Prev: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals Next: Re: My Kingdom for a GM!

RE: [FT] Railgun Goals

From: "Dean Gundberg" <dean.gundberg@n...>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:25:09 -0600
Subject: RE: [FT] Railgun Goals

Schoon wrote:
> Perhaps before we get too far along any one trail for our K'V weapons
> discussion, we should establish some general goals. These are the one
> I think are important:

Aaaah, good thought, start at the beginning

> 1) The "To-Hit" mechanic should reflect a projectile flavor. In my
> that means performance should be relatively constant out to a given
> and then drop off quickly.
Why drop off quickly?  The projectile is at a constant velocity so
the drop off rate for the to-hit roll be constant?  I like the PSB that
projectile (one big one not a lot of BBs) is of similar size on all
railguns, but the larger guns are able to accelerate it to higher
resulting in more damage and larger range bands (a reason to mount
railguns).  I still like the 4/6/8 progression (I did work with Matt to
the figures he posted ;) more than the 3/6/9 progression which seems to
the range too much (beam ranges vary a lot but less variation for
make them different).

> 2) Damage should be constant, without regard to range.

> 3) Firing arcs should be very limited to preserve the K'V "feel."
Yup, though I would allow the R1s to have a couple arcs so they can have
some weapon coverage in all arcs on cruisers and larger.

> 4) Mass should be relatively low, and point cost should be
> relatively high.

On re-rolls, when the FB was being worked on, weapons that got re-rolls
subject to screens (beams) but weapons that ignored screens (PTs) did
get the reroll.  This seemed to balance out since they all had the same
per point of mass.

Railguns, as they were in MT should have a higher cost per mass than the
basic weapons (due to their extended range, high average damage, ignored
screens).  Once we get the FT2.5 versions, allowing railguns to have
re-rolls in addition to ignoring screens and their other benefits would
for an even higher point cost.	I could live with re-roll on railguns
don't see a real need for it.  In the end I just want them costed
to their abilities.

Also on armor, why not let the K'V have their own type of armor,
from the human alabative armor.  K'V armor would stay as it was in MT,
acting like screens but without the possibility of it going down due to
thresholds.  It would talk up a percentage of mass very similar to
but increase the cost per mass used a point. Then the basic hull
classes can stay and don't need modification for the K'V.


Prev: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals Next: Re: My Kingdom for a GM!