You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
I'm not sure if I have the technical skills to do such a thing... 
ROF 2 covers the ROF difference, the Increased Hits is for the pulse effect and Carronade accounts for the range difference.
In case you missed it, in Nova you can now set different ranges for different weapon modes.
And again, until you've designed a few weapons, simply leave the BAS at 1. Once you've designed a few, you can think about tweaking the BAS to slightly modify the dice progression.
Stuff like this makes me wonder if we shouldn't start collecting player "tips", a la SFB/FC.
And, what about the relation between tractor beams and drones and seekers?
What about it?
When doing the conversion to the SFU (or any other setting), there's no reason the targeting restrictions for tractor beams couldn't be modified to fit the source material.
A ship that loses one step of ECM is losing about 13% of its value.
It's more like 16%. But that's not the right way to approach it. Being able to counter 1 point of a ship's ECM is the same as increasing firepower by 41%. However, since not every ship will have ECM, I'm using 2^(1/3) rather than 2^(1/2) as the factor... or an increase of 26%.
Increasing all of your fleet's firepower by 26% will result in a combat rating increase of 12%.
Adding the scout ability to one ship is worth about 53 points.
53 is 12% of 432.
Okay, so I did something wrong along the way -- it should be one scout per 400 points.
If you think that's too generous, and want to use the full 2^(1/2) as the basis for these calculations, it comes to roughly one scout per 300 points.
So one scout ship lowers the ECM ratings of every opposing ship, subject to the above restrictions?
Yes.
Meta-game reason: the reduction in ECM ratings translates to an effective firepower increase of roughly 21%. This translates to a 10% increase in combat rating. A single scout ship increases a fleet's total combat rating by approximately 53 points. Thus, if you've got at least one scout per 500 points, you've "paid" for that 10% increase.
In-game reason: a scout isn't affecting all enemy ships at the same time -- it can direct its abilities where it is most needed at any given point in the battle. However, the larger the fleet, the more scouts required to coordinate all that firepower.
Anyway, getting back to the topic (sorry -- my bad 
) -- I'm planning to add one alternate use for scouts to the release rulebook:
If a fleet contains at least one scout for every 500 points (or fraction thereof), it may treat opposing ECM ratings as one less than their actual values, to a minimum of zero. A scout being used to counter an enemy escort ship cannot be counted towards this requirement.
Note that this requirement remains constant even as a fleet takes damage -- thus, if a fleet begins the game with 1200 points, it must maintain at least three scouts in order to use this ability, even if it has lost a number of ships due to enemy fire.
If I build a HS3 Thrust 8 ship and give it FR1 1-2-3 Exp I can fit 268 BAS on there. It has 57 combat rating.
Same ship without Exp has 53 BAS and a combat rating of 36.
Right. But if you take that second ship and add "Expendable", its ORAT drops from 257.08 to 128.54 -- or 50% -- reducing its combat rating from 36 to 25.
Ridiculous? Perhaps.
New? No.
If anything, we've cut down on prospective firepower of little guys like that. In The Admiralty Edition, a hull 2, engines 8 ship with five RNG 3, ROF 5, ACC 5+, IMP 5, DMG 5 weapons and an ammo of 5 is functionally equivalent to a Nova ship of hull 3, thrust 8, with a range-3 weapon possessing the Expendable trait and 394 dice in the first column -- and it has 19 SUs left over.
Remember, the 20% factor only applies to space costs -- the ORAT incurs an additional modifier based on the ship's size; for the smallest ships, this means only a 50% discount for expendable weapons.
Why would I ever design a weapon battery with more than one bank, thus incurring the the complication of firing arc modifiers? (By the way these modifiers are mentioned early in the rules but not explained until much later.)
The intent of the rules is to group all like weapons into a single battery. You could make every bank into a separate battery, but I don't know that you gain much by doing so.
It should read, "For weapons with two RBTs, consult the following table. A weapon cannot have more than two..."
For shields, each box is an "icon", even if they are empty. Someone please add this to the errata topic.
Whatever.
<IMG src="http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldj855hXN21qb87k7o1_500.jpg">
</IMG>
Can you add the customized firing arcs to the drydock? I want to do a "swivel mount" type torp launcher that is HJIK.
"PS" arc added, equivalent to custom "HIJK" arc.
It would be very interesting if gunboats could be grouped in to flotillas of 3 or so - just sayin'
Does someone miss the Flotilla rules?
on new design ships I always set the BAS of any weapon type to 1.
It's then easier for me to think of the number of weapons I assign to any given bank as the number of dice I'm assigning.
I guess I don't see any reason not to assume a one to one ratio of BAS to dice on new designs.
Gotcha.
And I may be wrong here, but when you're designing ships from scratch, having a BAS other than one is kind of pointless.
Simply add more dice.
I don't understand this.
Adding more dice => increasing BAS above 1.
Could you confirm this: There is always the possibility to design ships with hull size not necessarily a multiple of 3 (1 or 2, for example)?
For now, no. The minimum hull size is 3.
"Starship Killer" - This weapon gets +1 column shift against ships (i.e. not fighters or drones or future things smaller than full ships). Cost 1.4
This is identical to the same weapon with a BAS increased by 40%.
Heh...
<IMG src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OQlyJAWyXuY/TTh9CHm-IuI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/f9vQ44MCn1Y/s640/do+or+do+not+quote.jpg">
</IMG>
Currently there is a slight disadvantage to taking DMG 2 or 3 over just taking more dice and unlike "catastrophic" don't really add any significant "cool factor/fluff" to the weapon.
I think I'm going to stick with the flat costs for now. I get what you're saying -- I'm just coming down on the side of simplicity in this instance.
If you want to carry them, well, we'd have to figure that out. They're 60 and 147 SUs a piece, at TL0 (and let's not talk about what happens when TLs rise in the new system) so we'd probably be looking at maybe 70 and 170 SU each to be held in a hangar, maybe?
I'd probably go 50 and 100. Since these are meant to be "carried" into battle, they are likely smaller than a comparable 1- or 2-hull starship would be.
I do like the idea of Scouts being able to provide some degree of EPM for the benefit of other ships; it lessens the problem of "OK, they have no Escorts, so my Scouts are wasted points."
After some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I come up with this:
If a fleet includes at least one scout for every 500 points (or fraction thereof), all opposing ECM values are reduced by 1, to a minimum of zero.
I think the idea of "gunboats" is a good one. Seems like we have nearly enough for an initial supplement before the actual rulebooks have shipped...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.