Re: [FT] Proposal - Weapons Design System Concept

In message <5.1.0.14.1.20010601175618.009f72d0@m1.853.telia.com>
	  Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> 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.

I agree.
> 
> 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

I'm considering an additional factor: if the maximum range is increased
by 12mu or more, then the total cost should be not less than double
that of the original system (double for each increase of 12mu).
For example: A 1-arc Class-3 Beam has its range increased by 50% to
18/36/54mu - 'total cost' of standard B-3 is 12 (B-3) + 20% x 4 x 2
(added cost of thrust 4 engine) + 10% x 4 x 2 (added cost of FTL) + 4 x
130% (added cost of hull) = 19.6 (did I get that right?)

'Total cost' of long-range B-3 is therefore 39.2, maximum range is
increased by +18mu, more than +12mu, but less than +24mu - so this is
ok, but I'm tempted to add a further surcharge for taking the range over
48mu :-)

However, a long-range B-4 would add +24mu to its maximum range, so its
'total cost' should be at least _4_ times that of a normal B-4.

What should the total cost reduction be if the range is halved? my
calculations indicate something like x0.3 - which looks a little low
IMHO.
> 
> >Reduce number of fire arcs (for weapons which naturally have more
than
> >1, i.e. SMs, PBLs)
>
Thinking about it, I'd say that its possible that the relative value of
a fire arc varies from weapon to weapon - from my experience, arcs on
placed ordnance weapons are worth quite a lot.
> 
> >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
Ok, how much for all-arc limited PDS capability (like on a Class-1)?
> 
> >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.

Err...could you re-phrase that - I'm not sure I understood.
> 
> >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)

Of cause this will vary depending on whether the threshold check occurs
before or after the systems effects are resolved, if after, the 'total
cost' of a burnout system should be _more_ than that of the equivalent
'one-shot' system (q.v.).
> >
> >Backlash - use of weapon has chance of damaging ship
> 
> Depends entirely on how big the risk is

Usually based on damage capability of the weapon - guess it needs
resolving on a case by case basis.
> 
[snip]
> 
> >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.

Hmm... so lets 'build' a Submunitions pack :-)
Take 1-arc Class-3 beam, halve the range (I'll treat this as half total
cost, rather than the value I quoted above - on the principle of 'round
not in favour of the user' :-), make it ignore screens, and make it
one-shot.
Total cost is 19.6 (calculated above) x0.5 (half range), x6/5 (no
screens), x0.5 (one-shot) = 5.88
Total cost of SMP based on FB1) =4.9 ok, so I was wrong (see other
thread) :-|.
> 
> >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)

I just use the Sa'Vas'Ku rules for this one :-)
> >
> >Exclusive - most other systems cannot be used on same turn that
system
> >is used (like vapour shroud)
> 
> Essentially unbalancable :-/

I knew this one would be a problem - pity that some existing systems
already have this limitation (Nova Cannon, Wave Gun, Vapour Shroud). I'm
tempted to give up on these and just work it out on a case by case
bases.
> 
> >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).

I was actually thinking of disallowing this one for FireCons, ATM I'm
considering that a roll of '6' for a threshold always fails, regardless
of hardening.
> 
> >Other limitations - like 'needs FTL drive charged', anything else
I've
> >missed.
> 
> Depends entirely on the exact limitation.
Ok, using my example - needs FTL charged up (and uses up the charge when
used) - for a start, this includes 'use only once every 2 turns' (1 turn
to charge FTL, as per FT2, 1 turn to use system) - also the penalties
for charging the FTL drive _may_ apply, as the user isn't planning on
actually _using_ the FTL drive, also, the system is more vulnerable to
thresholds, as it won't work if the FTL drive is damaged (in fact, this
circumstance could trigger a truly impressive backlash :-).

So its at least a 1/3 reduction :-).
> 
> 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
> 
Thanks,

Charles
--