Grasers was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
>  >Grasers:
>  >Several points; 1), 2) and 4) reflect our interest in the "generic"
>  >nature of FT.
>  >1)	If FB3 needs a "long range beam", how about a set of MASS/cost
>  >figures for 6- and 18 MU range bands for regular beam batteries
>  >instead of "grasers"?
> 
> Could be done for Class-3 beams and larger, but if you want to do it
> for Class-1s and -2s you need to deal in fractional Mass values -
> something we'd very much prefer to avoid.
> 
> (The fractional *point* values for 5-row hulls discussed above are
> bad enough, and the only reason they made it into beta at all was
that
> the players would ask about them anyway when 4-row hulls are 2pts/box

> and 6-row hulls are 1 pt/box.)

We have had no problem with, for example 3 x 3-arc B1 for 2 MASS.  I
figure most gamers are competent with basic math.  Often not so good
with spelling (blush), but hey, I'm an engineer, not a literature major
:)

> 
>  >2)	If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
>  >rather see something with the to-hit/damage mechanic of the EFSB
>  >beam in a single-component system.
> 
> The original intent with the graser was in fact to copy the EFSB
> heavy beam straight away, but it proved impractical for three
reasons:
> 
> 1) Many players dislike the EFSB heavy beam mechanic because it hits 
> automatically at close range - unlike all other weapons in FT (and
> EFSB), the heavy beam has literally *no* chance of missing at range 
> 6mu or less since you can't roll less than "1" on a D6.

Taking B5 as the reference, the show often depicts a beam snapping on
next to a target ship then being adjusted onto (or through) the target,
or hitting and slicing across the target.  We always interpreted a low
die roll as indicating that a portion of the beam was "wasted" before
or after hitting the target, while a high roll indicated that most of
the discharge was into the target.

> Extending the range bands to 12 or 18 mu is unlikely to make the 
> weapon any more acceptable to these players.

We use 9 and 12 MU RBs when the heavy beam is *supposed* to scare the
pants off you, like the minbari (9), vorlons or shadows (12).  Or the
Ravashal Pulsar (never played, but I'd say 18).  :)

> 
> 2) Another common player complaint about new weapon types is "Yet
> *another* screen-skipping weapon? How boring...". The EFSB heavy beam

> mechanic as it is currently written is ignores "screens" (ie. EFSB 
> "interceptors"), and it is difficult to add screen which aren't 
> completely negligible yet which don't cripple the weapon completely 
> against level-1 screens.

Just because it ignores a physical, active defense system doesn't mean
that it has to ignore a passive, field-based system.

While B5 Interceptors are a dual-purpose CIWS-type system, screens are
not.  If you interpret FT *screens* to be some sort of electromagnetic
or gravity field that deflects particles and wavicles (as they are in
the GZG setting, afew degrees can make a big difference), then why not
have screens apply a -1 per die per level of screens.  This allows
screened ships a reasonable defense (1/6th reduction per level, similar
to standard batteries) without, as you say, crippling the weapon
completely against level-1 screens.  This also moves to take care of
those who want a chance for no damage at short ranges, at least for
screened ships.

> 3) The EFSB heavy beam mechanic has a very heavy punch at close
> range, but it weakens very rapidly as the range increases. Since Full

> Thrust already has quite a few weapons with high punch at point-blank

> range but short effective range (B1, B2, Pulser-C, P-torp), adding
yet 
> another such system isn't very high on the priority list. Of course 
> the G1 is yet another such weapon, but it isn't the main reason for 
> introducing the graser family :-/

Since the KV primarily use a weapon category with the same to-hit and
range mechanics as the P-torp, and the Phalon are limited to 36 MU with
pulsars and PBLs, isn't giving the Hu'Mans another *scalable*, *long
range* weapon (they already have the scalable B#) tipping the balance
in the other direction?  And dangerously close to the slippery slope of
GW "weapon/model of the month" syndrome? 

> The larger grasers OTOH are the exact opposite to the EFSB beam -
they 
> can inflict serious damage at *long* range, but it doesn't gain very 
> much power types when the range falls.

Since they use the same method for number of dice rolled and same
mechanic for number of hits from those dice, how is it different from a
same class standard beam other than a scaler for damage and range band?
 Should be a similar damage curve, just adjusted by scalers.

>  >3)	If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
>  >standard battery rerolls as internal secondaries rather than 
>  >additional hits. We would recommend that "additional hits" be fully

>  >affected by screens, and additional damage by allowing a
penetrating 
>  >reroll on a *damage roll* of a "6".

> This introduces new game mechanics instead of just recycling old
ones, 

"Rereoll affected by screens" is not a new mechanic, just a twist on an
old one.

"Damage die natural 6 gives penetrating reroll" is also not a new
mechanic, just a stretch of an old one.  We have been using this for
P-torps for years with no problem.

> makes the weapon even more wildly unpredictable than it already is (a

> feature several players have already complained/warned about), 

Could be.  Dunno.  <shrug>

> and also changes the screen balance - the current graser mechanic 
> dove-tails into the existing beam-screen balance. 

Again, could  be.  No Comment.

> I'm not entirely convinced that any of these drawbacks would be a 
> reasonable price to pay for improving one possible PSB interpretation

> of what the game mechanic represents, much less all three of them :-/

I am. :)

>  >4)	If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
>  >generic name that reflects its relation to the beam/pulsar/stinger
>  >family.

> You mean like "Pulse Torpedo", "Plasma Bolt", "Salvo Missile", 
> "Sub-Munition Pack", "Kinetic Gun" etc.? "Graser" is no more setting 
> specific than any of these;

"Beams" is really flexible as I listed in another post.
Although an obvious reference to ST, "Pulse torpedo" is generic enough
(and the idea common enough) to be used for direct fire plasma, as well
as a number of anti-matter and undefined energy projectiles like Photon
Torpedo, Proton Torpedo, Ion Torpedo, etc.
"K-Guns" work well regardless of how the projectile is propelled; EM,
grav, hamster wheel, whatever, and have a number of SF variations:
Gauss Gun, Rail Gun, Mass Driver, etc.
"Salvo Missile"- and "SMP"-type weapons are also quite common.	As
pointed out by someone else, SMs can be interpreted as Fisson, Fusion,
M-AM, BPL, or any number of other common options.
"PBL" is the toughest, but comes close to E-Mine.

> Weber - author of the Honor Harrington series - nicked it from
today's 
> industrial terminology. IMO it is also no more PSB specific than some

> of these types, particularly the "Salvo Missile" and "Sub-Munition 
> Pack"... and of course the first thing that happens when FT is
adapted 
> to a specific background is that the names of the weapons change :-/

But "Beams" is already flexible enough to cover both laser and graser.

One might interpret DW's lasers as B1 & B2 and grasers as B3 & B4.

If Gamma Ray Lasers are seperate from "Beams", could we have a seperate
weapon system for X-ray lasers?  UV lasers?  IR?  How about Masers? 
What about particle accelerators?  Neutron cannon?  Molecular
Disruptors?*  Phased harmonic tachyon emitters?*  Warp-accelerated
delta-band lasers?*  

J

*Treknobabble TM Paramount Pictures :)