I have been creating Battlegroups of Ships using alien (Kra'Vak) technology
and I have been worried about the strength of the Kra'Vak weapon systems.
I was wondering if it isn't a better idea to increase the mass of
class-3
railguns (and A batteries) to 4. In addition to increasing the point cost. I
find that when I design a ship the last thing I look at is the point cost.
However, when I increased the mass of A batteries to 4 my ship designs changed
significantly.
> I have been creating Battlegroups of Ships using alien (Kra'Vak)
technology
> and I have been worried about the strength of the Kra'Vak weapon
> point cost. However, when I increased the mass of A batteries to 4 my
As long as you keep the Kra'Vak technology seperate from Human technology
I have not noticed a serious problem. I realize that some/all of the
railguns are great weapons. Isn't the max range of the railgun less than A and
AA batteries. I am also assuming that most of the optional technology in MT is
in play. EMP missiles do nasty things to Kra'Vak ships as long as they haven't
been allowed to add screens. Also if you
can maneuver fighters and/or missiles in against their ships, I have
found the scattergun to be a poor substitute for C batteries/point
defense.
I have only tried these ideas out a couple of times in testing. Comments
appreciated, flames tolerated.
> Scott Miller wrote:
Your end result may be similar, but does not follow the same story line or use
the core rules.
Okay, I'll just chip in to say that:
1) Raising the MASS of class 3 railguns to 4 destroys some symmetry in the
prices/masses of the various railguns, but I do agree that what seem to
be minor changes in MASS requirements have huge ramifications in the long
term.
2) I find scatterguns to be grossly effective against incoming fighter
attacks. With each scattergun eliminating D6 fighters, why wouldn't they crush
any attacking fighters (unless you've already used them as the grossly
deadly anti-ship weapon they are) ?
Tom Who's starting to think he must be out to lunch, if opinions vary that
strongly...
> Okay, I'll just chip in to say that:
> attacks. With each scattergun eliminating D6 fighters, why wouldn't
I agree with you entirely. The only way they don't work well against fighters
is if you've already thrown squadron after squadron of komikazee fighters
after them to get rid of their scatterguns already, but if you have that many
fighters anyway you're gonna rip any enemy, Kra'Vak or
non-Kra'Vak--apart.
And the only way those Scatterguns are gonna be used against other ships
is if the Kra'Vak player made some serious piloting errors so he couldn't get
his grossly effective railguns into position.
> Tom
> strongly...
> Okay, I'll just chip in to say that:
> term.
I want to destroy symmetry in order to so that it makes more sense to mount B
and C batteries.
> 2) I find scatterguns to be grossly effective against incoming fighter
> attacks. With each scattergun eliminating D6 fighters, why wouldn't
I agree. How about making scatteguns less effective against fighter
groups (1-2 = 0, 3-4 = 1, 5 = 2, 6 = 3)? Maybe declare that the
Kra'Vak doctrine doesn't include the use of fighters or missles?
> Tom
> strongly...
> 1) Raising the MASS of class 3 railguns to 4 destroys some symmetry in
Minor Quibble. Class 1 Railguns are in fact MORE effective than any of the
other classes. Why? Because chance to hit is the same for all classes, so 3
class one will perform more consistently than a class 3. OK so your own
personal tastes come into play, but I'd rather do 4 points of damage than a
random chance of none 3 or 6.
> 2) I find scatterguns to be grossly effective against incoming fighter
> attacks. With each scattergun eliminating D6 fighters, why wouldn't
Use the fighter moral rules, and fighters simply can't attack a Kra'Vak ship
with scatterguns intact.
Having finally recieved my copy of More Thrust, I'll join the debate:
* Armour. Kra'Vak armour doesn't use _any_ mass whatsoever... which I
for one find rather, um, strange. I would make armour use 7.5% of the total
MASS of a ship for each level; thus a size 40 BC would spend 6 MASS on
armour - just as it would for level-2 shields. OTOH, the armour
wouldn't cost as much... Nothing, I think. All fractional MASS round up. The
effect is that to get as much weapons into an armoured hull as an
un-
armoured, you have to pay for bigger engines (and, let's face it: engines are
the biggest part of the cost for a capital ship!).
* Scatterpacks: Since the projectiles are scattered into a cone-shaped
volume, the further away you are, the lower the density of projectiles
will be. Thus, a -1 modifier on the damage for each 3 lenght units
between
shooter and target seems appropriate - which makes it rather
uneffective at range 12, but still very good at range 3 (which is the closest
I can place my ships anyway!)
Of course, I haven't had time to try it out much...
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Having finally recieved my copy of More Thrust, I'll join the debate:
The Kra'Vak armor could represent a superior alloy or composite that does not
take any more mass than similarly sized human ships. Considering their
offensive technology revolves around kinetic energy weapons, they would
probably be able to design excellent defenses against like devices. Whereas
human fleets have excellent defenses against directed energy weapons.
> I would make armour use 7.5% of the total
engines
> are the biggest part of the cost for a capital ship!).
Extra mass for armor might be interesting to use for lower tech levels, maybe
to represent different timelines. Armored hull technologies would improve over
time reducing mass and cost.
> * Scatterpacks: Since the projectiles are scattered into a cone-shaped
Interesting point.
Howdy, Kra'vek armor, be happy its not Krell metal from the Forbidden Planet!
Now that was some armor! BoB sends,,,
> On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> * Armour. Kra'Vak armour doesn't use _any_ mass whatsoever... which I
This is at least the second time that someone has said this. And I find this
strange.
I never thought of Kra'Vak armour as some kind of heavy plating tacked on the
outside or inside or whatever that should take up room. I thought it simply
meant that their metal technology was superior to the human so their hulls
were made from lighter stronger and more resistant metal. This would take up
no extra room.
I enjoy it that the aliens are qualitatively different from the humans, its
what makes them alien after all. I object to trying to water them down to make
it easier for the humans to win, that seems just like gamesmanship to me.
The Kra'Vak are deadly and should usually be outnumbered by the human forces.
Cheers
> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Ian Dunn wrote:
Well... either you water them down by changing the rules for them, or you
water them down by increasing the points cost for them - if you want to
use the points system at all, of course. Using them as they stand, without
changing either, is IMO serious gamesmanship on the Kra'Vak side
if you insist on playing roughly equal cost battles (and, since most around
here are brought up with GW, that's pretty common...)
> The Kra'Vak are deadly and should usually be outnumbered by the human
Indeed they should.
> On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Well... either you water them down by changing the rules for them, or
Yes i can see that GW could engender a culture of equal points based battles.
But FT is not a GW product, and in a way is in rebellion against that kind of
thinking.
Our club is based in WRG ancients (again an equal points battle culture) and
we did have a campaign where the Kra'Vak shredded the NSL fleet that i was
part of. But also in WRG games we developed a lot of scenario games and
campaigns where you have to fight with unbalenced forces.
And its not to hard to limit Kra'Vak forces to 1/3 of human forces for a
fairer game. I can understand that a GW player would see Kra'Vak as a cheesy
'army' and just play it to the limit. Personally the only GW game i play is
Necromunda otherwise im playing WRG DBM or DBR games.
Im not sure what to do with oafs who play gamesmanship, besides beating them
around the ears a bit. I mean it you ever get out here, i'll give you a
friendly game as long as i get to play Sa'Vasku:)
Cheers
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Ian Dunn wrote:
> Yes i can see that GW could engender a culture of equal points based
I know, I know...
> Our club is based in WRG ancients (again an equal points battle
Oh? Like to discuss the points cost of Ex? 10 AP for... what?;););) (No, I
haven't built a Mithridatic army. I can't afford to...)
I am, admittedly, very much for 'balanced' costs and 'balanced' tech. This
comes mainly from Starfire campaign play, and a bit from GW and WRG.
In Starfire, there are lots of different weapons - but in a campaign,
only about three will ever be used, because those three are by far the most
cost/mass-effective. (In addition, of all various ship sizes in that
game,
only one - the Battlecruisers - were really effective; so most warfleets
would consist of BCs with the few select weapons. Pretty boring.) In
campaigns, even small cost-effectiveness differences matter a lot; in a
single one-off battle it doesn't. (Or, to be more accurate: If I were an
admiral, I'd personally flay the ship designers who put any less than the best
available weapon into my ships...)
The big balance problems come when (if) you allow Hu'Man ships to use Kra'Vak
tech. Unless you do something about the points costs, there won't be any
reason to use anything but railguns; because railguns are so very
much more effective than beams, both in terms of cost and in terms of
mass used. Sure, easy to stop: just forbid cross-tech ships. In the same
way, armour is far better than screens, at least for ships up to size 50
(depending on what protection you allow it to give you against pulse torps,
submunition packs and suchlike; MT says nought about it, but I've
got Mike Elliott's old suggestions (-1 damage per armour level against
standard missiles and pulse torps, as shields vs beams against subpacks);
logical, but scary).
Oh well...
A quick thought on railguns; how about simulating their much greater transit
time between firer and target by letting beams fire first. If a
railgun-armed ship announces that it's firing on a beam-armed ship, the
latter is permitted a "reaction fire" on the railgun-ship, provided it
hasnt already fired.
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Robin Paul wrote:
> A quick thought on railguns; how about simulating their much greater
Could work well. It all depends on just how high the 'incredibly high
velocities' are (and your background); I'm a little too influenced by the
'report' from the bridge of the Kinshasa to try it;) Currently I'm trying
other ways to balance 'em.
Later,
> A quick thought on railguns; how about simulating their much greater
Not a bad idea. But then this reaction should also be possible against
missile-firing ships. (I really can't too deeply involved in a rule
discussion, since the last time I actually played FT was over a year
ago...)
> At 03:41 PM 6/26/96 +0200, you wrote:
If a
> railgun-armed ship announces that it's firing on a beam-armed ship,
I know this sounds simplistic but the way I have been thinking of balancing
out the Kra'vack MDs is give screens a defensive bonuses against them. I
worked it out like this, for every level of screen that the target ship has
subtract one from the rail guns to hit role. This makes mass drives effective
only at closer ranges and gives the humans a chance to get their licks in
first. The PSBS reason that I gave to justify it is that screens are localized
masking systems that make it harder for a ship to be targeted rather than
energy fields that block shots. The higher the ships screen rating the less
like the chances of that ship taking a hit become. As mass drives require very
percise targeting solutions to hit their targets, they become very vulnerable
to the effects of the masking systems.
Oh well that's my 2 cents worth.
> Robert writes:
> I know this sounds simplistic but the way I have been thinking
I think either this or Stuart's idea about using *DAFs to intercept railgun
rounds makes sense; it'll be interesting to see how it plays.
As for the PSBS explanation of screens affecting railgun rounds, here's
another take: some sci-fi authors have speculated that true spaceflight
will
not be practical until we develop some kind of matter-deflecting energy
field. Space is full of small particles of matter, and hitting these
particles at near-relativistic speeds could cause serious damage to
ships; as a result, some sort of energy field is needed to deflect these
particles. If you buy this explanation, then charging that energy field up
higher could
deflect larger particles, up-to-and-including railgun rounds. Of course,
if you buy that, then screens should also affect missiles and the like....
Scott
Robert M. Line wrote:
> I know this sounds simplistic but the way I have been thinking
If you use this would it not affect all firecon systems, since the firecon is
generic and used by a variety of weapon systems? Maybe the EMR from the
shields only affects Kra'vak firecons since they are probably not as
knowledgeable on energy weapon systems while the humans may have overcome this
long ago.
You can also take an approach using Black Globe generators as screens, as we
discussed some time ago, that literally suck all EMR into onboard capacitors
making ships quite to difficult to hit let alone detect.
How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting ine from
their "to hit" roll? That would make area of effect ECM worth it's weight in
gold for a task force....
> How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting
Now you're cooking on gas! That makes good sense, bearing in mind that the
stream of railgun penetrators would have to be spread over a wider area in
the hope of registering hits on an ECM-protected target. I assume SM
packs have some form of proximity fusing, and that scatterguns are already
affecting a wide area, so neither of these systems would be affected.
Rob
> How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting
Works for me. I'd also think it would affect other weapons fire (since it'd be
interfering with the tracking and targetting systems, yes?).
Then you'd naturally have to add ECCM at some point to counter-act it.
Some might argue this smacks of SFB or Starfire or merely tech-level
advancement playing, but the more ECM/ECCM systems you have on your
ship,
the fewer actual weapons systems you're carrying... ;-)
Mk
> >How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting
If we assume that all beam batteries are lightspeed or near lightspeed weapons
they would be relatively unaffected by "Minor" ECM spoofing. They would simply
pan around until they got a laser "Paint"
and then pulse- the firing doesn't have to predict target movement
beyond a light second or two. A railgun, however fast, is considerably slower
than light (say, 10%c) So the target ship may have moved substantially between
launch and impact. If ECM makes the targeting slightly less precise, then it
would have significant impact on railgun weapons, missiles, and pulse
torpedoes. Anything launched by fighter would be immune, as they close to
virtual point blank before firing, anyway. Just a thought....
> >How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting
If we assume that all beam batteries are lightspeed or near lightspeed weapons
they would be relatively unaffected by "Minor" ECM spoofing. They would simply
pan around until they got a laser "Paint"
and then pulse- the firing doesn't have to predict target movement
beyond a light second or two. A railgun, however fast, is considerably slower
than light (say, 10%c) So the target ship may have moved substantially between
launch and impact. If ECM makes the targeting slightly less precise, then it
would have significant impact on railgun weapons, missiles, and pulse
torpedoes. Anything launched by fighter would be immune, as they close to
virtual point blank before firing, anyway. Just a thought....
What about Counter ECM? Why not have aliens using the "Kra'Vak Technology"
deploy fewer ships. It's a matter of Quality vs. Quantity.
The aliens deploy fewer ships because they don't need to deploy more. Further,
because it's alien tech supported by an "unknown" economic system, quality
costs less.
Joe A. Troche
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~jtroche
> On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Robin Paul wrote:
> >How about buying ECM systems that effect Kra'vak fire by subtracting
> What about Counter ECM? Why not have aliens using the "Kra'Vak
Quantity.
> The aliens deploy fewer ships because they don't need to deploy more.
> Further, because it's alien tech supported by an "unknown" economic
A small note on economy: A future country, fighting a distant colony war far
from home is propably not able to convert it's whole economy on to a war
footing. Then again, a humankind, threatened by a common foe threatening it's
very excistence (sp? I can never remember whether that "C" belongs there or
not...), can possibly forget or lessen
it's internal conflicts long enough to do something about it. Earth itself has
immense resources at it's disposal (adding the asteroid belt and the other
planets in the solar system), not to mention the colonies,
and is, in effect, fighting a battle on it's hometurf. One might tend to
think that all this combined might help humankind to start gearing it's war
industry to a real war footing. On the other side, the Kra'Vak are already
putting into the fight everything they've got, which means that even if they
wanted to increase
their war effort, they propably wouldn't... Of course, this is mere quesswork
only, as the anthropology team I sent to do a study on the Kra'Vak has failed
to file any reports since their departure... The simplest way of showing this
growth of stinking Humie... I mean human war effort is, strangely enough, the
original one: Increase the points allowed to human player. This represents the
growing resources put into the fight and the growth of the human fleet as more
ships are added and different factions finally realize they'll have to come to
terms with each other in order to survive. In single battles, the effect
is hard to see, but in a campaign-ish system the effects are something
like this:
Phase one: First contact (early war months?)
-Human and Kra'Vak meet have equal point values, and
neither side can use the other's technology
-Humans get licked. Though.
Phase two: Battle is joined (middle war months?)
-Humans get a point advantage, and can start to use
limited amounts of Kra'vak technology, as well. They might also
start inventing counter-measures for Kra'Vak tech.
-Kra'Vak cannot use Human tech, as they're too proud to
assimilate technology from a lesser race that will soon be wiped out, anyway.
Phase Three: Globbering time (late war years?)
-Humans get an even larger point advantage, due to the
war industry kicking into full gear.
-Both sides may start using each others tech to a
certain degree.
Phase Four: Revenge (later/end war years?)
-Human point advantage starts slowly to diminish, due to
a combination of war exhaustion and a general lack of interest in a war which
is (hopefully) finally moving away from Earth and the more important "core"
colonies.
-Both sides can use each others technology fully
or nearly so.
-Humans start to squabble with each other again.
Phase Five: Peace in our times (end of war)
-Humans start to fight with each other again.
-Kra'Vak power only enough to be a nuisance due to
border raids at the area of original Kra'Vak entry into the Human space.
-combination of the above means only second-class
forces can be spared to guard the frontier against the Kra'Vak, so no point
advantage, and mostly old ships (=old tech).
I just thought it out as I wrote it, but opinions, please...
btw, I don't have my rulebook with me, but did FT have rules for fleet morale
or not? I seem to recall that More Thrust (=MT?) had them, but as
I said, I'm not sure.
/GNiko
> Joe A Troche <jtroche@cs.pdx.edu> wrote:
Quantity.
> The aliens deploy fewer ships because they don't need to deploy more.
> Further, because it's alien tech supported by an "unknown" economic
In my view, if Kra'Vak tech is more effective than Human tech, then it
should be worth more points - note that this does not mean that it
costs the Kra'Vak more to build their ships, simply that they're more
effective in battle.
Also, in an equal points battle, this /would/ lead to the Kra'Vak
deploying fewer ships.