Re: New weapons from Beta Test fleets

Jared Hilal wrote:

> >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>

Doesn't work that way, sorry. The "value increases by sqrt(X)" only
works 
if the unit has both firepower and hit boxes of its own - ie., it
applies 
to the entire *ship*, not to an individual weapon aboard that ship.

Consider this: re-arm a ship by replacing its single-damage weapons with

half the number of double-damage weapons, but keep the ship's armour,
hull 
integrity, thrust rating etc. constant. Half the number of weapons but 
twice the firepower per weapon means that the ship's total firepower is
the 
same after the refit as it was before, so the ship's points value should
be 
the same as it was before; and since the only things which were changed
are 
the weapons, and the ship now has half the number of weapons it used to,
it 
follows that each of the new double-damage weapons must cost twice as
much 
as the previous single-damage weapons.

> 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.

That is effectively the same as saying that you believe that 2 P-torps 
should cost only 50% to 75% more than 1 P-torp, since 2 P-torps inflict 
twice as much damage as 1 P-torp does <shrug>

> >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.

That's essentially the system we're looking at, yes. The devil, as
always, 
is in the details... and unfortunately there are quite a few details to 
exorcise in this case.

> >>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>

<chuckle> While you're not the only one expressing concern that 3-row
hulls 
are *under*priced, Laserlight and his son are far from the only players
who 
consider the 3-row hulls *over*priced for the effect they have... and
when 
some experienced players consider them overpriced while other equally 
experienced players consider them underpriced, they're probably about
right <g>

To check how much the 3-row hulls really cost, compare the points value
of 
a ship with a 3-row hull with that of a 4-row ship with exactly the same

armament, screens and armour and with the first 3 hull rows the same
length 
as those on the 3-row ship (so it has roughly 30% more hull boxes total 
than the 3-row ship). You might be surprised by how little you actually
pay 
for that 4th hull row :-/

> >>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,

Not exactly true, since the AMT makes a 6mu secondary move after the
ships 
have moved but before the AMT detonates - since the area of effect is 
measured from the location *after* the 6mu secondary move, this is a bit

different from the standard 6mu attack radius of  SMs.

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

What prevents the AMT from being a cargo round deploying multiple 
submunitions before detonating? That particular PSB change has no impact
on 
the game mechanics... if it even is a change; the PSB description on the

beta-test page is a bit too vague to tell <shrug>

> >>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?

AS-mode fire can hit Plasma Bolts. Why would it be unable to hit AMTs?

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