Re: KV 'house' rules for FB (Was "Fuzzy Wuzzy")

[This one is faster to answer than Chad's post <g>]

> In my FT 2.0 railgun "house rules" I reduced the effectiveness of the
> smaller caliber railguns by a range band each 

Ie, the R1 hits at 4+ at range 0-6, etc?

> and increased the mass of the
> larger ones on the rationale that a larger railgun was longer, gave a
> higher acceleration to its projectiles and was thus more accurate at
longer
> ranges and did more damage.
> 
> I think it was:
> 
> Class "3"  Mass:6  Max Range:30  Damage:3 (no doubling)
> Class "2"  Mass:3  Max Range:24  Damage:2 (no doubling)
> Class "1"  Mass:1  Max Range:18  Damage:1 (no doubling)

Assuming I understood you correctly, in FB you get:

Weapon:   Damage/Mass at range...
		0-6	6-12	 12-18	   18-24     24-30
   R1	      0.5     0.33	0.17	     -		  -
   R2	      0.44   0.33      0.22	  0.11	       -   
   R3	      0.42   0.33      0.25	  0.17	     0.08

Class-2     0.8     0.8       0.4	  0.4		-	
(unscreened target)
Class-2     0.63   0.63     0.32       0.32	     -	      (lvl-1
screens)
Class-2     0.47   0.47     0.23       0.23		      (lvl-2
screens)
Class-3     0.35   0.35     0.23       0.23	   0.12     (lvl-2
screens)

The values for the Class-2 battery assumes a 3-arc mount; the Class-3 is
single-arc (just like the R2 and R3) and both use re-rolls. 

While the balance between the various railguns looks OK - the R3 isn't
enough better than the R2 that the greater risk of losing all of it in
treshold checks or to needles is overshadowed, and the added point
defence capabilities of the R1 make them nice as well.

However, none of them can really stand up to the (3-arc) Class-2 battery
even against heavily screened targets. (OK, the R3 outranges the Class-2
by 6 mu, and the R1 is marginally better at range 0-6 against lvl-2
screens... not good enough, though :-(	) I don't mind this - I don't
have any Kra'Vak ships, and use the tech only rarely <VBG> - but it
changes the flavour of the Kra'Vak a whole lot. Mind you, much of this
is
caused by the re-roll option, which downgrades shields quite a lot even
against beams.

> I was also considering allowing the class "1" guns to be used in
turrets
> and as auxiliary point defense, like class "1" beams.
> 
> The general consensus from the playtesters was that they were STILL
> bog-nasty compared to most other weapons.

Hm. Only against lvl-2 or -3 screens, if you use the old FT2 weapon
masses for the A-, B- and C-batteries. The Mass 3 A-batt equals them
even
against lvl-2 screens..

[snip]

> And if RGs are so butch, while did anyone every develop beam weapons?

Because it's hard as hell to *hit* anything with a
(considerably-slower-than-c) railgun slug compared to a (close-to-c)
particle beam :-/ The Kra'Vak have figured out how to do it...

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry