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
that
> I think are important:

Aaaah, good thought, start at the beginning

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

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

> 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.
Yup

On re-rolls, when the FB was being worked on, weapons that got re-rolls
were
subject to screens (beams) but weapons that ignored screens (PTs) did
not
get the reroll.  This seemed to balance out since they all had the same
cost
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
call
for an even higher point cost.	I could live with re-roll on railguns
but
don't see a real need for it.  In the end I just want them costed
according
to their abilities.

Also on armor, why not let the K'V have their own type of armor,
different
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
screens
but increase the cost per mass used a point. Then the basic hull
integrity
classes can stay and don't need modification for the K'V.

Dean