If we are going to compair AFHAWKS to SV interceptor pods (and KV
scatterguns), we need to compair the masses and abilities of these weapons.
AFHAWK (my ideas) Mas=1 (per round) Cost=x3 mass Range=9 (?)MU (see later
arguments)
Effects=Same as a scattergun/interceptor pods Vs fighters, other see
later Requires use of a firecon per launcher. Designed to take out fighters,
so ignores defensive bonus of heavy fighters.
Interceptor pods require a launcher (mass=3, same as a SML launcher), 1 mass
of biomass (which can also be used for hull/offensive weapons/etc, same
mass as I gave for a AFHAWK round, which cannot be used for other purposes),
and 3 powerpoints (which require 3 mass, using a firecon would only require 1
mass).
The reason I gave the range as 9 (?)MU above (instead of 12) is that it feel
right in respect to interceptor pods mass used, if you consider the fact that
it is purely a defensive weapon (a pod can be used as a offensive weapon
also), with only half the arcs of coverage. If this sounds too powerful for
it`s mass compaired to other systems, we can limit it uses against other
attacks. For example, against SML`s, it intercepts the salvo
(after the number of missiles to hit roll) with a 1D6-3 (1 to 3=nil, 4=1
stopped etc). If this sound too low, the number can be altered (1D6-2
etc).
Against MT missiles, I would use 1D6-4 (psb-a bigger target that comes
with
it`s own ecm/stealth systems to get through the defences, Vs sml`s being
realtivly dumb high performance missiles). Against plasma bolts, we can have
the same roll as interceptor pods, but it will only does one dammage point to
the bolt, even if a 6 is rolled.
If you are looking for a reason for this, we can say that the interceptor
missiles is designed as a anti-fighter missiles, and it`s other uses are
comprimised as a result (which was my original idea).
BIF "yorkshire born,yorkshire bred, strong in arms, thick in head"
PS-The range of 12 MU I gave originally was in comparison to KV
scattergun pack. The range could probably be left at 12, with the limitations
given
above against other attacks. Another idea is the 1D6-3 (or whatever)
against sml`s, this number could be altered in a campain style game as your
tech level increases (reduced if your tech is higher, to represent better
seeker heads for intercepting, increased if your tech is lower to represent
harder
ecm/intercepts).
I thought this had been discussed in the missile thread last month.
Treating AFHAWKS as SV interceptor pods (within arc only) is the simplest and
most balanced compromise. Humans need to allocate mass for AFHAWK which is
wasted if the enemy doesn't bring fighters or missiles.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
[quoted original message omitted]
> >PS-The ignore heavy fighters bonus is
> From BIF:
> PS-The ignore heavy fighters bonus is because I don`t care how heavly
Problem is "heavy" is a PSB term to describe the mechanic. You could use
exaclty the same mechanic and call the fighter "agile" or "stealthy" or
"blinking" rather than armored. Because of that I don't agree with the lack of
bonus.
FYI, a 9 MU range restricted to 3 arcs is almost the same _size_ area of
effect (127 MU^2 as a 6 MU range all-arc fire(113 MU^2). In antifighter
considerations, the 6" all arc is much easier to manage in game terms. I'd
vote for it on KISS grounds.
> On 26-Mar-01 at 09:26, Izenberg, Noam (Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu) wrote:
or
> "blinking" rather than armored. Because of that I don't agree with the
I'd
> vote for it on KISS grounds.
It even works on the "missiles get within 6 MU of their target they hit" which
says AFHAWKS are launched on the ship.:)
In message <4.2.2.20011126180415.00a59cf0@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
> Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> G'day Bif,
I agree.
> >PS-The ignore heavy fighters bonus is
> fighters being heavy? Your opponent pays for them to be heavy, he
Err... actually, since FB2 came out, KV fighters aren't all heavy any
more - the book lists the Ra'San 'standard' fighter, and the Va'San
heavy fighter. Wandering further off-topic, although they are not
mentioned, the KV could probably also have fast, long-range,
interceptor, etc. variants. But probably not torpedo fighters, (but maybe a
fighter carrying a small MKP pack?).
In message <003b01c0b5c1$d70ad1e0$46b4893e@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, but if we just kept the interceptor pod rules we would need to
Well, lets have a look at the MASSes:
SML MASS 3, COST 9 AFHAWK MASS 1, COST 3
Pod Launcher MASS 3, COST 9
Power Generator MASS 3, COST 6 (for 3 power, enough to run the Pod
Launcher) Biomass MASS 1, COST 2
The pod launcher requires more mass, but remember that both the power and the
biomass that are needed to run the pod launcher can be used for other
purposes, and that loads for the pod launcher do not need to be
pre-allocated at the beginning of the scenario - I don't know how much
these benefits are worth, but note that 1 biomass costs _less_ than one
AFHAWK salvo!
But there's probably still enough difference to make an argument for AFHAWKS
having either reduced arcs (to the 3 of the SML), reduced range, or even both.
As a rough guess, I'd say either 12 mu range, arcs as SML,
or 9 mu range, 6-arc.
As regards the effects, I agree with Beth, why invent a new variant mechanic,
when we can use the existing (and hopefully tried and tested
by now :-) mechanic of the scattergun and interceptor pod?
> BIF
Yes, the operative word is 'big enough warhead' an AFHAWK could well be
firing several hundred or more mini-missiles :-)
G'day Bif,
> For example, against SML`s, it intercepts the salvo
For simplicity sake I'd keep the mechanics used the same as for the
scatterpack (so D6 for fighters and missiles and for plasma bolts 4, 5 knocks
it down by 1 and 6 does 2).
> If you are looking for a reason for this, we can say that the
I get what you mean, but I think its just easier to stick with the one
mechanic for all the various versions (scatterpacks, interceptor pods,
AFAWKS).
> ignores any bonus against hvy ftrs
For the same reasons as above, I'd also keep the scatterpack characteristic
of D6/2 for attacks against heavy fighters.
Cheers
Beth
G'day Bif,
> Yes, but if we just kept the interceptor
You can fix that by decreasing the range (to your 9" or 6" etc), without
any need for fiddling with the rest of the mechanic.
> PS-The ignore heavy fighters bonus is
True, but if you argue that way you could justify the KV scatterpacks ignoring
heavy bonus too and then what would be the point of all their fighters being
heavy? Your opponent pays for them to be heavy, he should
get some advantage out of it....you could also argue your warhead isn't big
enough;)
Beth
> Err... actually, since FB2 came out, KV fighters aren't all heavy
Sorry don't have FB2 at work and was working off some old notes...forgive me;)
Beth