Sa'Vaksu poser from Newsgroups

Hi All,

I still feel that this gent is inflating his statistics, but he does have a
point burried in the "overstatements."

> In article <398A3706.260C5E3A@home.com>, mary <r2bell@home.com> wrote:

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

Well, I've made this suggestion before and nobody liked it, but here goes
again.

I think most of the Sa'vasku abuse could be curbed by limiting a standard
stinger node to channeling just 16 points of power. Allow larger
single-arc
stinger nodes to be which handle 32 or 64 points of power, but with a 16 (or
even 8) point limit on standard stinger nodes, you effectively force the
Sa'vasku designs to be close to what's in the fleet book.

No MASS 240 monstrosities with just 2 or 4 stingers, because they can't even
channel all the power from the batteries.

No long range sniping out beyond 60 from most every ship, because it will take
extra MASS and design considerations just to have such a node.

Really, the two main complaints I've heard are that the SV can snipe at very
long ranges (and I've been on the receiving end of a very demoralizing example
of this) and that they have virtually no blind spot for firepower, since 100%
of their firepower can be fired out a single stinger covering the
aft quadrant (my gut feel suggests human ships are generally 20-30%
weaker
in FS and FP than F arc, and 60-75% weaker in the AS and AP).  I think
this tones down those problems slightly, and I know it's a limitation I'd
rarely
encounter if I chose not to play the sniper game and / or stuck to
published designs.

My favorite trick for balancing the Sa'Vasku is:

Take the Sa'Vasku points and add an extra 25% to the other side. Andy A

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Fri 04 Aug, McCarthy, Tom wrote:

Hmm... I quite like this one, as it 'makes sense' that there would be a limit
to how much power
a weapon (especially a biological -based one) could channel.
Using an analogy with human beam batteries, how about: Maximum Power MASS 16 2
32 4 48 8 above this, every extra 16 points of capacity doubles the MASS COST
is MASS x3 If you want more complexity, say that the higher capacity stinger
nodes have reduced fire arcs, thus: Max. Power MASS
16 (3-arc)              2
32 (1-arc)              3 + 1 for 2 extra arcs (max 3)
48 (1-arc)              6 + 1 per extra arc (max 3)

The big problem is 'do we re-design the existing SV ships?' like replace
a couple of stinger-16s with
a stinger-32?
There may be many other problems as well, but I can't spot them :-)

> No MASS 240 monstrosities with just 2 or 4 stingers, because they
[snip]
> [quoted text omitted]
Well, more food for thought!

> Hmm... I quite like this one, as it 'makes sense' that there would be a

I also rather like this idea. It would seem to eloquently deal with the
problem.

> The big problem is 'do we re-design the existing SV ships?' like

I'd say 'No." All you have to do is say that all the printed designs are the
MASS 2 stingers, and players may replace them with larger ones on a X for 1
basis.

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

I am glad that my example generated some good discussion on how to solve the
problem of grossly overgunned Sa'Vasku. An idea that I was toying with is that
a stinger fires as a different beam class depending on the power: power class
        1       1
        2       2
        4       3
        8       4
        16      5
        32      6

and so on. While this still allows them long rang sniping, it prevents
instant death at close ranges, and allows the human-tech response of a
mass 162 BDN with Hull integrity 32, MD 10, FTL, FCS, PDS and Class-6
beam to sabredance* with the SDN and not be instantly destroyed if the range
closes.

Sabredancing is a term used in StarFleet Battles to describe the use of a
Klingon D6 or D7's superior power and maneuvering to keep at range
12-15 hexes (good disruptor range, lousy photon range) to beat the more
crunch-powerful Federation CA. (crunch-power = instantaneous firepower).

I designed a whole range of shiptypes for a race of sabredancing aliens. Due
to their single weapon, single arc nature, they are totally unsuited for
cinematic movement.

BTW; should I be offended at being called a Sa'Vasku poser? I really
see myself as a neo-Fisherite: Shoot further, move faster, but remember
that it isn't a battleship.

Sincerly; Richard Bell end

> I am glad that my example generated some good discussion on how to

Actually, this solution would seem to present the least amount of difficulty
in terms of "not redisigning" the existing S'V ships. However, I'd have to
take a look to make sure this one doesn't just transfer the problem to a
different arena. A gross number of Class 1 or 2s could also pose a potential
problem.

> BTW; should I be offended at being called a Sa'Vasku poser? I really

;-)

> On Sat 05 Aug, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

Thanks - I think I'm on a roll today ;-)
> >The big problem is 'do we re-design the existing SV ships?' like
Yup, that would be simplest - possible PSB 'vanilla' SV constructs are
designs for 'general
operations' - so mount a lot of low-power stingers so they can either
zap lots of small targets
(cortex nodes allowing) or fire multiple zaps at a single big target -
they sacrifice a long range
capability (which no-one else has anyway) for more versatility.
Of course, they probably have specialised 'big gun' constructs (say lots of
power generation
+1 MASS 4 or MASS 8 heavy stinger for 'special duties' :-)
As well as heavy stinger equiped versions of their standard
'capital'-class constructs.
> Schoon

G'day guys,

> I am glad that my example generated some good discussion on how to

I haven't had time to look at this much, but it would also seem to fit well
given how energy for SV thrust is allocated.

Cheers

Beth

> On Mon 07 Aug, Kevin Walker wrote:
[snip]
> One little point. There's no real reason (unless you want to deal
I see what you mean - oops!
perhaps table should read: Max. Power MASS Max. Range (mu) 16 2 60 32 4 72 64
16 84 128 256 96

-or-

16 (3-arc)      2
32 (1-arc)      3
32 (3-arc)      4
64 (1-arc)      8 + 4 per extra arc
This uses the same principle as before (each extra 16 PP capacity doubles
the cost) - but only PP capacities that give extra range are listed.
COST is still MASS x3.

Under this, I suspect that we would rarely see Stingers larger than the
Capacity 16 (standard) version. We could easily forget about the cap. 64 and
above versions, and call the Cap. 32 version a "Heavy Stinger".
Maybe use my other suggestion - cut the Cap. 32 stinger down to 1-arc,
MASS 3, COST 9?