Re: Classed Weapons

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
>
>>>> class 3 etc.  However, this is NOT done with other open-ended
classed
>>>> weapons, like the KraVak K-gun or the Phalon Plasma Bolt Launcher.
>>>
>>> Not true, at least for the K gun.  I've never bothered to work out
the
>>> calculations for the PBL.
>>
>> 1-arc K-guns:
>> K3 = 5 mass
>> K4 = 8 mass (+3)
>> K5 = 11 mass (+3)
>> K6 = 14 mass (+3)
>>
>> and from FB2, pg. 9, right column, "Kinetic Guns (K-Guns)" Section, 
>> 2nd to last paragraph:
>> "Larger classes of K-gun are possible, and the mass required rises by

>> 3 per additional class."
>> So K-guns increase their mass /linearly/ at a rate of +3 mass/class.
>
> The mass increases *linearly*, but it doesn't increase at the same 
> rate as the expected damage of the weapons. From class-3 and up, the 
> Mass increases faster than the weapon's expected damage; and from 
> class-6 and up the larger classes' increased armour penetration isn't 
> enough to compensate for this. This is a deliberate feature of the 
> K-guns, and it works to restrict K-gun use to size classes 1, 2, 3 and

> 5; there are occasional uses of size classes 4 and 6 as well, but 
> class-7 and larger are very rare indeed.

Really?  I always felt that K1s were overpriced (in terms of mass), and 
that K-guns in general really weren't worth the mass/cost until K3 and 
especially larger, except for the diminishing returns at 6+ (because of 
the limit on the doubling roll of a 6 is always a failure).  I never 
liked the FB2 KV ships with numbers of K1s, I always felt that 
scatterguns make better dual-purpose secondaries, and replace all the 
K1s with SGs if my opponent will allow (assuming we're using 
pre-designed ships).

> In other words, "it" IS done with the open-ended K-gun sizes - not 
> quite as blatantly as with the beam batteries, but it is done 
> nevertheless. 

But it is done with the mechanics of how the weapon operates, not with 
the more artificial mass / class formula, which is more dependent on the

PSB in the background that you play.  After all, this is supposed to be 
a "generic" game, easily adaptable to any background.

>> From FB2, pg 36, left column, "Plasma Bolt Launcher" Section, 14th  
>> paragraph(2nd to last):
>> "A Plasma Bolt launcher system takes up a MASS of 5 times the class 
>> of the launcher."
>> So PBL's increase their mass linearly at a rate of +5 mass/class.
>
> This one is trickier, but there is actually a "restriction" of sorts 
> for PBLs as well.
>
> The PBL *itself* increases linearly... but unlike virtually every 
> other weapon type, you need one active FCS for *each* PBL you fire. 
> IOW, in order to fire 5 class-1 PBLs you'll need 30 Mass of equipment 
> (5 PBL1s and 5 FCSs) whereas if you fire a single class-5 PBL you only

> need 26 Mass of equipment (1 PBL5 and 1 FCS), so there is a mild but 
> deliberate incentive to use the largest PBL you can fit into the hull 
> instead of using multiple smaller PBLs. 

Really?  I just re-read the Phalon section of FB2 and this is not 
mentioned in either the PBL section or the FCS section.

>>> Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick 
>>> those B2-armed ships apart from outside their range? If you did, you

>>> might revise your opinion about the relative value of B2s and B4s
:-/
>>
>> 4' x 6' scrolling with cinematic movement and 1 MU = 1".
>
> 48 x 72 mu is a small table regardless of whether or not you scroll 
> it, since even moderately-ranged weapons like B2s can cover a very 
> large percentage of it (particularly if they're close to the middle of

> the table). No wonder if you haven't found long-ranged weapons 
> particularly useful.
>
> As a comparison my old gaming table (prior to moving house half a year

> ago) was 80 x 120 mu; when I finally build a new one it'll probably be

> 100 x 200 mu or thereabouts.

Then there probably should have been a note made of this in FB1, that is

that the design system has a break point that depends on the size of the

playing area.  This is fairly significant.  Especially if design 
balances are being made based on a small sampling that does not reflect 
the majority of players.

Q: How many people play on an area this large ?  (as O.O.'s)

<snip>

>> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
>> exit opposite table edge to bombard planet or escape system
>> ambush and destroy enemy fleet
>> destroy enemy flagship/carrier/convoy
>> By "exit" I mean "a full table-length from nearest pursuing enemy" 
>> with a scrolling table.
>
> It is in pursuit battles like this the long-range beams really excel -

> *if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. Sure,

> it takes them a long time to whittle the enemy down... but if he can't

> reply, they usually have all the time they need.

Six feet, and none of our designs have less than T3.  Most capital ships

(and ours are large compared to the FB designs) have T4 and escorts have
T6.

>> So you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10 ? ) table that:
>> 1x 3-arc B4 = 2x 3-arc B3 = 6x 3-arc B2?
>
> Yes. Depends a bit on how you use them, of course - eg., I've never 
> found putting 2-arc B4s on a thrust-2 ship (the ESU Komarov) to be 
> particularly effective in Cinematic - but in the Cinematic battles on 
> my 80 x 120 mu gaming table 

Is this in 1 MU = 1" or 1 MU = 1 cm?  The minis we use are to large for 
1 MU = 1 cm.

> the ranges usually average 20-30 mu (including occasional short-range 
> passes, but they usually only happen after several turns of long-range

> shooting). Short-range slugfests - multiple consecutive turns at range

> 12 or less, ie. where B1s and B2s have the biggest advantage over 
> longer-ranged beams - only occur when *both* sides want to close the 
> range or when the side that wants to close has at least 2 pts better 
> turning ability than the other (eg. Kra'Vak vs. FB1 humans or FB1 NAC 
> vs. FB1 NSL or ESU heavies).
>
> Because of this, Cinematic battles between B2- and B4-armed ships on 
> my relatively large table usually see the B2-armed ships taking enough

> losses at longer ranges that when they finally manage to close the 
> range the B4-armed ships are almost able to match their firepower up 
> close - and since the B4-armed ships usually haven't taken much damage

> at this point in the battle, the minor firepower advantage the B2 
> ships may have is countered by the B4 ships' higher remaining hull 
> integrity :-/

Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or equal

Thrust and B3-B5 and the pursued force has a mix of all-B2 ships and 
all-B3 ships (no SML, PBL) on a 4x6 scrolling table.  In this case you 
will find that the * pursuee * gets to dictate the pace of battle.

>>> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
>>> neither does the expected damage or the range.  A battlecruiser
with,
>>> say, B5 and thrust 8 will kill or drive off any KV ship and never
get
>>> scratched.
>>
>> In Cinematic or vector?
>
> Doesn't matter.

Your previous posts about Cinematic vs. Vector made it clear that in 
your opinion it would matter quite a bit.

>> A) the only ship in either FB, except the SV, with T8 is the ESU
Scout
>
> So? There's no ship armed with a B5 at all in either of the Fleet 
> Books, so you're obviously talking about a custom design here.

My point being that T8 is pretty expensive in terms of relative portion 
of the hull and is an unusual feature among capital ships, or even large

escorts.

>> B) the expected damage increases much faster with a K-gun (up to 
>> class 6, tapers off for +) than with a standard battery.
>
> The expected damage per *weapon* is irrelevant; what is important here

> is the ratio between the expected damage per Mass at the range you're 
> fighting and the expected damage per Mass your enemy can inflict on 
> you at that same range. If the enemy can't close the range and your 
> weapons outrange his, this ratio is zero to infinity in your favour. 

You are assuming that the play area is large enough to allow this 
continuously.  Doesn't happen on a 4x6 table.

<snip average human design>

> Why are you wasting Mass on an Average hull? With those engines 
> there's no way any FB2 KV ships are going to get into K-gun range 
> unless you let them. Try this ship instead - it isn't quite what 
> Laserlight had in mind, but this is what I'd use:
>
> TMF 61
> NPV 209
> Hull integrity 6 (Fragile)
> Thrust-8
> FTL
> FCS
> 1x B5-3 (AP/A/AS)
>
> On a large enough gaming table and given enough time, this ship can 
> wipe out any FB2 Kra'Vak fleet which lacks sufficient fighter cover 
> (more on this below). 

Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."

How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?  LL made no 
stipulation, so it should be relevant to the average, not just special 
cases.	If the Human is the pursuer (to quote LL: "kill or drive off"), 
the KV can force your human ship off the table if he gets going too 
fast, then continue on to blow up your in-system supply base.

> It is too fast for the FB2 KV to catch (their fastest ship is 
> thrust-6A) and it has twice the weapon range of any Kra'Vak ship; if 
> the KV attempt to pursue it it'll simply fall back before them 
> shooting at them as it goes until they run out of ships, and if they 
> don't attempt to pursue it it'll flit around their formation shooting 
> at them until they run out of ships. Either way, the Kra'Vak will 
> eventually run out of ships :-/ IOW, if the KV fleet doesn't want to 
> get wiped out and can't accomplish its mission before dying a death by

> a thousand cuts, it has no other option than to withdraw. In my book 
> at least this qualifies as "kill or drive off" the Kra'Vak.

 From LL's post, I took this to mean a single ship encounter between a 
custom built FB BC size human ship and a similar FB2 or custom built KV 
ship (but following the KV design philosophy, not a special purpose 
design) since most of the FB2 KV are sub optimal designs to start with.

However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass 60, 
238 points) into your star system to raid your infrastructure (using the

scenario I described in my previous post) against your proposed ship on 
a scrolling, cinematic, 4x6 table with 1 MU =1".

J