Re: MT missiles and point costs

Adrian Reen-Shuler wrote:

>>That's mainly because the weapons are balanced for the standard (ie,
>>Cinematic) movement rules rather than the very optional Vector rules.
>>The two systems have rather different balance requirements; *all*
>>multi-arc weapons are somewhat overmassed in Vector due to the
>>relative ease of keeping the enemy in the fire arcs of your choice.
> 
>Then has anyone come up with a suggested revised point
>cost for Vector ships? Or just a revised mass cost for
>arcs?	

Nothing successful that I know of. I've tried but given it up as far
too much complexity for far too little gain; most players seem to
simply accept that you get different designs styles in Cinematic and
Vector <shrug>
 
>I find it interesting you view the Vector rules as "very optional". 

Sorry, my fault. I should of course have called it "completely
optional" rather than "very optional", to make the quote from the first
sentence in the Vector Movement rule on page 3 in FB1 verbatim:

"This is a completely OPTIONAL alternative movement system, ..."

A few lines further down, in the next sentence, it says:

"...while the standard FT movement rules are termed CINEMATIC MOVEMENT
.."

(Jon T.'s emphasis in both quotes.)

>Is vector going to become "official" and standard at any point?

"Official" and "optional" are not mutually exclusive. Vector movement
became *official* when it was included in FB1. 

As for Vector replacing Cinematic as the *standard* FT movement system,
I think the two quotes above makes it seem somewhat unlikely... 

>>A missile (EMP or nuke) hits a previously undamaged ship of a
>>particular design (published in FB1, BTW). If the missile carries a
>>nuclear warhead, it will on average knock out 14% of the
>>target's systems through standard threshold checks (and inflict quite
>>a bit of armour and hull damage as well, usually starting on the 2nd
>>row of hull boxes), while an EMP warhead would knock out on
>>average 19% of the systems but leave the armour and hull >>undamaged.

>>1) Which of the two missiles would you consider to be "more potent"
>>against this ship design? Would you consider that missile to be
>>"vastly more potent" than the other?
> 
>your quite correct, vs. ships with less than 30 or so
>DP the nuclear missles are going to be more effective.
>
>I was really speaking vs. large SD's (200-300 DP). 

2-300 *DAMAGE POINTS*?

That puts their TMF somewhere in the 600-2000 range, assuming Fragile
to Average hull integrities. You could get as low as 400 by using Super
hulls, but your comments about how fast your ships die makes it seem
unlikely.

With ships this big I understand your problems with rolling many dice,
but IMO you ought to have realised that trying to play a battle with
the FT equivalent of 10+ Star Wars Death Stars or Star Trek Borg Cubes
on each side just might become a wee bit cumbersome <shrug>

If you meant "Mass" (or "TMF") rather than "DP", well... you were the
one who brought up the subject of fragile-hulled SDs with minimal
armour. Look at this one, based on your descriptions of slow SMR
platforms:

TMF 209
NPV 767
Thrust 3
FTL
Fragile hull (21 DP)
No armour
Level-1 screens
2 FCs
1 ADFC
10 PDS 
28 SMR

By a sheer coincidence <g>, this ship will lose on average 19% of its
systems if the first missile to hit it is an EMP missile, or 14% of its
systems if it is nuclear - in addition to the hull damage caused by the
nuke, of course.

The ship I had in mind when I designed the (snipped) example was a bit
smaller than this missile barge, though <g>

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