Re: KV 'house' rules for FB (Was "Fuzzy Wuzzy")

In my FT 2.0 railgun "house rules" I reduced the effectiveness of the
smaller caliber railguns by a range band each and increased the mass of
the
larger ones on the rationale that a larger railgun was longer, gave a
higher acceleration to its projectiles and was thus more accurate at
longer
ranges and did more damage.

I think it was:

Class "3"  Mass:6  Max Range:30  Damage:3 (no doubling)
Class "2"  Mass:3  Max Range:24  Damage:2 (no doubling)
Class "1"  Mass:1  Max Range:18  Damage:1 (no doubling)

I was also considering allowing the class "1" guns to be used in turrets
and as auxiliary point defense, like class "1" beams.

The general consensus from the playtesters was that they were STILL
bog-nasty compared to most other weapons.

I haven't gotten around to revising my house rules for FT 2.5 yet.  With
the changes in the FB, railguns definitely need to be worked over, but
I'm
not sure  which way to jump with them since in my universe it's the
Humans
who use low-tech railguns.  My take on them is that they would probably
be
nasty at short ranges, but inaccurate as hell at long.	Something in
line
with the PD-as-weapon rules.  And if RGs are so butch, while did anyone
every develop beam weapons?

For my background at least there should be a distinction between the
low-tech near-future electromagnetic RGs with relatively low velocities
and
the Kra'Vak high-tech alien grav-based RGs which are firing projectiles
at
relativistic speeds.  I like the distinction in Master of Orion between
mass drivers and gauss cannons; similar principles, more "oomph" and
most
importantly -- different names.

:)

Jeff

------------

At 07:19 AM 10/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Whoops, too much snippage:
>
>Phillip said:
>It shows how long it's been since I looked at the KV rules
>that I can't remember if RG units have different ranges,
>but ISTM that they don't -- in which case, the above
>calculation applies.
>
>I said:
>they don't multiply the range (not included in the above analysis)
>
>Sorry, Phillip. Both for missing your comment, and, I looked at MT, and
>your memory is absolutely correct. Haven't seen the Bugs Don't Surf
beta
>stuff. (I could be upset that I didn't get a copy but someone else in
town
>did, but, hey, he asked, and I didn't. ;->= )
>
>Now, by damage tolerant, are you speaking just of needle beams, or are
you
>speaking of threshold damage? Statistical likelihood of damage is same,
as
>more systems mean more system rolls, right?
>
>See? I'm better at asking questions than answering them. ;->=
>
>The_Beast