Prev: Re: [FT] Building FT306 Next: Re: [FT] UNSC design

Re: [FT] various subsystems

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:52:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] various subsystems

Barclay, Tom wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone had looked at the math (or even
>considered)a couple of subsystems I was thinking of. 

Have you checked the archives?
>The first I call (after the CarWars inspiration) component armour.
>Which is to say, rather than  general superstructure armour,
particular >armour for a particular subsystem. 

This was discussed quite a bit on the list just before the FB2 work
began in earnest... must've been some 12-18 months ago. Should be in
the archive. The general consensus then seemed to be "DON'T", though I
don't know if anyone except me actually tried it :-/

>In the 1st method, the number written beside the box
>indicates how many "extra hits" that system can take 
>before going out of operation. 

>In the 2nd method, the number represents a concept akin
>to screen mechanics. For each level of armour, a 
>threshold roll is modified by -1 to the die roll. This
>means that if the ship is thresholding on a six, the 
>1 lvl component armoured system doesn't need to check. 
>If the ship is making the 5+ threshold, the system 
>checks on a six.

For FCSs, add 1 Mass for each level of hardening. For everything else,
increase the Mass by 25% per level of hardening (add all increases
together, *then* round up). Determine the costs using the normal
"Mass*X" values but the new Mass ratings. 

Note 1: Unless your enemy uses massed needle beams or EMP weapons,
there's no point in taking more than 2 levels of hardening.

Note 2: It'd look a bit silly if certain weapon systems are better
protected than the ship's Core Systems...

Jon Davis wrote:

>The core systems have a similar mechanic with a deferred 
>threshold check.  Checking at 7+, 6+, and 5+ respectively for
>each damage row.

"The name of the certain kind of resemblance that it bears is
'identity'. Beyond that however the two pieces are not really very much

(Kudos to those who identify the quote <g>)

Back to Tomb:

>On another note:
>Someone (Admiral Iceberg?) suggested using varying MU values
>to denote tech differences. This seems an awesome idea. It is
>generic, not limited to one system or another, and affects
>all ships systems in a related way. What gradations would one
>suggest? I might imagine 0.5 inch, 0.75 inch, 1 inch, 1.25
>inch and 1.5 inch would give you a spread to cover everything
>up to and including quite advanced tech. Typically, you wouldn't
>likely see more than 1 TL difference in most scenarios... 

Even a 0.25" MU difference is quite massive. The difference between
0.5" MUs and 1.5" MUs, well - to quote OHMU: "Who are you trying to
kid? [...] This is like playing World War 1 tanks against World War 2
ones ..."

>Another idea: 
>If it is possible to build a decoy ship to suck
>up SMs, is it possible to create a decoy-launcher that could
>launch an SM decoying drone (or ten...) when the ship comes
>under SM attack?
Some months ago someone (IIRC Charles Taylor?) suggested an SM "decoy
salvo" ammo type; it worked just like a BJ. There were some problems
with it though; don't remember if they got hashed out or not.

>I might suggest something like this:
>SM Launcher, Mass ?, Cost ?, Ammo ?. <Real useful so far, right?>
>Arc: 360 like PDS

If you don't mean "SM Launcher" (introduced in FB1, usually abbreviated
SML; Mass 3, Cost 9, 3-arc, ammo carried in separate magazine), I think
you should probably pick another name for it...

>Action: When a ship is going to be the target of any Salvo Missile
>attacks (that is, movement has been resolved and the ship is within
>at least 1 SM radius), before the salvo missile attack is resolved,
>the ship may opt to engage its SM launchers. (I'd make the ammo a
>fair size, like SMs themselves, to prohibit abuse) For each SM
>launcher fired against an SM strike, roll 1D6-1 (min 0). Subtract the
>result from the SM attack - these represent decoyed missiles. For any
>remaining missiles, apply their attack to the ship. 
>Note: Part of the decoy system working is the ship electing NOT to
>PDS because that would kind of "give away" the real target. 

Can *other* ships cover the missile target with ADFC-controlled PDS?
Can the target fire other weapons in the same turn, or is it just PDSs
that are prohibited?

>At all sensible? 

Sounds like a heavily degraded scattergun to me <shrug>

>Something anyone might want? 

The system you describe is as effective as 3.5 PDSs or 0.77 Scatterguns
against one SM salvo, but:
- can't be used against fighters, plasma bolts or ships
- can't be combined with secondary PD weapons (PDS explicitly, B1s and
K1s implied)
- can only be used against one salvo, whereas 3.5 PDSs can be split up
against several threats
- has limited ammo

The last two also apply to the Scattergun, of course.


Oerjan Ohlson

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

Prev: Re: [FT] Building FT306 Next: Re: [FT] UNSC design