Black Globes

[far-trader]

OK, I see where the T20 authors probably got the damage multiplier for weapons idea (pg. 157). CT HG had a x20 for meson weapons (and other multipliers) but that was all based on USP and EP, NOT damage points.

T20 has EP absorbtion based on the number of points of actual damage done, multiplied by the weapon efficiency.

The problem I'm having is a simple conservation of energy. For example with 60EP input a TL12 100T Particle Accelerator Bay (USP 8) attacking a full on (100%) Black Globe at basic range of 60,000km will do 8d12 basic damage plus 8d10 radiation damage. IF the full damage is rolled (ignoring crits) that's 176 points of damage. In T20 the black globe absorbs that as 176EP, multiplied by 5, for a total of 880EP! From a measley 60EP input?! Even the minimum possible damage of 16 points x5 is 80EP, 20EP more than was put in. Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong???

Would it not be better (in so many ways) to use just the USP? In the above example the Black Globe would absorb 8 x5 points for a total of 40EP for the input of 60EP at the basic range. That makes more sense does it not?

The other option I guess would be to apply the implied (from other numbers I've crunched) rate of fire of 20 shots per turn for starship scale energy weapons. Then the input energy is actually 1,200EP (60EP per minute or shot) which compares favorably with the maximum absorbed of 880EP.

Opinions?

 

[far-trader]

Hmm, nope. Checking the other energy weapons neither of the above quite work either. One fix works for some and not others and likewise for the other fix.

I'm stumped. Or just stupid. Part of the problem is that TL increases add to the USP without requiring more EP input. Another part of the problem is the different damage dice for the weapon types.

 

[mike wightman]

Why not just ignore it as broken and keep using the High Guard system instead

 

[Malenfant]

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why not just say that the energy gained by the black globe = the energy put into the weapon firing into it?

 

[far-trader]

No problem Mal, sometimes it is the obvious that eludes me. In this case that was what I started with, then I thought I'd just double check to see how T20 handled it. Mistake

I do like the energy drop off that T20 applies as a USP-1 per range band after base range, that's a keeper I think.

Sigg, that's my thinking at the moment. It's the easiest and least broken

The HG method of USP x base energy works well for bay weapons, getting between 60% and 90% of the energy input hitting the screen.

For turret weapons it's over 100% in some cases. Not including the TL bonus to USP for the calculation helps a little.

For spinals in HG it's 100% but if I just use the USP x20 for Mesons and USP x5 for PAWS it seems low, as low as 10% and about 45% at the highest.

For the moment I'm thinking 100% of the energy transferred at the base range and 10% less for each range band beyond that. More work but closer to reality. It should probably be less linear but this is easy.

Another thought I'm having is just working out an EP base for each weapon type that will work just the USP across the board, probably with a divisor for turret weapons and a multiplier for spinals, with bays being the default.

I'll play with the numbers a little more tonight and see what I can come up with. I'd like to keep it as close as possible to what is already printed, where it makes sense, or I can make sense of it

Thanks for the input.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I do like the energy drop off that T20 applies as a USP-1 per range band after base range, that's a keeper I think.

Is that necessarily the case though?

In space, surely the only way an energy weapon is going to lose energy is either through (a) absorption of the beam by intervening material or (b) spreading out of the beam so that the energy is spread over a wider area. Presumably beams can't spread out THAT much otherwise they wouldn't be effective in combat. And there usually isn't that much stuff to absorb energy weapons in space.

Fusion/Plasma guns might dissipate after a while though, depends how they work. So they could have an energy drop with range.

Missiles and projectiles won't lose energy since they don't "dissipate" in any way. If you fling a projectile out of a cannon at 100 m/s, it'll still be travelling at 100 m/s even after going 100,000 km in space (unless it hits something, of course).

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
The HG method of USP x base energy works well for bay weapons, getting between 60% and 90% of the energy input hitting the screen.

Careful Dan, a bay weapon in HG uses the base EP of a turret weapon x factor for BG absorption.
The example in HG is of a factor 8 PA bay inflicting 40 EP's on a BG

Hang on, the implication is, therefore, that a turret mounted meson gun should require 20 EP's... hmmm

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I do like the energy drop off that T20 applies as a USP-1 per range band after base range, that's a keeper I think.

Is that necessarily the case though?

In space, surely the only way an energy weapon is going to lose energy is either through (a) absorption of the beam by intervening material or (b) spreading out of the beam so that the energy is spread over a wider area. Presumably beams can't spread out THAT much otherwise they wouldn't be effective in combat. And there usually isn't that much stuff to absorb energy weapons in space.

Fusion/Plasma guns might dissipate after a while though, depends how they work. So they could have an energy drop with range.

Missiles and projectiles won't lose energy since they don't "dissipate" in any way. If you fling a projectile out of a cannon at 100 m/s, it'll still be travelling at 100 m/s even after going 100,000 km in space (unless it hits something, of course). </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm, good point. I had figured some beam dispersion was the reason, but as you point out that won't apply to missiles. Must ponder more.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
The HG method of USP x base energy works well for bay weapons, getting between 60% and 90% of the energy input hitting the screen.

Careful Dan, a bay weapon in HG uses the base EP of a turret weapon x factor for BG absorption.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, that's what I based the percentages on.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The example in HG is of a factor 8 PA bay inflicting 40 EP's on a BG

Yep, for 60EP input, so it's about 67% efficient, a number I can live with. And two turret PA batteries of USP 4 inflicts the same 40EP on the BG for the same input of 60EP. That also works.

However, a single turret mounted Fusion Gun at TL14+ has a USP of 5 for 2EP input, impacting the BG with 10EP, a 500% increase in energy

I don't get it?

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hang on, the implication is, therefore, that a turret mounted meson gun should require 20 EP's... hmmm

Yeah, my mind was drifting that way too

Hmm, didn't MT have Meson turrets? Books not handy but I can check later.

 

[mike wightman]

I see what you mean, confusing isn't it? A TL13 beam laser uses 1 EP but causes a BG to absorb 2 EP's

As to the meson turrets, no MT doesn't have them. Even though they are a logical progression (and you can have disintegrator turrets at high TL).

They have made it into Traveller canon though via the GT:Starships book, and I suggested them a while ago on a thread somewhere... I may have to go back and adjust the EP of them.