Re: New weapons from Beta Test fleets

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> 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.

I was going by "value increases by SQRT(X)".  <shrug>

>From our own emperical results with multi-dice damage PTLs in B5 and ST
settings, I would accept a flat +50%, +66%, or +75%, but I believe
+100% is too much per die.

<snip>
> 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

<snip explanation of B2 balance>

> 
> 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.

OK. Given a page or half-page of FB style text, the actual game play
changes to having higher damage ("Beam Cannon") and varying ranges is
small.	How about a couple of tables of MASS/cost values for various
range bands (eg 9, 15, 18, 24, etc) plus one of multipliers to apply to
any range-band beam to get higher damage.

E.g.
"Short Range Beams (9 MU RBs)
SR-B1
SR-B2
SR-B3
etc.

Extended Range Beams (15 or 18 MU RBs)
ER-B1
ER-B2
ER-B3
etc.

Long Range Beams (18 or 24 MU RBs)
LR-B1
LR-B2
LR-B3
etc.

To make a Beam Cannon (higher damage) out of any Beam of any Range
type, apply the following multiplier to MASS (and maybe alteratio to
PV/MASS):
1 pt per hit: x1
2 pts per hit: X
3 pts per hit: Y
etc.
1d3 pts per hit x2
1d6 pts per hit x3

>  >2)	Variable Hull Rows

<snip>
I understand that.  It is just that I already see that 3-row is the
preference for everyone except those that are intentionally tying to
avoid it.  I therefore conclude that as presented, they are either
underpriced or need some offsetting penalty.  <shrug>

>  >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.)
> 

First it's another weapon with the same placed mechanic as the RAW SMs,
as I outlined in one of my recent posts on SMs.  As a SM variant
warhead, It makes me twitch less.

Second, as a single weapon, the degradation of effects per hit bothers
me, but as multiple warheads, I can live with it.

For our SM house rules, our Nova Warheads use a "-1 per die per MU"
mechanic, but I have no problem with the E-Mine mechanic.

>  >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.)

I mixed the PSB in with the rules to explain my reasoning.

> 
>  >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).
> 

We haven't used the Beta fighter rules with SMs, so I didn't remember
the -3 DRM.  However, there is no point in having a DRM over -3 against
beam die weapons.  So maybe -2 vs PD and no AS fire allowed?

J