
> and Screen nodes are the same Mass as PDSs and human screens.)
And you have to take into account that SV can really only do one thing at a
time well, 2 moderately well. True that this particular idea the SV energy
needs aren't a factor the way they usualy are, but having played the SV you
run into power allocation problems really quickly if you try to do anything
more the just fire.
> BTW, this is why MT missiles will never get the same high mobility as
To me fighters are only partially unbalanced. If you don't have a good PDS
defence or interceptor wing, and you allow the other player to have a huge
fighter superiority then they'll win everytime. If you have a solid, dispersed
PDS system, fast ships to take you to the carriers (assuming a carrier fleet)
and at least some fighters for defence they're not too bad.
The big things with fighters is the discrepency for those who want to use pre
WWII carrier fleets and those who use pure carrier fleets.
Bif's Battlerider design shows that you can counter fighters for less points
easily.
The balance problem with size is only solvable by some sort of exponential
cost system.
> >Yes but you need so many power points to produce something. You can
on the
> turn after they're grown.
Which I believe I commented on, in an ealier reply, which made the 2 biomass
an obvious minimum setting.
> >I don't think they will once the final stats are hammered out.
I thought the MT missiles were, considering seekers are supposed to be the SV
equivilant.
> Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> >Jaime Tiempo wrote:
Sorry 'bout that :-(
> >I know that you've upped the bio-mass requirement, but let's stay
That's the drawback of being too reasonable too often. People get unnatural
expectations...
> >If you include the +6 Mass for the generators, you must also include
Sure. But this particular thing - growing "seekers" - is something they
can, should, and in 90% of the cases will, do *before the enemy gets so close
that the SV has anything else to spend the energy on*. You don't have to
launch the "seekers" immediately after growing them any more than you
have to launch Drones immediately after growing them.
> >BTW, this is why MT missiles will never get the same high mobility as
I know all this. The problem is that the MTMs both inflict rather more damage
per point, *and* are harder to stop with the type of defences you
describe above.
Unfortunately I was wrong about the missile cost above. I hadn't looked
closely enough at the effect of massed point defences - three times
times
the cost of torp fighters was far too low a cost for fighter-movement MT
missiles :-( (I wouldn't've minded being wrong in the *other*
direction!)
Correct figures:
MTMs with fighter movement and no other changes inflict between five and
twenty times as much damage as the same cost of torpedo fighters against
the same defence, or between ten and fifty times as much damage as the same
cost of standard fighters can inflict in one attack against that defence, in
both cases assuming that the fighters use the morale rules. (Of course the
standard fighters have a theoretical possibility to attack more than
once, but against heavy point defences... the chance isn't all that big
:-/ )
Without the morale rules the MTMs "only" inflict 4-8 times more damage
than
the torp fighters, and 10-15 times more damage than 1 strike by normal
fighters.
The heavier the point defences are, the better the MTMs become compared to
the fighters (since you never get re-rolls against MTMs, but you *do*
get them against fighters). Even defending fighters don't work very well
against MTMs, since each fighter squadron can only engage one target per
turn - and each MTM is one target.
Even if the fighters were *perfectly* balanced, a weapon system which inflicts
five times as much damage or more for the same cost would be horribly
overpowered. MTMs with fighter movement but no other changes are such an
overpowered system.
> The balance problem with size is only solvable by some sort of
Yep. In the tests I've done to date, replacing the "basic hull cost = TMF"
with "basic hull cost = TMF^2/100" seems to work reasonably OK up to
around
TMF ~400... it makes ships bigger than this overpriced though :-/
> >As long as you have enough power to grow at least *one* Womb-ful of
on the
> >turn after they're grown.
Yes. This also reduces the number of "seekers" you can grow in one Drone
Womb to three, which pushes their cost up further still.
> >>I don't think they will once the final stats are hammered out.
The MT missiles are official, though pending a long-overdue update to FB
standard.
But you must remember that the official MT missiles *do not use fighter
movement*. They still use the old "move up to 18mu per turn and may change
facing by up to 1 point at mid-move each turn". If you want to balance
the "seekers" against the currently official MTM rules, the "seekers" also
have to use the same or a very similar movement system. If instead you want
the "seekers" to use fighter movement you have to balance them against
fighters, and of all fighter types the torpedo fighters are the ones most
similar to the "seekers".
Regards,
Let's not forget that the pilots would need some serious resistance to
G-forces as well... unless FT has artificial gravity control built
into the fighters?
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >It's tiAmpo.
A lot of people do that. Boggled me for the first little bit since my identity
had it as "Tiampo" so I couldn't figure out where in the software the "a" was
being turned into an "e" when people did a quoted reply.
[OT] Do people not use a quoted reply that puts in the sender's name
automatically?
> That's the drawback of being too reasonable too often. People get
I don't see it as unnatural. I always expect reasonable responses, and am
always boggled by unreasonable ones. Of course I'm one of those people that is
for people being lined up infront of a firing squad for stupidity.
> Sure. But this particular thing - growing "seekers" - is something
With that, aren't then drines underpriced in power?
> Correct figures:
Is this one missile against 1 flight, or equal mass of each?
> >The balance problem with size is only solvable by some sort of
hmm.. the equation is too simple for the model. There's probably an e in the
equation that would work.:)
> But you must remember that the official MT missiles *do not use
And if you were to balance them to MT missiles, you'd cost them how? I'm still
hoping for some numerical input. I'm really not trying to create a monster
system, but something that is the SV equivalent of an MT missile.
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> Let's not forget that the pilots would need some serious resistance to
Larger ships in the Tuffleyverse have artificial gravity control built into
them to allow high-G maneuvers without harming the crew, so it is quite
possible that fighters have it too...
Regards,
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> I don't think I could say "missiles should be *less* agile than
How's this for PSB to justify missiles not being able to react as well,
without making the game ShadeJog?: While AI has advanced to the point of
allowing for extremely quick analysis and almost instinct-like reaction,
it has not been able to replicate Intuition, the capability to make decisions
based on factors outside of the logical parameters of the situation.
Again, the mileage is pesky, I don't yet actually play the game, I was just
observing based on the concept in general.
Interesting point. Leaving aside the AI versus human aspect for a moment
- what kind of forces are the fighters causing on the pilots/Weapons
Operators (in Torp craft) as they close at high speed and evasive maneuvers?
The relative speed of the ships proper would be pretty dramatic themselves,
especially high speed models (Factor 8 plus) not to mention the inherent
forces affecting forces moving by doctrine at speeds
of 30+ Mu!
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:27:24 -0500 Flak Magnet <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Let's not forget that the pilots would need some serious resistance to
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> How's this for PSB to justify missiles not being able to react as well,
> without making the game ShadeJog?: While AI has advanced to the point
If this weren't the case, it would be rather hard to justify having manned
fighters at all...
Good point, but it can still be extended to justify the differences mentioned.
Again, it's just PSB, not gospel.
Brian B2
> From: Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>
[quoted original message omitted]