RE: [FT] WotW #4: Railguns

>From Charles:

> I agree, another option is to keep the re-roll, but make Railguns more
> massive than K-guns, thus:

....table...

> Note that the Class 1 has the same PDS capability as a K-1
> _in_the_arc_it_covers_, also, the multi-arc RG-1s are increasing
> inefficient compared to K-1s - this was intended.

> As Noam points out, to get the best out of these, you need a lot of
> thrust, probably at least Thrust-6 or preferably Thrust-8 or more.
> Whatever version you use.

Which makes the RG _doubly_ penalized vs. the K-gun. It's stuck on less
maneuverable ships _and_ costs more (or is less powerful if you use
other RG
options). If you want to maneuver as well as a thrust 4 Advanced Drive,
you
need thrust 8, and have precious little room for normal K-guns, much
less
mass-penalized RG's.

I still see no compelling reason to create a new weapon metric (cost,
mass,
_or_ effect). Sticking K-guns on human ships and altering the name
and/or
PSB will feel plenty different in combat and not be as "powerful" as
K-guns
on KV ships.

>From YOY (I'm having language barrier problems, so I'm not sure I
understand
some of the points you're making):

>The Kra'vaks are really very efficient, but do not have as 
>much range as the ESU superdreadnought and it's hard to 
>succeed from a long range, they are weaker and are more 
>expensive than humans, but not so much, too. 

I don't know. I don't think any KV worth his dreadlocks would spend much
time in a Komarov's front arcs. The Komarov's range can't help it
against
attackers that can maneuver to its aft and stay there pouring it on. An
SDN
vs. SDN slugfest is one thing, but fleet vs. fleet?

> But if you 
> reduce the mass of K-guns, so the price, even if you do 
> not double damage, they will be stronger, and it will be 
> hard to play against them.

There are almost certainly balance points when you do the math. Though
you
almost certainly have to increase cost/mass if you decrease mass and
vice-versa. Unneccessary complexities IMO.