Re: [FT] BFG Conversion Notes

stranger wrote:

>Two ideas I'd like to bounce off the list:
> 
>Lance:  1d6DP, -1 damage for each screen level, -1 damage for 
>each full 6" of range to target.  Half Damage (round up) is applied to
>ARMOR, the reminder to HULL.  MASS 4 +1 / extra arc.  
>COST=MASSx3.

Extreme degradation of damage with range, so has a quite different feel
from the BFG lances. Mass and cost are a bit high considering  the
massive impact of screens (this weapon is degraded vastly more by
screens than normal beams are); I'd make it Mass 3+1/extra arc instead.
Maybe make it cost 4xMass, but probably not.

Note of caution: many players feel an intense dislike for weapons which
hit automatically (which this weapon does at range 0-6).
 
>Lance (v2):  1d3DP to 36".  -1 Damage for each screen level.  Only
>first damage point comes off armor, the remainder to HULL.  
>MASS 4 +1/ arc. COST=MASSx3.

Very difficult to balance this one. *Extremely* powerful against
unscreened targets due to its very high average damage at long range,
similar to B3s against level-1 screens, and virtually powerless against
level-2 screens - this would be the weapon of choice to destroy enemy
escorts, not the battleship-killer the BFG Lance is.

Also, this weapon hits unscreened targets automatically at *all*
ranges. The "note of caution" above applies in triplicate to this
version.

>The math indicates that against unshielded targets, both versions
>will do more damage on average than a class 3 beam, 

This depends entirely on how you calculate the averages, see below.

>against class 1 shields the averages are even, and against class 2
>shields, the lances are less effective than beams.  Also, the first
>version of Lance does much more damage at closer ranges, then 
>falls off behind the Class 3 beam past 24".

Average damage vs 0/1/2 levels of screens:

Range:	B3		Lance-v1	Lance-v2
0-6	2.4/1.9/1.4	3.5/2.5/1.67	2/1/0.33
6-12	2.4/1.9/1.4	2.5/1.67/1	2/1/0.33
12-18	1.6/1.27/0.93	1.67/1/0.5	2/1/0.33
18-24	1.6/1.27/0.93	1/0.5/0.17	2/1/0.33
24-30	0.8/0.63/0.47	0.5/0.17/0	2/1/0.33
30-36	0.8/0.63/0.47	0.17/0/0	2/1/0.33

Avg:	1.6/1.27/0.93	1.56/0.97/0.56	2/1/0.33

The averages in the last row are just "straight" averages, giving each
range band the same weight. 

By looking at these averages, the Lance-v1 seems to be slightly worse
than a B3 against unscreened targets (outgunning it considerably at
range 0-6, being very slightly better at range 6-18, and considerably
worse at range 18-36), but if the target has any screens at all the
Lance-v1 is plain outclassed by the B3. The Lance-v2 seems to be
considerably better than the B3 against unscreened targets, but again
its firepower drops very quickly against screened targets.

However, all range bands *don't* have the same weights. In most battles
you don't get to fire nearly as many shots in the 0-6mu band as you do
in, eg., the 18-24mu band (unless you and your opponents all fly very,
very slowly). This makes the Lance-v1 rather weaker than the above
"straight" averages suggest (which is why I'd make its base Mass 3
rather than 4), and improves the Lance-v2 correspondingly.

Robertson, Brendan wrote:

> How about making it a K-gun (kravak railgun) (FB2)?

The K-gun ignores both armour (mostly) and screens (completely). BFG
Lances ignore armour completely, but are stopped by screens just like
any other weapon.

[Most of K-gun description snipped]

>Mass per class is 2/3/5/7/9.

Um... not in my copies of FB2 :-/

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

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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