Re: WOTW #12

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: WOTW #12

> In message <200108181745.f7IHjns14320@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
>	    Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
########################################################################
> >
> >
> > Heavy Beam	[Alan Brain] (GZG-L, 9 March 2001) Heavy Beams cost and
> > mass the same as normal beams. A Heavy beam rolls 1 less die than a
> > normal beam at every range. So a class 3 heavy beam rolls 2 dice at
> > 12MU, and 1 die at up to 24 MU.
> > Hits by a heavy beam do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points of damage (i.e., a roll
of a
> > 6 does 4 pts, and a re-roll, a roll of 5 does 3 points, and so on).
> > Re-rolls also do 4,3,2,1,0,0 points, not counting screens, with
scores
> > of 6 causing further re-rolls as do normal beams.
> > Screens are particularly effective vs Heavy beams. Subtract the
screen
> > rating from the damage of each die. So a Heavy  Beam that scored a
4,
> > which would normally be 2 hits, would only do 1 against a target
with
> > screen 1, and would do no damage against a target with screen 2.
>
> [Charles]
> Well, I'm not sure I'm in favour of introducing a new type of beam
dice,
> but it does have the effect you desire (a weapon with more damage than
> a conventional beam, but with shorter range, and affected more by
> screens). By my calculation, the Heavy Beam is 2.5 times more
effective
> than the equivalent number of beam dice against an unscreened target,
> this drops to 2.11 times against a target with level 1 screens, and
1.79
> times against a target with level 2 screens.
> The loss of one dice at all ranges is equivalent to the Heavy Beam
> battery rolling the same number of dice of a Beam battery of one class
> smaller, thus it has twice the MASS of a Beam battery that rolls the
> same number of dice (it may be somewhat underpriced, depending on the
> frequency of level-2 screens in your game, OTOH, heavy use of Heavy
> Beams would encourage heavy use of screen-2s by your opponents :-).
> My personal preference would be to keep the relationship between beam
> class and number of dice rolled, and so state that it has twice the
MASS
> (or slightly more) of a beam battery of equal class. A simpler system
> would be to treat it as a 'doubled' beam battery, i.e., a class-2
heavy
> beam battery equals two class-2 beam batteries. But this would lose
the
> differentiation in respect to screen effectiveness.
> >
> > * The same principle could be extended to a "Super Heavy Beam",
which
does
> > * 5,4,3,2,1,0 but rolls 2 less dice, and so on. But these would have
to
be
> > * at least of Class 6 to match the effectiveness of conventional
beams.
> These have 4 times the MASS of a beam system of the same class, but
are
> only 3.75 times as effective vs. unscreened targets, 3.42 times vs.
> level 1 screens, and 3.21 times vs. level 2 screens. In other words -
> overpriced all round I think!
> >
>

I think this LOOKS like a good way of having a heavy beam system for the
B5
ships, without the trouble of using power systems and such. How does
this
compare with a battery of the class below with a beam bridge (? I think
it
was called this). 2 smaller batts with a beam bridge would mass slightly
more, so the dammage from these should be slightly less.

>=======================================================================
====
====
> >
> > H.E.T. Laser (High Energy Throughput Laser)  [Bif Smith] (FT-List
28-Jan-01)
> > Mass: Same as beam batteries (including arcs)
> > Cost: 4x MASS
> > Range: 8 MU per class
> > Damage: Die rolled -3, reroll on a six (i.e. 1 to 3 = miss, 4=1 dp,
5=2
> > dp, 6=3 dp + reroll [use this system to avoid extra die rolls])
> > Special: PDS Cl.1 L Bats-Same as Cl.1 beam batts
> > Notes: Shields have no effect due to the beam being non-charged,
> > therefore not affected by the magnetic shielding used on human
ships. Is
> > affected by Phalon vapour shields (diffused by the vapour droplets).
> >
> > Comments/Analysis:
> > [Oerjan]
> > - Average damage per die is 1.2 (including the rerolls).
> [snip comparison table]
> > The L3 and P-torp have the same Mass and both ignore screens, which
> > simplifies the comparison considerably. The P-torp inflicts less
damage
> > at most ranges, but has longer range (and also better armour
> > penetration, though not enough better to matter much).
> > The L2 looks very nasty up close. Not quite as nasty as Pulser-Cs
> > (unless the target has level-2 screens and is within  8mu), but with
> > somewhat longer range to compensate (and also somewhat cheaper).
Can't
> > say I'm too hot at introducing yet another way to read a damage die,
> > but it looks OK balance-wise. Making them cost 4xMass might be a bit
> > conservative, but not much - and a little too expensive is always
> > better than too cheap! What effect does vapour shrouds have? Another
-2
> > to the dice?
>
> [Charles] Well, I've long considered a possible PSB for Needle Beams
and
> PDS systems to be a laser system (using the 'canon' interpretation of
> Beam Batteries as particle beams, and screens as an electromagnetic
> system).
> I'm not sure I see the need for a different dice rolling method, or
the
> different range bands.
> I think I would treat these as normal beam batteries, but unaffected
by
> screens (vapour shrouds work as usual).
> *A possible, but specialised defence - ablative hull armour - as
normal
> hull armour, but each box absorbs 2 boxes of laser damage (or PDS or
> Needle Beam) before being lost.
> *Reflective hull coating: acts as level-1 screen against lasers -
> (needle beams do no damage on a roll of 5) lost when 1st threshold is
> reached? or all armour destroyed?
> I will see if i can develop this further.
>
> Charles
>
> --
>

I used this system for reading the dammage rolls, and it is simple (just
the
die minus 3 or whatever the modified roll is). I have acctually played
with
some identical ships, half with beams and half with lasers, and fould
the
kill ratio for the two forces was the same (so not unbalancing, in my
opinion). I forgot to include what the vapor gland do, and decided it
should
be a -2 (the vapor works very well at diffusing the beam). Of course,
the
dammage when attacking a human ship should be modified as the ship takes
dammage, to represent the out gassing of atmosphere from the dammaged
ship.
This is probably better ignored as too complicated, plus a moving ship
would
leave the atmosphere behind. The idea for reflective armour is a good
one,
will need further thought. As for saying a needle beam is a laser, it
doesn`t have to be. We could say they are a tightly focused beams,
leaving
the way open for other laser based weapons.