Re: General EMP Thoughts

In message <200102151948.UAA07412@d1o901.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Schoon wrote:
> 
> >I've been following the whole WotW thread, and though I'm not really 
> >keen on offering specific advice on each weapon, I do have some 
> >general thoughts on how EMPs ought - or ought not - to work.
> > 
> >1) They should affect a set number of systems - not a ship-wide 
> >blanket. This is for balance.
> 
> More accurately, this is to maintain the current imbalance between
> large and small ships. An imbalance I for one would be quite happy to
> see reduced, though those who routinely fly all-SDN fleets or single
> superships might disagree :-/
> 
> The ship-wide blanket effect of the MTM-EMP (and its proposed
> direct-fire relatives) is one of the very few FT game mechanisms (as
> opposed to arbitrary scenario restrictions or tournament rules) which
> *can* reduce this particular imbalance, which is why I'm not prepared
> to accept Schoon's first point for all EMP weapons. 
> 
> (OK, you *could* multiply the ship's NPV by NPV^(something)/NPV, where
> IIRC "(something)" is in the 1.15 - 1.2 range - but only if you like
> maths and have a good calculator handy. Not a solution I'd recommend,
> really...)

Hmm... good point, so we could balance a 'blanket threshold' weapon
against an 'average sized' ship, this would make it over expensive vs.
smaller ships (but if you _must_ use a sledgehammer to crack a nut...
:-), and underpriced vs. larger ships - which _could_ be an incentive to
create fleets with a proper distribution of ship sizes - if we handle it
right.
This could also be considered an argument against my 'virtual damage'
mechanic - but I don't have a problem with that - it did have some
problems.
> 
> Schoon's second point only applies if you have already accepted the
> first one:
> 
> >2) They should have a clearly defined, simple list (did I mention 
> >simple?) of the systems that they affect, and in what order. If you 
> >involve attacker or defender choosing, they'll take forever to do it,

> >and no one will be completely happy with the results anyway. Nail it 
> >down, define it! That way there's nothing to argue about.
> 
> If you nail the list down hard enough that there's nothing to argue
> about, it'll still take almost forever to evaluate, only the rule's
> author will be completely happy about it, and the list will *not* be
> simple. Noam and Beth have already pointed out some of the reasons why
> this is so, so I won't repeat them here.

I personally just don't like the lists - maybe because its something
else to look up, maybe I just feel that it doesn't fit FT.
> 
> The version of the "defender chooses system to roll for" which Brian
> posted early in the WotW2 thread - ie., the EMP weapon determines the
> maximum number of systems *lost* instead of the number of systems *to
> roll for* - works quite well without any list whatever. (I first saw
it
> described by Pat Shepard a fair while back - possibly pre-FB1, but I
> don't remember exactly. I've used the mechanic occasionally, but not
> enough to determine how much it is worth :-( )
> 
> The defender simply chooses the systems to roll for, but since he has
> to keep choosing systems to roll for until he has lost the number of
> systems specified (or he has rolled for all (non-Core) systems on the
> ship), he may very well end up losing the important system he saved
for
> last rather than the PDSs he picked first <g>

Hmm.. that _could_ work, I suppose.
> 
> >3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps 
> >record keeping and superfluous rules down to a minimum. KISS.
> 
> Either a normal threshold, or use whatever table the MTM-EMPs and
> SM-EMPs use. (And those two should use the same table, too :-/)

I vote for that, I just don't like the existing table for MTM-EMPs in
More Thrust :-)
> 
> 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
>