Re: S'V Seekers

Kevin Walker wrote:
> > Sa'vasku Seeker:
> >
> > Production:
> > * Uses a drone womb to produce
> > * Power comes out of repair
> > * Requires 1 biomass per seeker
> > * Requires 1 power per seeker
> > * Can produce up to 6 seekers per womb
> 
> I'd go with at least 2 biomass and 3 to 4 energy.  The lance pod cost
1
> mass and 3 energy per shot and although they penetrate armor a little
> bit better on odds than does a pulse torp it's range and hit numbers
are
> downgraded.  My thinking along adapting weapons that already exist to
SV
> use is to cost the same or a little more mass with the energy cost
being
> a penalty for the greatly increased flexibility that SV typically
> enjoy.  Just my 2 cents though.

hmm.. makes sense. I also look at the fact you have to spend mass to
have a drone womb or pod launcher to start with. It takes 2 turns to
launch a drone or a seeker so that already limits the number you can
produce during battle. So if you times it right you could launch 2
waves  that could hit a target simutaniously if you let the target close
within one turn's movement of the second launch. 

Biomass and energy are the limiting systems in the SV. You can't afford
to have a lot of power since the hull will be weak and you can't use
ordinance and you can't have an over strong hull or you'll have an
energy problem.

The mass and power to produce a seeker I took out of drone construction
specs. Perhaps 1 mass/2 energy would be better.

You have to also take into accound that pods can't be defended against
while a seeker you can hit with PDS. You get longer range, but only a
50% chance to hit against 1 PDS.
 
> > Attack:
> > * Move of 24mu per turn
> > * Flight endurance of 3 turns
> > * Can use 1 endurance to make secondary movement
> > * Can attack any ship within 3mu (vector) 6mu (cinematic)
> 
> The move of 24mu is 6 above the original MT Missile but then again
> things have changed with FT2.5 (FB1 & 2).  The secondary move concerns
> me though.  No other seeking weapon has this ability...yet.
> 
> > Warhead Types:
> > * Explosive - 2D6 Damage
> > * Needle - Damages one system of choice
> 
> Before I go into my further thoughts on this idea let me preface
things
> by saying that since MT missiles are not balanced yet for the FB stuff
> balancing this idea with MT missiles as they stand is probably an
> exercise in futility.  However, that said I go on.  The concern I have
> here is SV carrier like ships launching a horde of these things.  2
> drone wombs would result in 12 seekers, quite the swarm.  Since they
> have a secondary move they'll never miss unless they're launch at the
> wrong time - very little guess or out thinking of the opponent is
> necessary.  Since it's been a while since I've dealt with MT missiles
> and the issues brought up by the FB rules I could be wrong here - are
MT
> missiles treated individually?  If they are they missile then defense
> can be a crap shot, resulting in even good defenses missing a target
or
> two.

I'm of the opinion that MT  missiles should move at 24mu and be able to
make a secondary movement. It's doesn't make much sense that a fighter
can outdistance a missile, since the missile doesn't have to deal with
human frailty.

Ships that are designed as missile barges can launch more MT missiles
then a ship of equal mass can produce seekers. It takes 2 mass to use a
MT missile, It takes 3 mass for the drone womb, 1 mass for the seeker,
and whatever energy is finalised on. That's already more mass. The
deciding factor with the envergy cost is how much of a penalty the SV
will take to be able to produce them.
 
> > EMP Pod:
> > * 1 mass
> > * 5 energy
> > * Causes first level thresholds on target ship's systems
> 
> Interesting.	Do shields affect them as they do against MT EMP
missiles?

Yes. Having double checked the EMP missile specs, they'd have the exact
same effect as EMP missiles.
 
> > Plasma Burst Pod:
> > * 1 mass
> > * 5 energy per size
> > * 24mu range withing arc of launcher
> > * Fires in ordinance phase
> > * Acts like a Phalon Plasma bolt of size equal to energy/5
> 
> How about making the mass cost 1 per size.  The balancing of this
would
> be easier then.  Otherwise it's hard to balance the cost of these ship
> construction wise if 1 mass can be used to make a huge PB - and as
with
> SV stingers some huge sized PBs could result - 50 energy for a size 10
-
> ouch!

hmm... yeah... I can see that being a problem... Change it to 1 mass/5
energy per level of plasma burst.
 
> I hope these comments come across as helpful.  I can see a possible
> place for them but I tend to favor being conservative on costs and
> effects lest FT become a game of who's got the latest new weapon.  Of
> course I'm still hoping we can come to a good solution for the current
> SV problems.	;-)

They were quite helpful. I'm just one of those people who hate to see
the game disovle to bemas against beams. How boring is that? I like to
mix in as much of a weapons mix for specific purposes when I design
fleets.

Current SV problems?I'm not sure what they are. The [Official] changes
that were made to the SV fixed what I considered the unbalancing
aspects.