Re: [FT] Gunboats - points cost??

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
[snip]
> FTL fighters have been discussed before, but in a different context -
> basically they had almost negligible FTL endurance - enough to jump in
> from an assembly point, allowing them to start the game on the board,
and
> FTL out if necessary, to be picked up by the carrier that also makes a
> single jump out.
> 
> The problem is that the FTL endurance concept only really becomes
workable
> in a campaign style (or at least scenario-based) game.  The gunboats,
by
> not requiring hangarage in the fleet, provides a potentially huge cost
> savings for the capabilities it brings.  (similar to the discussion on
> ground-based fighters).  Operationally they have a disadvantage of
limited
> range, but you won't normally see that, as it doesn't apply once you
are
> on the FT playing field...
> 
> I do not know of a good way to reconsile this.

Yes, the point of implementing gunboats is for campaign style games -
something we're exploring at the present time.	However, an additional
reason
is to find an equivalent to the Wing Commander & Star Wars style of
fighter,
as well as the Arachnid gunboat from Weber/White's In Death Ground. 
Wing
Commander FTL fighters - the Broadsword, Excalibur, Goran, and others -
tend
to be large, slow attack craft capable of launching a couple of
phase-torpedoes at ships.  I was trying to capture the feel of these
types of
fighters.

[snip]

> Well, you can't fit hull, drive, and a one-shot torp onto a torpedo
fighter
> either, except you can. (re-read that if it made no sense).  If theses
are
> constructed of fighter-class materials and systems, then maybe this is
doable.
> BTW, unless I totally missed something, the Gunboat has no PDS system,
just a
> double-die Fighter Beam Weapon and the 2 single shot torpedoes.

That is correct.

> >> 4) Their endurance factor is 12.
> >
> >ships would have unlimited endurance, but 12 is as good as in any one
> >battle.
> 
> But if you tied the FTL range to endurance (2-3 per jump perhaps),
then the
> 'usable' endurance changes dramatically, again though, this is at the
> operational level.

Sean made the same suggestion, which I will include in the next
revision.

[snip]

> Or just a twin Fighter Beam Weapon (FBW)

Twin FBW is correct.

> >> 7) Each gunboat carries two 'torpedos' that may be used instead of
its
> >> beams for an attack in a turn.  Each gunboat can launch only a
single
> >> torpedo in a single attack run - the torpedo hits on a 3+ on 1d6
and does
> >> 1d6 of damage each.
> >
> >one-shot pulse torpedoes. you do not mention range.
> 
> Actually, 2 loads for a torpedo fighter, with slightly better to-hit
(I
> think it should be returned to the 4+ to-hit for Torpedo Fighters)
Since
> there is no different range specified for them, they keep the same 6"
> attack range as normal fighters.  however, the gunboat could
presumably
> launch 1 torpedo and fire its FBW at the same target in a single
attack
> run.

Nope, the torpedo attacks were intended as an either/or.  Even though I
was
envisioning the gunboats at being better than fighters for anti-shipping
attacks, allowing them to torp *and* fire in a single turn is probably
giving them way too big a hammer to play with. . . <g>

The reason I increased the to-hit on the torpedo runs was to offset the
reduced group size.  Uncontested by PDS fire, a gunboat group can expect
to
average 6.4 points of damage per attack using their beam weaponry (vs
4.8
pts/attack by a 6-fighter group).  The torp attacks would average 7
points if
they hit on a 4+, or 9.3 points if they hit on a 3+.

Hmmm.  Perhaps another way to balance the attack values is to make the
torpedos hit on a 4+, but allow the gunboats to launch either a single
or both
torpedoes in a single attack.  I'll have to cogitate on this a little
more.

> Personally I would prefer to replace the torpedoes with single-die
> sub-packs, as Mike Wikan proposed may moons ago.

Could you run that one by me in detail, please?  I haven't been on the
list
that long.

> >> 8) Gunboats ignore rolls of '4' when defending against fighters,
PDS, and
> >> Class 1 beams.
> >
> >level 1 screen.
> 
> Yes, though I think it was defined this way to address the fact that
PDS
> is still capable of doing normal damage.  PDS vs ships (the only
targets
> previously screenable) is 1 pt on a roll of 6, but against gunboats
they
> are 1 on a 5, or 2 on a 6.

Correct - I phrased that rather poorly.

[snip]

Thanks for the feedback.

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
       The Gear Locker:  http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear/
	   Full Thrust:  http://www.sfcmd.com/fullthrust/

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================