Re: [FT] Proposal - Weapons Design System Concept

Charles Taylor wrote:

>How about a 'weapon design system' that takes the tried and tested
basic
>weapon systems (Beams, K-Guns, etc.) and allows them to be customised
>using a system of advantages and limitations (basic idea inspired by
>Hero system).

I have a number of empirical guidelines like this. So far they've stood
me 
in good stead for first estimates, but any result they give must
*always* 
be followed up by playtesting.

The term "total cost", which I use rather extensively below, is the cost
of 
the system itself [Mass * (Cost/Mass)], the system's fraction of the
ship's 
engines (start with thrust-4 Human engines and FTL), and the hull to
hold 
both the system and the engine bitz.

Here goes:

>Range: Increase or Decrease range bands, however large ranges (>48mu)
>should be discouraged (probably very small ranges as well).

Range bands increased by 50% = double the total cost

>Reduce number of fire arcs (for weapons which naturally have more than
>1, i.e. SMs, PBLs)

>Add (or remove) PDS capability (either limited, like Class-1 beams, or
>full, like Pulsars)

4 pts total cost for full, all-arc PDS capability

>Reduce MASS but increase COST (Miniaturisation - a form of this is
>already in the WDA)

and

>Increase MASS and reduce COST (Maximalisation, also in the WDA)

The total cost of the system should be kept as close to constant as
possible.

>Burnout - every time the system is used, it must make a threshold check
>or be damaged, or even destroyed (variations include either fixed
>thresholds or based on current damage level)
>
>Backlash - use of weapon has chance of damaging ship

Depends entirely on how big the risk is

>Ignore screens - for weapons that usually don't

Increase total cost to 6/5 of the normal value

>Doesn't ignore screens -for weapons that usually do

Decrease total cost to 5/6 of the normal value

>Penetrating - half vs. armour for weapons that usually don't

No significant game effect unless the enemy ships have significantly
more 
armour than first-row hull boxes.

>Extremely Penetrating - like K-guns, for weapons that usually don't

Tricky, since it goes from "virtually no penetration" (K1s) to "90+% of
the 
damage bypasses armour" (K6s).

>Non-Penetrating - for weapons that normally penetrate

Same as Penetrating

>One-use/Single shot - the system can only be used once

Cut the total cost to half. Multi-shot weapons usually get to fire more 
than twice during a battle, but damage now is better than the same
amount 
of damage later on.

>Limited Used - the system can only be used a limited number of times
>(probably has a magazine - like SML)

3 shots ~ "unlimited", at least for tactical battles. (Not in campaigns 
though!)

>Slow rate of fire - the system needs a turn to 'recharge' after being
>fired (like PBLs)

Reduce total cost by 1/3 (if re-charge time is 1 turn)

>Unpowered - other systems cannot be used on the same turn that this
>system is used (tricky to work out - getting into B5wars territory)
>
>Exclusive - most other systems cannot be used on same turn that system
>is used (like vapour shroud)

Essentially unbalancable :-/

>Hardened/Fragile - system is less/more susceptible to threshold checks
>(I'm putting this one in for discussion purposes - personally I'm
>worried that both options are heavily abusable - for instance - putting
>fragile systems onto small escorts that probably won't survive the
first
>hit)

Depends on which system it is (a hardened FCS is more worth than a
hardened 
weapon, for example).

>Other limitations - like 'needs FTL drive charged', anything else I've
>missed.

Depends entirely on the exact limitation.

Later,

Oerjan

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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