Re: [FT] WotW (Finish EMP, Start Needle)

First some general venting about Needle Beams:

Alot of my opinions on Needle beams are based on simple woeful
experience.
(No small part of it courtesy PBeM's run by Scott Fields).

A short range, single arc weapon that kills systems on a 1 in 6 chance
is
just out and out weak, and is penalized further by the jeopardy you have
to
place your ships in to get a needle shot off.
In order for them to be useful in a scenario you need at least 4 Needles
on
target (for a better than 50% shot at achieving the objective), meaning
you
have to coordinate lots of little ships or dedicate one or two bigger
ships
for the purpose, _and_ get into the enemies' best firing ranges. The
only
truly logical targets for Needles make things worse: Firecons are
redundant
on most ships worth targeting with Needles, so require multiple hits to
deal
with, and Main Drives, require two hits to destroy (though i'l concede
that
one MD hit is still a good thing).

Multi arcs would help coordinate Needle beam attacks. Longer range would
make needle attacks less suicidal.

As they stand now, Needle beams are "flavor" weapons with IMO/IME little
real game effectiveness. Sure "Pirate ships have Needles to cripple
their
prey" Just try it in a real scenario.

Next, assorted replies:

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de

>> >1-Multi arc needle beams 
>> Don't like, but would want +2Mass/arc if we had to have them.

>Why don't you like it ? Would be nice to know the reasons. I personally

>like the idea, as I consider the 1 arc to be fairly restrictive, 
>especially with the low probability of achieving a significant hit with
a 
>neeedle beam.

I considered the short range to be the most restrictive aspect. The
single
arc made more sense to me for a precision weapon.

> For 2 Mass/arc I might as well buy a second needle beam - depending on

> points cost, of course. What would you consider as points cost/arc ?

That was sort of the point. After thinking about it some more I could
see
going for +1/arc max 3 arcs, as with some other weapons. I could
probably be
convinced of it.

>From BIF:
>>> 3-Long range needle beams
>>The HNB is also basically a long range NB.
>Without the double dammage potetial or the number of die increasing as
the
>range drops, so balancing the need for only one f.con.

You mean something like a single Needle beam die out to 24" at a cost of
4
Mass or so?
Maybe. Think of re-outfitting a Heavy cruiser - say a Vandenburg, as a
Needle ship. Tou'd be trading one 3-arc clas 3 and a class 2 for 2 long
Range Needles (F only). you'd be trading quite alot of beam flexibility
for
an inflexible Needle system.

>>> 4-Multi arc long range needle beams
>>Dislike even more than 1)
>Just trying for a weapon to fit on the primary armed bug SD`s. 

Are you referring to "Primary Beams?" All I know about them is what's
been
on the list, and I havent' paid too much attention to that. If you jest
mean
"main (or even spinal) weapon"	I'd think of them as being power, not
precision. Look at the KV. Heavy K-guns are all single arc. They have
the
maneuverability to use restricted arc wepons well, however. Even if I
were
to finally be convinced about multi arc Needles, it would be afor "short
range" needles only. Max 3-arc for standard, single arc for "long".

>From Charles:
>Classed Needle Beam.
It's interesting, but I don't think we need to class all weapons in FT
:-).
(Minor point) I think that precision beam weapon PSB would need to be
modified for really long ranges (i.e. it'd no longer be a needle beam,
but
some sort of transdimensional attack where distance would not interfere
with
targeting.) Of course charging 11 mass for a class 3 weapon would be
pretty
self-limiting.

OTOH, a strike force of Class 3 or 4 needle armed cruisers could
probably
take out the engines of key heavy elements of an opposing fleet before
the
battle is even joined. This makes an independent argument for not having
high class numbers.

Noam