Prev: Re: OT: Happy Birthday to me. Next: RE: [FT] Railgun Goals

Re: [FT] Railguns

From: "John C" <john1x@h...>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:50:55 PST
Subject: Re: [FT] Railguns

>[various snippage throughout]
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, John Crimmins wrote:
>>>	To hit, RGs must roll HIGHER than the distance to the targer (in
>>> centimeters, or whatever scale you are using) on 3d6.
>>problems that i can see are:
>>- weapon's effective range is only about 15; beyond this, hit 
>>drops too low. this is very, very short compared to beams and missiles
>>- weapon's actual range is unlimited - 18 is a hit at any range
>>- rate at which hitting gets easier falls of at very close range - not
>>much difference between 5, 4 and 3 inches, and no difference between 
1, 2
>>and 3. not that much fire combat occurs here, of course.
>I agree here. The average range of even a class 3 battery is only 9.5" 
>this system. Interesting mechanic, but if it's to work, it needs some 
>of multiplier.

It's about half the range of a Class 3 beam battery, and only a little 
less than a Class 2.  And that's just average 12", it should 
be much worse than beams against screened ships.  Honestly, 9" seems to 
be normal combat range in the games that I've played.

>On the other hand, the bell curve result you get from rolling dice in 
>manner doesn't really reflect the accuracy of a projectile over range.

I find that simplicity is more appealing than accurate simulation 
(especially with my gaming group), but YMMV.  The farther away it is, 
the harder it is to hit...that works for me.

>>>	Damage is equal to the roll 1d6 per class of the weapon (2d6 for
>>>class 2,
>>> 4d6 for class 4, etc.), with no rerolls; half of the damage (rounded

>>> is applied to armor, and the rest to the target's hull.
>Without getting into the re-roll part of it, this damage seems a bit 
>A Class 3 weapon will do an average of 9! points to anything it hits.

Yes, but the KV are supposed to be terrifing opponents.  And I think 
that the short range would help balance the high damage.


>>>	Railguns should be one-arc weapons, I feel, but how should the
>>> manuever?  I think that they should use the Vector system, with all 
>>> their Thrust points, as the best adaptation from MT.
>This I agree with mostly: limited or restricted arc might be a better
>phrase 3/2/1 or 2/1/1 for the various classes would seem right.

Honestly, I can see the Class I guns being little more than oversized 
Machine Guns.  Give them limited turrets, or even full turrets, but 
anything that's Class III and up should be one arc only.  The KV should 
use their high manuverability to compensate.


John Crimmins

Get Your Private, Free Email at

Prev: Re: OT: Happy Birthday to me. Next: RE: [FT] Railgun Goals