Re: [FT] Heavy Beams - 4321

In message <003501c0a7cb$f0cc62a0$d0468bca@avis>
	  "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> 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.

Does this mean that Class-1 Heavy Beams do _no_ damage? or am I
misreading?
If I'm right - couldn't you just say - 'Heavy Beams cost the same as
normal beams of a class 1 higher - and roll the same number of dice as
beams of the _same_ class'?
Effectively, they have twice the mass of a beam battery of the same
class, using the FB 1 beam battery MASS progression (which, IMHO and
based on my calculations, is too high for very large beam classes).
> 
> 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.

Hmm.. according to my calculation, and assuming that screens do not
apply vs. re-rolls (like with beam batteries), that averages to 2 damage
points (dp) per dice vs. unscreened targets, 1 1/3 dp vs. level 1
screens, and 5/6 dp vs. level 2 screens. That makes them 2.5 times as
effective vs. unscreened ships, 2 1/9 as effective vs. level 1 screens,
and 1.79 times as effective vs. level 2 screens. All for twice to cost
of an equivalent number of beam dice - they may be a bit on the cheap
side (only slighly).

> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------------
> 
> 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.

Well, its one option - I'm cureently tempted by Noam's 'beam bridges'
(in the weapons archive) linking the weapons mounted on the 'wingtips'
of many of the UN designs - once we bet beam bridges checked out, of
course (not for a while I think) :-)
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------------
> 
> 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.
> 
>
Hmm.. 3.75 as effective as beams vs. unscreened, 3.42 as effective vs.
level 1 screens, 3.21 times as effective vs. level 2 screens, but rolls
2 less dice (level 3 rolls dice as beam level 1) is equivalent to 4x
mass of beam battery of equal class - so I think they're a bit
_overpriced_ this time.

Oerjan will now point out what I've missed :-)

Charles