Re: New weapons from Beta Test fleets

Jared Hilal wrote:

 >1)  Extended range and heavy weapon systems
[...]
 >[These numbers may not be correct and balanced, but they should
 >suffice to illustrate what I mean.]

I'm glad you said that <g>

Increasing a weapon's damage is very simple to handle: if the damage is 
changed by a factor X but retains the same armour penetration properties

and range profile, then the Mass and points cost increased by the same 
factor X. The trade-off is between targetting flexibility (multiple
small 
weapons can engage multiple targets at the same time, a single big
weapon 
can only hit one target at a time) and repairability (multiple small 
weapons take much longer to repair than a single large one). (If you use

weird values for X - eg. 3.5, like the UNSC Grasers do - you'll probably

have to change the cost/mass ratio in order to get reasonably close to 
integer Mass ratings.)

You could also group several weapon systems together and say that "this 
group of weapons is treated as a single system both for threshold checks

and damage control, and they must all fire at the same target". Gives 
roughly the same effect as the above, though it doesn't require any
actual 
*new* systems and each "sub-weapon" would still roll to hit separately
from 
the others (eg., two grouped P-torps would still roll separately to hit
and 
to damage instead of making a single to-hit roll and scoring 2d6 pts if 
that one roll succeeds).

Increasing the range bands is trickier. For P-torps it is relatively 
straight-forward (50% more range costs ~100% more points), but when you 
start tinkering with the ranges of beam batteries you immediately run
into 
the fact that the basic Class-2 Beam Battery is slightly over-powered:
its 
3-arc version should "properly" have a Mass of about 2.33, but it was
left 
at Mass 2 both to avoid fractional Mass ratings and to ensure that the 
"best" beam class is in the middle of the scale rather than at one of
the 
extremes. (The K-guns are similar; the K2 and K3 give the best bang per 
buck, with the K1 trading damage for wider firing arcs and the larger 
K-guns trading damage for increased armour penetration. But I digress.)

This means that if you increase the B2's range bands to 18mu and double
its 
Mass (let's call this a "B2L"), you end up with a weapon which on a 
per-Mass basis is clearly superior to the standard B3 battery. That's
*not* 
a good thing from the game-balance point of view, though it would be 
paradise for min-maxers. If OTOH you adjust the cost of the range
increase 
to fit the B2, you make all other increased-range weapons overpriced
instead.

All in all it would be very nice to have a set of rules for designing 
custom direct-fire weapons, and we're looking at such systems for
potential 
inclusion into FT3, but any such system needs to keep the existing
standard 
weapons worthwhile. Forcing players to re-design most of their existing 
ship designs because some of their weapons have suddenly become obsolete

would form a major obstacle to getting players to switch from FT2.5 to
FT3.

 >2)  Variable Hull Rows
 >From the 2 games I have played with this, it seems a little too
 >effective for the cost.  How about 1st threshold = 5+, 2nd threshold =
 >4+ (or 3+)?

1st threshold = 5+, 2nd threshold = 4+ makes it worth the same as the 
standard 4-row hull (ie. 2 pts/hull box). If the 2nd threshold drops to
3+, 
it'd be worth slightly *less* than the standard 4-row hull (roughly 11/6

pts/box).

 >3)  New missiles
 >Really don't like the AM Missiles.

What part of it is it you don't like? (I know what *I* don't like with
it - 
the E-mine damage mechanic - but since that's the only thing you've 
retained in your SM-AM variant you must have some other gripe with it.)

 >Works like standard salvo missiles except
 >A) they do not move to attack a target, instead detonating in place

This is no different from the standard salvo missile game mechanic. (The

Salvo Missile *PSB* says that they move towards their target during
their 
attack, but the *salvo missile marker on the game table* is not moved -
all 
anti-missile fire against it is resolved in the position the launching 
player placed it.)

 >B) since they do not have a terminal attack run, they are harder to
 >shoot down (how about a -2 DRM vs PD and AS fire?)

This makes it *easier* for AS fire to shoot down than normal SMs are,
not 
harder (standard SMs have a -3 target's DRM vs AS fire).

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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