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 → Iron Stars → Babbage Engine?
Looking over the existing 'kit', as Matt likes to call it, and I'm wondering about the Babbage Engine:
Does anyone use it in their own designs? Does it seem to be worth it?
I use them on ships with lots of secondaries, they seem most useful there. They aren't much help on smaller hulls, or ones that use small numbers of primaries (especially forward-only-turret hulls). OTOH, I wouldn't put a gyrostabilizer on anything larger than a medium ship, but they show up on a lot of my small and very small hulls...so "kit" that's not universally handy is okay by me.
Rich
I practically put it on every single battleship/battlecruiser hull I design. Thats why the Danes have Babbage Engines...:D
Generally has been reserved for the larger ships that have the room to spare and may actually need to engage multiple opponents. 
So, does the cost/CR of the thing make sense? Or should it be more expensive?
So, does the cost/CR of the thing make sense? Or should it be more expensive?
I've never had a problem with it Dan. Though in a choice between more guns and the babbage... 
I've never had a problem with it Dan. Though in a choice between more guns and the babbage...
Well, and that's the root of my question. Right now, the Babbage Engine only takes up the same space (roughly) as a single d8/x2 primary gun.
Is that enough for the tradeoff? Ultimately, the CR multiplier is the key for game balance, but I think the space should make sense as well...
I think the space is fine.
You can't fire more guns into your arcs. So if you're firing at two targets in the same arc, you're reducing your firepower against any one hull in exchanging for being able to pop some shots off at 2. Yer degrading your stopping power.
Which can be good (against destroyers) or bad (against legitimate capital ships).
Second, you gotta look at how many situations in which you're going to have viable targets for your primary (or secondary) guns in two arcs at the same time.
Last, you gotta have the right weapons load to make it wortwhile anyway. IE -- a ton of secondaries. So it's not going to be a blessing for every design.
Go0gleplex wrote:I've never had a problem with it Dan. Though in a choice between more guns and the babbage...
Well, and that's the root of my question. Right now, the Babbage Engine only takes up the same space (roughly) as a single d8/x2 primary gun.
Is that enough for the tradeoff? Ultimately, the CR multiplier is the key for game balance, but I think the space should make sense as well...
Well...this is just how I look at it...the B.E. takes up more valueable space than what I feel it's worth. So maybe a bit smaller for a bit more cost...I dunno. It's hard to kiss off that d8/x2 when it means you don't have enough artillery to effectively use the engine. This of course leads back to what the tactical intent is for the ship design. (sorry...long day already and almost no sleep. kid has us really worried after the doc's visit this morning...don't mean to be preachy)
It's hard to kiss off that d8/x2 when it means you don't have enough artillery to effectively use the engine. This of course leads back to what the tactical intent is for the ship design
Losing a single gun shouldn't be an issue. The design should be built around the idea that it's going to employ a babbage engine, at which point it's going to have a TON of guns. Again, I think it's fine. But it's hard to put a hard number value to tactics.
I've used it on ships that have a lot of primaries. IE -- De Monarchia has 9 primary guns. And I've used it on ships with a dozen secondaries.
My input is to leave it alone.
mj12games.com/forum → Iron Stars → Babbage Engine?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.