Re: [GZG] Re: RE: Stealth, ECM and FCS suggestion (long)

--- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> 
> > From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
> > --- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> 
> >> - For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I
> >> do like the mechanic of _automatic_ loss with damage.
> 
> >>
> > "When a ship takes threshold checks, roll for EACH hexagon as for
> > any other system.  The number surviving is the remaining level of
> > stealth.
> > Stealth **cannot** be repaired during the course of a game."
> 
> I guess I blanked on that last sentence. Automatic loss of stealth  
> should still be marginally less expensive than thresholdable stealth,
> but that's likely in the noise at FT's granularity.

I just meant to point out that, like the WDA Stealth Hull, my proposal
was not repairable during the game.

The threshold roll vs. automatic loss is a matter of preference, but
there are factors to consider related to both the number of levels in
my system (all FB1 and FB2 ships have level 3: Standard) and what is
the best pattern/scheme to distribute levels amongst 3-row and 5-row
ships, as well as how to distribute Superior (level 5) to 4-row ships. 
E.g. would a 3-row Superior Stealth (Level 5) ship have Stealth
Hexagons on 1,1,2,3,3 or 1,1,2,2,3?  In either case, under the
Automatic loss system, Superior is reduced to Standard Stealth (Lvl 3),
losing all stealth bonuses, after the first threshold, while under the
3-level WDA system, it gets to spend a threshold row at Enhanced (WDA
lvl 2). 

>  
> >> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to
> >> be more expensive. Perhaps the cost of the FCS needs to be some
> >> factor of %weapon mass of the ship.
> >
> > If the FCS enhances the RBs of all direct fire weapons, I don't see
> > how you can point cost it without effectively increasing the cost
> > of all direct fire weapons in proportion, but I would like to see
> > an example of what you mean.
> 
> I thought it needlessly complicated ship costing. I could well be  
> wrong though, since the only way I see to do it without adding
> different complications (which is what my %weapon mass idea would
> have done) would simply be to make enhanced/superior FCS cost 15/30
> points fixed or some such. Fixed (high) cost has an appeal in that it

> would be a fairly high cost impact for small ships, and a smaller 
> relative enhancement for larger ships.
>

I looked at it from this perspective: Having Enhanced or Superior FCS
increase the effective RBs is similar to having "Extended Range" or
"Long Range" weapons.  When such weapons are under Beta consideration,
such as the Extended Range PTL and the UNSC Extended Range Heavy Beam
Cannon, there is a massive increase in MASS, and proportional increase
in PV.	Taking the ER_PTL as an example, 50% RB = x2 MASS/PV.  A 3-arc
ER-PTL is 18 PV more than a 3-arc standrd PTL.	The increased range for
Enhanced FCS is less (+33%), but there is no increase in MASS per
weapon.  At that rate, a 15 PV Enhanced FCS does not even cover the
points increase for a single PTL (or B3) when compared to an ER-PTL
with a Standard FCS, let alone a capital ship with 60 or 70 MASS of
weapons.  Multiplying the Points Per MASS of the weapons is, I think
the simplest to getting a suitable number scaled over all sizes of
ships.	For all I know, the multipliers that I suggest might even be
low.  (care to comment Oerjan?)


> I'm more interested in ships being able to shield other ships  
> partially or completely from incoming fire.
> 
> > As for protecting ships "deeper in the formation", we can lift a  
> > simple idea from B5 Fleet Action to apply to the base platform of
> > the ECM rules I posted:
> >
> > 1) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the line of fire with an  
> > active...
> 
> Something like that, yes, but 1 MU is very tight.
> 

<snip>

>
> I like this better. ALternatively, you could simplify, split the  
> difference and make the ECm field +XMU range to 2 or 3 MU radius  
> around the ship, period.
> 

I understand the point of view, and it is reasonable for those who
figure that MUs are fairly small, e.g. 10's or 100's of km rather than
1000's or 10's of 1000's.  If a terrestrial planet is represented by a
table edge, then your radius is OK, but if a terrestrial planet is a
6-12 mu diameter object on the table, then 3 MU ECM range is much too
large.	It happens that I think in terms of "MUs are 1000's of km"
rather than "MUs are 100's of km".  At that scale, a 3 MU radius (6 MU
diameter) can cover an entire planet or small moon.

J

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l