Re: Some more comments to the WeapDef archive

In message <200102162052.VAA07061@d1o902.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Scattered thinking during bus journeys to work:
[snip]
> 
> Charles's suggestion works... sort of, but his guesses at points costs
> are off by about 100% in both cases: getting 2 hull boxes per Mass is
> worth 6-7xMass, while getting 1 box per 2 Mass is worth 0xMass
> (actually it is worth even less, ie. *less* than 0 pts per box, but
I'm
> not too keen on negative points costs...).

Arrgh! another maths failure!
> 
> I'm still playtesting my "variable number of hull rows" idea, but so
> far it
> looks reasonable:
> 
> Instead of giving all ships 4 rows of hull boxes, they can be designed
> with 3, 4 or 5 rows. Apart from the different number of hull rows, the
> hull boxes are distributed between the rows as per the standard FBx
> rule. Thresholds are taken as normal (ie. systems are damaged on 6+
> after the 1st row, 5+ after the 2nd, 4+ after the 3rd, and 3+ after
the
> 4th). The costs for these hulls are:
> 
> 3 rows of hull boxes - cost 3xMass.
> 4 rows of hull boxes (FB standard) - cost 2xMass. 
> 5 rows of hull boxes - cost 1.5xMass
> 
> I'm not too happy with the fractional points costs for the 5-row
hulls,
> but
> 1xMass is definitely too low :-( And no, I don't have any figures for
> 1, 2
> or 6 hull rows :-/]
>
Hmm.. that looks promising - reminds me of the Earth Force Sourcebook.
> 
> *Targeting beacon 
> [OO: Interesting. No idea if it is *balanced*, but it looks like a
kewl
> idea
> <g>. PSB-wise DCPs should have a chance to remove them though.]
> 
> BFG Lances: "stranger"
> [OO: Lots of comments posted on the mailing list]
> 
> Skunk Works Weapon Tech [You've seen most of these comments before
<g>]
> 
> Raking fire
> [OO: What does "+1 to hit" mean for weapons which don't have a to-hit
> roll? +1 do the beam die (ie., inflict 1 point on rolls of 3-6? This
is
> always worse than standard beam fire against level-0 and -1 screens
> (unless the target has only 1 damage point left and you know it, which
> isn't that common), and is always better than standard beam fire
> against level-2 screens. Since it has no penalty associated with it,
> its only real effect is to reduce the value of every lvl-2 screen in
> the game. Oh, OK, you get a better chance to kill BJs with a single
> hull box with a single shot too...]

I had my own idea bout raking fire - but I'm not convinced it works:
Applies to Beam type attacks only.
Effect: All normal thresholds caused by raking fire are 1 level worse
than normal (Threshold (6) becomes Threshold (5+), etc, Threshold (4+)
is unaltered)
All Core Thresholds are 1 level better (ie. no check for rows 1&2, row
3 calls for a Threshold (6) check)
Screens and armour apply to all re-rolls, as well as the initial attack.

PSB - 'strafing' the enemy ship gives an improved chance of hitting a
surface feature, at a cost of reduced penetration.

Cons: well, the Giant Glaring one to me is the canny player who mixes
standard with raking fire - ie. peel of the armour and most of row 1
with standard hits, then throw in a fewraking attackes so the threshold
will be much nastier.

In general, I think this may be a good example of why we don't have
things like raking, sustained, etc. fire modes in Full Thrust :-)

I came up with a similar (reversed) mechanic for those 'drill thin
holes through ship beams' from Starfire that keep showing up in this
list :-)
> 
[snip]
> 
> 
> Side-Slip - Common house rule - allows 2+ point turn to be port then
> starboard (or opposite). 
> [OO: Recommended. Should go into FT3 or FB3 (whichever comes first),
> provided I can find a big enough club to bash Jon over the head with
> <g>]
>
Ow!
> 
> Starburst Attack
> [OO: With the fighter re-arming rule in FB2, this has gone from
> somewhat unbalanced to very unbalanced. Spending excessive amounts of
> EPs is no longer a serious penalty - heck, on several occasions my KV
> fighters have gone Ro'Kah, rearmed, returned to the fray, gone mad
> *again*, rearmed *again*, and had time for a third attack - and that
in
> battles 7-8 turns in length. If KV fighters can rearm this often,
human
> fighters can do it too.

I think this should be a special (expensive) fighter type - say a
submunition fighter - carrys 3 small submunitions packs (1 beam dice
each, range 6 mu), can use them 1 at a time or all at one, the latter
consumes all remaning cef - have same effects against ships and fighters
- as standard SMP fighters have no other weapons? - cost - dunno? - more
than standard fighter I think.

> 
> Besides, it effectively gives non-KV fighters the same benefits as
> those of going Ro'Kah, but without the restrictions - the humans can
do
> it at any time rather than when the dice force them, and they only pay
> 3 EP rather than all remaining EP.]
> 
> 
> Design Tech 
> Miniaturization - (From FT list) Systems take ½ mass and cost 3x as
> much. 
> Maximalization - Systems take 2x mass and cost 1/2 as much. 
> [OO: Both should be OK. Note that "cost X as much" means that the
> POINTS COST is X times that of the normal system, not that the
> COST/MASS is X times that of the normal system. Example: a system
which
> normally is Mass 2, Cost 3xMass = 3x2 = 6 will be Mass 1, Cost 6x3 =
18
> (not (3x3)x1 = 9) if miniaturized and Mass 4, cost 6/2 = 3 (not
(3/2)x4
> = 6) if "maximalized"]
> 
> 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