Re: [FT] Heavy Beams - 4321

Come up with another name for these and I think you've got a winner.
Overcharged beams, turbo beams, disruptor beams, disintegration beams,
focused
beams, etc.

Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

> I've done some more experimentation with a concept I had for
> minimalist "Heavy Beams". I've boiled it down to the following:
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------
> Mechanics:
>
> Heavy Beams cost and mass the same as normal beams.
>
> A Heavy beam rolls 1 less die than a normal beam at every range.
> So a class 3 heavy beam rolls 2 dice at 12MU, and 1 die at up to 24
MU.
>
> Hits by a heavy beam do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points of damage, rather than
> 2,1,1,0,0,0.
> That is, a roll of a 6 does 4 pts, and a re-roll, a roll of 5 does 3
points,
> and so on.
> Re-rolls also do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points, not counting screens, with scores
of 6
> causing
> further re-rolls as do normal beams.
>
> Screens are particularly effective vs Heavy beams, so just subtract
the
> screen
> rating from the damage of each die. So a Heavy Beam that scored a 4,
which
> would normally be 2 hits, would only do 1 against a target with screen
1,
> and
> would do no damage against a target with screen 2.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------------
>
> PSB:
> These fire far fewer bursts, so have a smaller chance of hitting, and
thus
> have a
> lesser effective range. However, they have much larger capacitors, so
when
> they
> hit, they really hit. They are no more effective than normal beams vs
> screened
> ships, less so vs heavily screened ones, but against unscreened ships
they
> are
> rather more deadly.
>
> Usually Heavy beams are found as limited-arc "Spinal Mounts". Those
mounted
> on
> UN vessels came as a nasty surprise to the KraVak during the Siege of
Earth,
> matching the firepower of the larger K-guns.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------------
>
> Playbalance, Game aspects.
>
> The most cost-effective Heavy Beams are those of Class 4 and above,
though
> some
> Class 3s are sometimes found. Class 2s are even rarer, and Class 1s
cannot
> be
> constructed.
>
> This is a solution to the following problems/requirements:
>
> * It gives an incentive to have screens as opposed to nothing but lots
of
> armour.
> But not such a huge one as to disadvantage the NSL or KV unduly.
>
> * It gives us a spinal mount - just try making a Heavy Beam that can
hit at
> range 48 with anything more than a single arc!
>
> * It prevents "small boys" , the ones that won't have screens anyway,
from
> carrying them vs their normal opponents, other small boys. So the
current
> Frigate and destroyer designs still make sense.
>
> * We don't need another mass/cost chart - a Heavy Beam costs the same
as a
> normal one with the same arc, it's just shorter ranged.
>
> * Finally, the same principle could be extended to a "Super Heavy
Beam",
> which does 5,4,3,2,1,0 but rolls 2 less dice, and so on. But these
would
> have to
> be at least of Class 6 to match the effectiveness of conventional
beams.