Re: [FT] Proposal - Weapons Design System Concept

Charles Taylor wrote:

> > 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 :-)

IME the 18mu-band B3 is quite

>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.

If the range is reduced to 2/3, the total cost should be halved

> >
> > >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)?

In proportion to its average number of fighter kills. B1s shoot down
half 
as many standard fighters per shot as PDS do (on average); K1s shoot
down 
on average one-third as many.

> > >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.

Each system has a Mass, a Cost/Mass ratio, and a total cost which
depends 
both on the Mass and the Cost/Mass ratio (as defined in the previous
post). 
If you don't change the system's capabilities, the total cost should
remain 
unchanged. Therefore, if you change the Mass, you should also change the

Cost/Mass ratio in such a way that the total cost does not change when
you 
change the Mass.

In practise it is very rarely possible to get exactly the same total
cost 
when you change the Mass and Cost/Mass ratio, but you can usually get
close.

> > >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) :-|.

Using my rule-of-thumb instead, you get

> >
> > >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
>--

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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