Re: FT AAR - Operation Furious Riposte - 20,000 pt battle

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> A fictional after action inquiry into the results of a 10K pt KV
> force meeting about a 9K+ NAC force.

Nice report :-) It did confirm my opinion about the Schoon/Dean KV
rules, though :-(

[snip]

On the "initial thoughts" from the web page:

> Railguns have limited arcs, but fought under vector (their really is
> no other way) especially with KV manoeuvrability, this is not much of
a 
> disadvantage.

The real irony here is that if the NAC had been concentrated, many of
those side-mounted KV guns probably wouldn't have had anything to shoot
at :-/

> They do damage out to 30" even in their crappiest incarnation (unlike
> beam weapons). They average more damage than beams (double or 
> better) at all ranges.

While this is true on a per-weapon basis, it is not true on a per-mass
basis (except for 3-arc Class 3 beams). I do think that the Schoon/Dean
RGs are underpriced, but they should be reasonably OK at 5*Mass
(instead of the current 4*Mass).

> And the huge hull of the KV make them just gross to kill.

This, and their super-duper-stops-everything armour, is what really
makes the Schoon/Dean KV unbalanced :-(

> Some suggested fixes: 
>
> Scatterpacks: Make them 1 arc like submunitions (at least as far as
> firing at fighters). Make them something PDS can act against (a la B5
> interceptors maybe). 

Or make them deduct 1 from the die per X mu of range to simulate
scattering of the slugs (missiles and fighters that attack the ship
itself are assumed to do so from range 0; fighters attacked by ADFCs
are attacked at the actual range).

> Manoevreability: People thought the KV designs which could thrust 8,
> rotate 3, push 7 were just insane. 

> Hull: Less of it. 

Or pay its real worth. Note that it is perfectly possible to get almost
exactly the same ratios between hull boxes and weapon mass by using
Human Strong or Super hulls (and much larger ships) :-/

In general, I think that the Schoon/Dean KV rules underprice the KV -
not as badly as MT did, but still. The engines are OK at 3*Mass, but
the hull should be 6* or even 7*Mass, the RGs 5*Mass, and the armour
should probably also cost somewhere around 6-7*Mass (to account both
for its ability to reduce the damage of *all* weapons rather than just
screens, and for the fact that it can't be lost in threshold checks).

All in all, IMO most of the example KV designs should cost an extra
amount roughly equal to their Mass - ie, in reality the NAC/IF weren't
outnumbered 9:10 but more like 3:4 odds or worse.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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