Re: [FT] WotW 2: EMP Weapons

In message <200102151948.UAA07415@d1o901.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Slowly catching up with this thread:
> 
[snip Ion Pulse Weapon]
> **********************
> 
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> 
> >EMP Missile Salvoes (EMP-SM)
> 
> [snip - I've already discussed this with Charles both on- and
off-list,
> though it was some time ago]

Sometime I'm going to have to dig that thread out of the archives, as my
copy got eaten by my hard drive :-(
> 
> >We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect of
> >level-2 screens against these or not, the PSB (water/ice mist) would
> >seem to imply not, but it might be better if they did work.

You know, it may be my memory playing up - but I'm sure someone else
raised that point, not me?
> 
> Keep it simple. The rules say that "A deployed shroud acts like a
> level-2 screen against all energy weapon attacks, ...", so unless you
> describe the EMP pulse as not being energy <g> or the SM-EMP rule is
> *very* emphatic that the shrouds don't work against it they should
work
> against it. (And even if the rule *is* very emphatic many of the
> players will miss that and count shrouds as level-2 screens anyway...)
>  
> >On the subject, I'm not totally happy with the EMP missile in More
> >Thrust, how about this revision?
> > 
> >Roll 1d6 - target screen level (as in MT, p.3)
> > 
> >1 or less = No effect
> >2-3 = Roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 6
> >4-5 = Roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 5+
> >6 = roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 4+
> 
> Argh. First he balances the SM-EMP against the *old* MTM-EMP, then he
> wants to make the MTM-EMP weaker... <g>

Actually this gives a better chance of _some_ effect (on a 2+ rather
than a 3+), but a reduced chance of the maximum effect (Threshold (4+)
on a 6, rather than a 5-6) - its just one of my personal foibles I guess
:-)

>  
> But yes, both EMP missile types should use the same table. The MTM
> balance is bound to change anyway if they're re-worked as a fighter/SM
> crossbreed :-/

Well, I'd like to use the same underliying mechanic (if we ever come up
with one) for all EMP weapons, if possible, and well, MT-Missiles are a
whole other can of worms :-)
> 
> >If MT-EMP Missiles impact at the same time as EMP-salvoes, treat >the
> MT-EMP missile as 1d6 extra EMP-salvo missiles.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.
> 
> >Some general thoughts on 'EMP' class weapons.
> > 
> >In general, these appear to fall into two main groups:
> > 
> >Those that cause blanket threshold checks (like the More Thrust EMP
> >missile),
> > 
> >and,
> > 
> >Those that cause a limited number of threshold checks (like the Ion
> >Cannon and the Scrambler Pulse).
> > 
> >The 'problem' with the first group is that they are difficult to
> >balance, consider, a typical EMP attack will have, on average,
similar
> >effects on both a corvette and a battleship (ok, this is not totally
> >true, the MT EMP missile is affected by screens, which on average
> >means that it has less effect on the larger vessels that tend to
carry
> >screens).
> 
> In relative terms, the big screened ship suffers less from an MTM-EMP
> hit than the small unscreened one does. However, in *absolute* terms -
> ie., the number of weapons knocked out and thus the effect on the
> battle - the big screened ship is likely to lose *more* than the
> corvette. As I noted in another of today's posts this is one of the
> very few FT game mechanics which puts a restriction on effective ship
> sizes.

Which is probably a good thing, now I think about it.
>  
> ><Aside>
> >Which reminds me, if we descide that, in general, screens protect
> >against EMP weapons we must be careful not to upset the
>screen/armour
> balance, as armour does _not_ protect against EMP.
> ></Aside>
> 
> Not a big worry. Remember, the subject which sparked off the entire
> WotW idea was Karls' complaint that so many new weapons *ignore*
> screens that the screens are becoming obsolete <g>
> 
> >I think the only reasonable way to attempt to balance 'Blanket
> >Threshold weapons' (like the MT EMP Missile) is to balance them
> >against Capital Ships (say an 'average' 200 or more MASS SDN) -
>which
> is probably what they are likely to be fired at anyway :-).
> 
> See my previous comments about how
> 
> >Hmm.. - lets use a FB1 Komarov for an example - 88 hull = 22 hull
>per
> row - to do a Threshold (6) requires 22 damage - thats the >equivalent
> of 27.5 beam dice or about 6.3 dice where roll=damage.
> 
> Should be *37.7* beam dice. A Komarov has level-2 screens...

Yes, I forgot those - of course, they'd protect against the EMP weapon
as well.
> 
> 
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> 
> >Just had another thought.
> >Dean's "Ion Cannon"	weapon is StarWars inspired, so what about >the
> following:
> >Hits force thresholds against only the screens/vapour shrouds.  If
> >there are no active screens, then a core systems threshold against
> >the bridge is made; if the bridge goes down, it looses the
opportunity
> >to fire this turn, but autorepairs at the end of turn.
> 
> As long as you only use it in Star Wars-universe battles, fine. In an
> "open-tech" setting this is just as unbalancing as the kinetic
shields,
> and for much the same reasons (see Noam's web page if you haven't
> already).

Bearing in mind the only Ion Cannon seen fired in the films was a
planet-based installation - although various technical references of
variable authenticity have them mounted on capital(?) ships as well.
> 
> Apart from the above, I think Noam has already voiced most of my
> thoughts - whether intentionally or not I don't know <g>
> 
> Later,
> 
> 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
>