First, the poll results:
Seems like I'm in the minority with Sprayform. Everyone else premeasures.
Sure, it's "realistic", but I'm playing a game for the fun of it. I'm against
premeasurement because:
a) It's a convention of miniatures games. Yes, there are two schools of
thought here, but "no rulers 'til you mean it" is in the majority. b) It bogs
down gameplay. If you're allowed to premeasure one distance, you're bound to
find the guy who wants to measure *all* distances and angles, *every* turn.
As for ranging shots, I find it a matter of personal honour not to take undue
advantage from allowed measurements. I.e. I note which range bracket the shot
falls in, counting "out of" as one bracket, instead of dwelling exactly how
far the target is. I check which arc the target is in, not the exact bearing.
You're free to do like you please, ofcourse, as long as Jon doesn't give
a hard rule (I think he won't), but please note it affects tactics and
especially the usability of large velocities greatly.
Just last Friday we had a game where the smaller attacker managed to elude a
superdreddie's range by less than an inch for two turns, screwing the gunnery
guy's plans royally. IMHO, it was an extremely interesting situation because
it was largely accidental instead of a result of one guy honing his movement
orders with a micrometer screw.
Ok some other thoughts:
Why doesn't armor have mass? Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that
ignore screens except railguns and scatterpacks?
How to combine screens & armor? Is protection-3 maximum?
What do C-batts need to roll to kill a heavy fighter?
How come there's a model for a standard Kra'Vak fighter when they don't use
any? Do missiles attack 360 or 270 degrees? The rules are contradictory.
How to make mines more worthwhile? Ok, mine-laying isn't a typical
battle activity, but the strategic cost should be reasonable. Specifically,
how
come no one puts a missile warhead in a mine?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:) Seems like I'm in the minority with Sprayform. Everyone else @:)
premeasures.
Looks like one more vote against measuring has come in since this message.
Anyway it occured to me that your question actually asked about premeasuring
of weapons AND movement. We don't explicitly disallow either but I've never
seen anyone actually try to measure where his ship would come out after a
turn. We usually will check distances, compare speeds and guess where the turn
will leave us. Some of us are better at that than others, but no one's so bad
that he actually plots out exactly where he'll be.
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:57:32 -0500
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
I allow premeasurement of fire, but not movement in FT. I HATE games that
require one to use the eye as a tactical tool, because so many gamers have
poor eyesight to begin with. Add to that the fact that each ship has MANY
people and systems on board (some weapons officer somewhere has a lock which
he feeds to all the others) that the very
idea of NOT allowing premeasurement seems ludicrous. I was banned
from using artillery in GW games at the club because I rarely missed. I feel
that the object of the game is to test your generalship, not
your degree of myopia. -KR
> From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi>
This should be changed.
> Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that ignore screens except
Only needle attacks & EMP attacks ignore armor.
> How to combine screens & armor? Is protection-3 maximum?
3 should be maximum.
> What do C-batts need to roll to kill a heavy fighter?
5+. The reason heavy fighters get a bonus agianst *DAF is that the *DAF
uses weapons that have less damage potential (they do =zero= damage agianst
ships). The C-bat is heavy enough to damage ships and just bairly agile
enough to act in a *DAF roll. The heavier firepower negates the minimal armor
of the heavy fighter, but loss of targeting agility still makes 4 a miss.
> How come there's a model for a standard Kra'Vak fighter when they
Kra'Vak can't adapt?
> Do missiles attack 360 or 270 degrees? The rules are contradictory.
270 degrees. "any ships that FINISH their movement within 6" of an active
missile (and NOT in the missile's REAR arc) may be attacked by that
missile..." (p.3 MT)
> How to make mines more worthwhile? Ok, mine-laying isn't a typical
> activity, but the strategic cost should be reasonable. Specifically,
> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Brian Bell wrote:
> > Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that ignore screens except
> > railguns and scatterpacks?
Ahem. Wave guns explicitly ignore armor. What about Nova cannon? Missiles: If
armor DOES work, how? Subpacks and Pulse Torps were published before armor
rules, which makes this bit fuzzy.
> 5+. The reason heavy fighters get a bonus agianst *DAF is that the
I'll buy that...
> 270 degrees. "any ships that FINISH their movement within 6" of an
AND a few paragraphs later: "When a ship ENDS its plotted movement within 6"
of an active missile..." Not a word about arcs.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Ok some other thoughts:
This is a question for Jon Tuffley. I would agree that using armor should
increase mass.
> Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that ignore screens except
You would think all weapons would be affected by armor, but they are explained
as protection from beam weapons.
> How to combine screens & armor? Is protection-3 maximum?
I would allow screens and armor to work together. I would treat any beam
attacks that penentrate the shields(1st pass) to also be affected by the
ship's armor(2nd pass).
> What do C-batts need to roll to kill a heavy fighter?
I would think that heavy fighters should be no more difficult to hit than a
standard multi-role fighter. Since the C-batt is a heavier weapon than
the PDAF and ADAF, the current rule of destroying only one fighter on a roll
of 5 or 6 seems fair.
> How come there's a model for a standard Kra'Vak fighter when they don't
> use any?
> Do missiles attack 360 or 270 degrees? The rules are contradictory.
270 degress. The rules state that a ship may be attacked by a missile, only if
the ship is within 6" of the missile and not within its rear arc.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
This section could have been better documented. However, it is clearly pointed
out in the prior section on how a missile attacks, noting the unusable rear
arc. I think it was left out in the next section since it was already
explained.
Ok, I didn't really ask all because I didn't know. I asked them because I
wanted to raise some discussion on these points.
So, I'll answer my own questions:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Why doesn't armor have mass?
To make the Kravvies even meaner.
> Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that ignore screens except
Never quite clearly explained, but I'm betting on my suggestion above.
> How to combine screens & armor? Is protection-3 maximum?
Who knows? The game needs a more generic protection system. It's on the verge
of becoming what WH*'s armor system was. A horrible mess.
> What do C-batts need to roll to kill a heavy fighter?
5+ sounds fine. Though this is getting a bit too granular for all these
options (stdhvy/msl vs. PD/AD/C-batt).
> How come there's a model for a standard Kra'Vak fighter when they
Lack of communication between sculptor and GZG.
> Do missiles attack 360 or 270 degrees? The rules are contradictory.
270. The following paragraph is an editing mistake.
> How to make mines more worthwhile? Ok, mine-laying isn't a typical
Strictly speaking, there isn't a strategic cost for a minefield. The cost
of the mine-laying system has can be considered the price for a
"realistic, but in the game's scope unusable" piece of equipment, much like
ortillery systems.
> Specifically, how come no one puts a missile warhead in a mine?
Because missiles were designed after mines and pretty much all game
add-ons exhibit a trait of arms race, not disarmament.
More on the subject of Kra'Vak:
Railguns vs. Pulse torps
The systems are actually remarkably similar. Let's compare
a PTT with a Railgun-3:
PTT RG-3
Points 15 12 Mass 5 4
Arcs Fore only One arc only
Extra firecon Required Not required
Max range 24" 30"
To-hit at min
range 3+ 2+
Min damage 1 3 Max damage 6 6 Avg. damage 3.5 4.5
For a system that does the same thing, a PTT has more price, more mass, more
restricted arcs, requires more firecons, less range, less accuracy and less
damage.
Quite simply it loses in every category.
Fair, eh?
Incidentally, since RG costs are linear, they have a problem opposite
that of beams: RG-1's are better.
For the price/mass of 1 RG-3, you can buy 3 RG-1's. They hit better (3
chances to roll instead of one), have same min and max damages (total) but
more stable average damage. They're much more durable with threshold
rolls.
I guess the Kravvies don't believe in statistical analysis or they would
have replaced all larger railguns with RG-1's.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970406153743.13644B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
I don't know how to say this without being rude, but perhaps you'd raise more
debate if you weren't flogging horses that were dead or, at the very least,
exceedingly lame.
I think we've all, independently, come to the conclusion that the rules for
the Kra'Vak aren't entirely flawless. Can someone write this down and make it
it a FAQ? Or an FFH (frequently flogged horse)?
We could put it next to A-battery balance.
> On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Why don't thrusters with different ratings have different mass? It just isn't
that important, really.
Mass should be viewed as a meaningless game parameter. I wouldn't
be the first person to deride mass as "hocus-pocus"...
> > How to combine screens & armor? Is protection-3 maximum?
A simple rule might be to make beams ignore armour, and to generally make all
weapons ignore one or the other. This would also work towards balancing the
Kra'Vak... a little. Just a random thought.
> > What do C-batts need to roll to kill a heavy fighter?
This is not ambiguous. C-batts do not inflict kills on a four,
heavy fighters do not count them either. Discounting a four twice is the same
as discounting it once.
> > Do missiles attack 360 or 270 degrees? The rules are contradictory.
Perhaps the following paragraph assumes we are not stupid. Human being are
often smart enough to understand that a more specific logical clause takes
priority over a more general one. We are expert systems.
> More on the subject of Kra'Vak:
[...]
> For a system that does the same thing, a PTT has more price, more
See the dead horse. Flog the dead horse. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em,
etc.
Alternately, institute a house rule where every time your ship is fired upon
by a Kra'Vak weapon, you are allowed to whack the firing
player in the face with a rolled-up newspaper, or inflict an
electric shock to their gentital organs, or similar. Pavlov knew how to treat
powergamers.
Kra'Vak may rule, but Sa'Vasku drool.
> At 01:31 AM 4/7/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
Or take twice as many (three times as many?) human ships as Kra'vak. Now I
know why Jon didn't put a point system in SG2. Of course then you miss out on
the people who won't even look at your game because it doesn't have a point
system. Damned if you do...
> > Which weapons ignore armor? The same ones that ignore screens
Oops. I wrote that about 1 am. Sorry for the oversite.
> On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> I don't know how to say this without being rude, but perhaps you'd
Gee, aren't we touchy? If you don't want to hear about it, hit the "next
message" button.
> Why don't thrusters with different ratings have different mass?
I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding.
> It just isn't that important, really.
I guess it is, as it's among the proposed rules amendments for FTIII.
> A simple rule might be to make beams ignore armour, and to
It would be a logical explanation why humans have quit using armor...
> This is not ambiguous. C-batts do not inflict kills on a four,
By your logic, screen-1 stacked with armor-1 offers no extra protection
against beams, since both systems discount 4's. It is one way to look at
it, but not the only one.
> Perhaps the following paragraph assumes we are not stupid.
Then why repeat it? Unnecessary repetition is an editing nightmare. If I'm
refreshing my memory, I'll be looking at the specific paragraph. The "360"
clause just happens to be under "Missile attacks". The more restricted "270"
clause is presented under "Missile movement". Why would
I read up on missile movement if I'm interested in missile attacks?
> See the dead horse. Flog the dead horse. If you don't like 'em,
Hey, the only real problem with our alien friends is that their point cost
doesn't match their power.
Finding the proper balance between wildly dissimilar systems is hard.
Therefore it is IMHO very useful to note the similarity between PTTs and
railguns. Analysing this relation will give us a much better idea what the
RG's should cost.
To cure the "masses of RG-1's" I propose the following amendment:
Scrap the different railgun classes. Instead buy RG-batteries. One
battery is equal to the standard RG-1.
When firing, count all batteries. Roll to hit once. You either hit or
miss. Roll the damage die if you hit. On 1-3 you inflict damage equal to
the number of batteries, on 4-6 twice that.
Take threshold rolls separately for each battery.
If you're interested in point balance, up the battery cost to 7 points.
While we're at it: KayVee drives cost 1.5 times normal. Armor masses 10%
of hull maximum per level.
> Pavlov knew how to treat powergamers.
Actually, Pavlov's most famous experiment was about positive feedback.
> Alternately, institute a house rule where every time your ship is
The Kra'Vak railguns aren't massive enough compared to beam weapons. Could
some one please try a Kra'Vak ship design using the mass and cost requirements
below and tell me what you think.
Railguns: mass cost basic dmg
Class-1 (light) 2 4 1
Class-2 (medium) 3 8 2
Class-3 (heavy) 5 10 3
They behave the same as before, ingnoring shields etc., except for the
exceptions above.
> On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Joe A. Troche wrote:
> Railguns:
The PTT still loses to RG-3. Or did you have a typo in the points cost?
Also, this amendment makes heavy RGs more cost effective. Is that the effect
you wanted?
But anyway, nice to see someone take this seriously.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970407101516.15216B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
Well, I did... and it reappeared when you answered your own questions.
> > Why don't thrusters with different ratings have different mass?
Not one I like, frankly.
I dislike the tendency to view ship (or tank) construction as plonking
together so many lego bricks. Isn't it plausible that the exact same set of
system specs instantiated in a ship might have a varying number of DP
depending on which yard (meaning also architect, contractor, nation, culture,
race, whatever) it comes from, and in which year? Not to mention the dozens of
little tedious RL factors that are of no consequence to a tactical game?
Should we specify, say, a varying mass for fuel/supplies varying on
the ship's required endurance? (Or FTL-range, or whatever). I think
it wise to subsume all this crap into a flat 50%. I would be
happiest to see DP-quantity be independent of which systems are
specified.
> > A simple rule might be to make beams ignore armour, and to
Perhaps armour fell out of favour with the military-industrial
complex. Screen manufacturers paid bigger bribes, or were cheaper, or required
the mining of rare minerals that the ruling class had a monopoly in...
> > This is not ambiguous. C-batts do not inflict kills on a four,
No, not at all. Both the C-battery text and the heavy fighter text
specifically refer to discouting 4's. In the case of armour/screens
armour is refered to as counting as screening, and the effects of layering
screens are well enough described in the basic rules.
There's a maximum protection of three screens BTW...
> Finding the proper balance between wildly dissimilar systems is hard.
> the RG's should cost.
Ah... now you're actually proposing amendments as a stimulus to discussion,
rather that asking rhetorical questions. You should do this in a seperate
message. Here it is buried in our rhetorical crap above, so less people will
actually bother to read it.
> Scrap the different railgun classes. Instead buy RG-batteries. One
It's not a bad idea.
> When firing, count all batteries. Roll to hit once. You either hit or
Hmmmm... well, if I have two Kra'Vak shooting two targets, I might split the
fire of each of my ships between each target and thereby obtain more
consistant results. Likewise the fire from many small ships will strike more
consistantly than that of one large ship. This could be seen as a bug or a
feature... how microsoft do you feel today?
I don't think it would be to time-consuming to have each RG-1 roll
seperately it's attack and damage.
> Take threshold rolls separately for each battery.
So low?... try running the numbers between a PTT and an RG-2 (not
RG-3). Band-for-band the RG-2 has a greater mean damage (and all
the other advantages you quote for an RG-3). Throw in the greater
resilience to threshold checks when broken into two RG-1's...
Or compare an RG-1 and a 1-arc C-battery. I'd put an RG-1 in at
least 10 points... if not 15.
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Well, I did... and it reappeared when you answered your own
How about "kill thread"?
> I dislike the tendency to view ship (or tank) construction as
Sure. But IMHO, it should be optional flavor.
> Perhaps armour fell out of favour with the military-industrial
I'd buy that for one nation, but all of them?
> Ah... now you're actually proposing amendments as a stimulus to
Life's hard and then you die. You can't have one without the other, sorry.
> Hmmmm... well, if I have two Kra'Vak shooting two targets, I might
Some people would like the edge it gives scores of little ships, but you're
right, it opens an alley for cheap optimization.
> I don't think it would be to time-consuming to have each RG-1 roll
Well, I do. I really like the single-roll beam resolution. It's a nice,
simple and clean design. All this "to-hit then damage" stuff clutters up
the basic design.
How about this: Roll to-hit once per battery. Roll damage multiplier
once for all batteries.
Or better yet, scrap the damage multiplier. RGs inflict just the base damage.
Yeah, I like that.
> So low?... try running the numbers between a PTT and an RG-2 (not
You're right. I was perhaps a bit too conservative. 10 pts per
RG-battery
and no damage multiplier should bring them in line better.
> Or compare an RG-1 and a 1-arc C-battery. I'd put an RG-1 in at
That's a bit far fetched. The C sucks anyway, and its abilities are somewhat
different.
Let's redo the calculations:
Only changes shown:
PTT RG-1 RG-2 RG-3
Cost 15 10 20 30
Mass 5 1 2 3
Avg. Damage 3.5 1 2 3
at range - includes accuracy
6" 2.33 0.83 1.66 2.5 12" 1.75 0.66 1.33 2.0 18" 1.16 0.5 1.0 1.5 24" 0.58
0.33 0.66 1.0
30" 0 0.16 0.33 0.5
Hmmm... the PTT is still way heavy, but even counting the cost of the extra
mass required it has some advantages. The low mass of RG's lets
the kravvies retain their edge pound-for-pound (which is a "real life"
consideration) while giving them a more fair points cost (which is an
"in-game" consideration).
Argh... I guess I should punch all the weapons up in a spreadsheet.
Next: Scatterguns vs. Submunitions packs.
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
Not an option for all mail programs. Certainly not in mine...
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970408091508.17458A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
> > RL factors that are of no consequence to a tactical game?
If a sci-fi game doesn't have flavour, it doesn't have much at all.
> > Perhaps armour fell out of favour with the military-industrial
Well, they slavishly follow each other in every design decision... explaining
the lack of flavour in ship design.
> > I don't think it would be to time-consuming to have each RG-1 roll
That's a fair comment. Serves you right for playing with Kra'Vak
rules, though. At least by levelling down to all RG-1's there's a
speed-up. Roll handful of dice to-hit, pick up those dice that hit
and re-roll for damage. It saves distinguishing between Class 3's,
2's and 1's.
> How about this: Roll to-hit once per battery. Roll damage multiplier
Possible... many small attacks still get a more consistent damage, though.
> Or better yet, scrap the damage multiplier. RGs inflict just the base
...but how does armour work in this system? The benefit of armour is tied into
the damage roll.
You're going to have to either reduce the number of dice thrown at long ranges
(too much like beams?), or shift range bands to account for armour (armour
make you harder to hit... very D&D), or
something similarly clumsy, like make a table of tables to cross-
reference range, armour and die-roll. Unless you abolish armour,
which would solve the armour-mass "problem" and the screen-armour
combo "problem".
> Next: Scatterguns vs. Submunitions packs.
OK, I'll start this one of...
Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than submunitions
packs?
> At 06:38 PM 4/7/97 +0300, you wrote:
Typo!
Railguns:
Class-1 (light)
mass=2 cost=4 basic dmg.=1
Class-2 (medium)
mass=3 cost=8 basic dmg.=2
Class-3 (heavy)
mass=5 cost=10 basic dmg=3
I don't want the RG's to become Particle Cannons by another name just a little
less potent. I think if the numbers above are used in construction of Kra'Vak
ships there opponents will have a "snowball's chance" albeit a small one.
> Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than
Scatterguns do 1d6 DAMAGE per attack with no to-hit roll
Sub-Packs do 1 point on a 4-5 and 2 points on a 6
Scatterguns may target fighters, destroying a number of fighters equal to the
die roll. Scatterguns are turretted.
A Light Cruiser with 11 Scatterguns will average 40 or so points on
an attack pass straight through the shields- enough to gut any ship
in the game.
Yikes!
1) Scatterguns are guarenteed to cause at least 1 point of damage. 2)
Scatterguns are turret mounted (subpacks are limited to 1 arc)
3) Scatterguns can be used in an Anti-Fighter role
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than submunitions
packs?
Because clearly Kra'Vak mil tech is much better than human....
One thought I had was to allow humans to field a version of sub-packs
with anti-matter warheads. Roll for damage normally but then
_multiply_ the resulting damgage by _4_. Note this gives the
anti-matter sub-pack a very high variance, which I like, makes it
quirky. If an unfired anti-matter sub-pack is destroyed in a
threshold role apply a point blank anti-matter sub-pack attack to the
ship (no way to safety fuse a mag-bottle full of anti-matter...)
4x damage may seem a bit high (after all the eqv mass of scatterguns averages
3.5) but when you consider:
It still has 90 deg arc (v. scattergun's 360) It is not useful against
fighters It may exsplode, damaging the carring ship Its high variance
If anything 4x may bit a bit short.
Something similar can be done for missles...
I think it is nicely justifable in the FT/DS/SG time line too:
Humans had thorticaly been able to produce anti-matter warheads
for 20 years before first contact with the Kra'Vak, however, no power had
fielded them because of the imposablity of building a
safety fuzed anti-matter warhead. After only two years of full
fledged war with the Kra'Vak humanitie's back was to the wall and the
previously unthinkable became necessary...
[Cue music, swtich to a series of holovid shots...
The NAC's Io munitions faclity blowing up after a production
robot accidetendly runs over an anti-mater transfer line...
An ESU stores ship blowing up after a minor hit in a supprise attack...
A NSL Lancer sliping into point blank range and destroying a previously
undamaged Kra'Vak strike carrier...]
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> If a sci-fi game doesn't have flavour, it doesn't have much at all.
I don't know... There's flavour wrt other games and there's flavour within the
game. I meant the latter.
> Well, they slavishly follow each other in every design decision...
Ach, but that's only until you buy the FleetBook(tm) ;-)
> That's a fair comment. Serves you right for playing with Kra'Vak
I don't play with them. I'm trying to make value out of the pages I paid
money for.
> At least by levelling down to all RG-1's there's a
True.
> ...but how does armour work in this system? The benefit of armour
Hadn't considered that, but I think a straigth penalty to hit is easiest,
-1 per armor level, 6's hit anyway. Note that the beams already
effectively do this. The problem is that the d6 doesn't give much range for
modifiers...
> > Next: Scatterguns vs. Submunitions packs.
> Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than
I'll bite ;-)
Who knows? It's a good thing the Kravvies fight among themselves, or they
might not have bothered to invent any other weapons!
Let's compare: Subpack Scattergun Mass: 1 1 Price: 3 5
Arc: one all
Anti-ship:
Avg.Dmg at
6" 2.00 3.5
12" 1.33 3.5
18" 0.66 0
Antifighter: none 3.5 avg dmg
Hmmm... the scattergun seems only 2-3 times as effective as
submunitions. I think upping the cost to 10 pts. might suffice. That would
also be a
fairer trade-off with fighter squadrons. Or maybe 15 pts.
Next: The Price of Weight
What does mass cost? How to compare two systems with different masses? Well,
good thing the ship costs are linear, makes this easier.
Let's assume FTL ships only. Let's assume a basic Thrust cost of 2xMass (seems
to be prevalent among the designs).
Thus, enlarging the hull to make room for 1 Mass of equipment (weapons),
costs 2x2 (Hull cost) +2 (FTL cost) +2x2 (Thrust cost) or 10 pts.
Ofcourse, you earn 1 damage point in the process. So, unless this pushes
you over a size class limit, we might say one mass is worth about 5 points.
Thus if we have two otherwise identical systems, the one massing more should
cost 5pts. less per mass point difference.
[I sent this before but I don't think it got out, sorry if you have
received before.]
Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than submunitions
packs?
Because clearly Kra'Vak mil tech is much better than human....
One thought I had was to allow humans to field a version of sub-packs
with anti-matter warheads. Roll for damage normally but then
_multiply_ the resulting damage by _4_. Note this gives the
anti-matter sub-pack a very high variance, which I like, makes it
quirky. If an unfired anti-matter sub-pack is destroyed in a
threshold role apply a point blank anti-matter sub-pack attack to the
ship (no way to safety fuse a mag-bottle full of anti-matter...)
4x damage may seem a bit high (after all the eqv mass of scatterguns averages
3.5) but when you consider:
It still has 90 deg arc (v. scattergun's 360) It is not useful against
fighters It may explode, damaging the carrying ship Its high variance
If anything 4x may bit a bit short.
Something similar can be done for missiles...
I think it is nicely justifiable in the FT/DS/SG time line too:
Humans had theoretically been able to produce anti-matter warheads
for 20 years before first contact with the Kra'Vak, however, no power had
fielded them because of the impossibility of building a
safety fuzed anti-matter warhead. After only two years of full
fledged war with the Kra'Vak humanity's back was to the wall and the
previously unthinkable became necessary...
[Cue music, switch to a series of holovid shots...
The NAC's Io munitions facility blowing up after a production
robot accidently runs over an anti-mater transfer line...
An ESU stores ship blowing up after a minor hit in a surprise attack...
A NSL Lancer slipping into point blank range and destroying a previously
undamaged Kra'Vak strike carrier...]