CT Only: Combat Report - testing HG2 rules "fixes"

[RockyMountainNavy]

Simple Fix?

Based on my previous example, the simplistic fix may be to have PAs ignore half the armor on the Surface and Radiation Tables. The resulting DM of +7 means any hit is damaging in at least some manner vice the 72% chance of no damage at all. If the same applies to the Spinal Rule then you get 7 extra damage rolls on each table too.

There still is a great disparity between Mesons and PAs in the significance of damage caused...but that supports the Meson is King viewpoint.

 

[Amber Chancer]

I disagree. (I hope I understand this all correctly)

(The following uses the RAW)

The Meson J hits on 4+. DMs are -5 at Long Range and -3 at Short Range. Effectively they have to roll 9+ at Long Range and 7+ at Short Range. Penetration is 9+ for Screens and 6+ for Configuration. If it hits and penetrates it has a DM of 0 on both the Radiation and Interior Explosion Tables. Additionally, because it is a Spinal, it gets 9 Extra rolls on each table for each hit (see HG2 p.41).

The Particle P hits on 1+. DMs are -5 at Long and Short Range meaning they effectively have to roll 6+ to hit. No penetration rolls are required. The roll on the Surface and Radiation Damage Tables with a +15 DM means only rolls of 2-6 score any damage. Because they are a Spinal, they get 1 extra die roll on each damage table (they should get 0, but the rule states they always get 1).

Net result is at Long Range the Meson J has about a 5% chance to hit and penetrate and about 16% chance at Short Range. The Particle P has around a 72% chance to hit. The real difference is in the damage; if a Meson hits the result is literally 20 unmodified damage rolls - assured destruction. The Particle P on the other hand will only get 2 damage rolls on each table with a 72% chance they each result in no damage (and any damage they could inflict will be minimal).

I think you're using a different rule set, Rocky.

I'm using HG2 (LBB5) as my base rule set.

 

[Amber Chancer]

The lacking of missile bays on the Cruisers(M) fleet can be potentially decisive in HG2 RAW.

The meson bay is nearly useless against ships with heavy meson screen, so it should be forfeited for more missiles (both, from the bay itself and from the PP reduction allowed)

The meson bay is not there for its offensive value. It is there for its defensive value - which translates into a derivative offensive value. By giving the ship an extra weapon types, the weapon hits against it have to be shared more widely, which means the main armament keeps a higher factor for longer. Yeah, I admit that this is "playing the rules" ... but tough. That's how I design ships It only draws 100EP and this does not actually allow a PP reduction. It may allow the same ship to be fitted into a slightly smaller hull, but that is all. However, for these purposes I wanted to design ships which used a common tonnage and engineering set-up, so I was comparing as nearly like-with-like and the only variables were the weapon mix.

This can be widely discussed, but IMHO the Cruiser(P) strategy is wrong:

1. They should split their PA fire among the various cruisers, as a single weapon hit on each one greatly reduces the MG ability to overcome the screens, so (again IMHO) it's more useful a single hit on each tan 3 hits on one of them (at least on initial stages, until all the spinals are damaged enough).
2. Having inferiority in missiles, there's no point to keep at long range when the Cruisers(P) gains initiative, as the effectiveness of the spinals is not affected, but missiles are less effective at short range.

See that point 1 would have made more effective the hits achieved, as they would have degraded more spinals instead of destroying missile bays (also quite useful) or other weaponry (useless hits).

Point 2 would probably have avoided some missile hits, and kept the own weaponry more effective.

Also see that more damage was achieved by the Cruiser(M) fleet due to missiles tan to the MG.

Not debatable at all. You're right - the Cruisers (P) did get their strategy wrong. However, since the issue was decided by missiles, not meson guns, the fact that their "optimum" strategy was one which would have degraded the meson attack quicker and the missile attack more slowly is not one which affects the principal conclusion reached.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Third combat report continued.

FOURTH TURN

The Cruiser (P) fleet put both X-ray and Yankee in reserve to attempt repairs. Unless their computers could be returned to factor-9 it was considered that they would be too vulnerable to stand in the line.

The Cruiser (M) fleet kept the crippled Africa in reserve, but left their other three ships in the line despite the substantial damage to some of them.

Initiative: Cruisers (M)

Finally gaining the initiative, the Cruisers (M) closed to short range. Their meson guns had suffered too much degradation by this stage, however, and it was too little, too late.

The Brazil was hit by a laser and a nuclear missile, which did not damage.

The China was hit by a Factor-N Particle Accelerator. It lost 866 tons of fuel, suffered 7 weapon hits, and its Manoeuvre Drive was disabled.

The Delhi was hit by a Factor-N Particle Accelerator and was vaporized.

The Whisky was hit by a Factor B meson gun and 3 nuclear missiles. It lost 148 tons of fuel and suffered 2 power plant hits and 1 weapon hit.

The X-Ray failed to repair its computer, jump drive and meson screen; but it succeeded in repairing its repulsor.

The Yankee failed to repair either its jump drive or its computer.


FIFTH TURN

The Cruiser (M) fleet was by now in a pretty desperate state. It put the crippled Africa and China in the line, and the Brazil in reserve, in an attempt to save some of its fleet assets. The intention was to attempt to break off, by acceleration in the case of the Brazil (which had lost its jump drive but still had 5G of acceleration, and would be able to guarantee breaking off from the reserve, provided the range was opened out to Long) and by jumping in the case of the China (which had lost its manoeuvre drive, and so had oodles of energy output to spare: it could fight all its weapons and still summon up energy for its maximum jump in a single turn; however, with Agility 0 it was something of a sitting duck). The Africa, with no jump drive and no manoeuvre drive left, was doomed in any event. It was put into the line to divide the enemy fire. Once the other two ships had escaped it would, inevitably, surrender.

Initiative: Cruiser (P). Long Range. The commander of the Cruiser (P) fleet was slow in recognizing the preparations for a break-off attempt, and in opening the range out again to protect his ships from further meson damage, he allowed the Brazil to get away.

The Zulu was hit by 3 nuclear missiles, and lost 148 tons of fuel.

The Africa was hit by a factor-N Particle Accelerator. It lost 148 tons of fuel, took two M-drive hits and 8 weapon hits, and its bridge was destroyed.

The China took a hit from a Factor-N Particle Accelerator. It lost 443 tons of fuel and suffered 7 weapon hits, and its jump drive was disabled.

The Brazil successfully broke off by acceleration. Without a jump drive, however, it could not leave the system.

The destruction of the China's jump drive meant that its attempt to escape by acceleration was unsuccessful.


SIXTH TURN

Depending upon the ethos of the culture to which the Africa and China belonged, they would not either continue fighting and be cut to pieces, or surrender because their ability to do any serious harm to their opponents was now effectively nil.



CONCLUSIONS

These "fixes" certainly appear to fix the spinal Particle Accelerator problem. They have now become viable weapons, and a big Particle Accelerator is a better weapon to ship than a small meson gun (emphatically NOT the case in HG2 as written ...)

They have also fixed the problems of (a) so-called secondary armament being the principal weapons to decide the issues, and (b) overly-long, tediously dull engagements where heavily armoured fleets encounter one another, and there are not the heavy meson weapons required to damage these overly tough nuts. An issue between two squadrons of four cruisers apiece being determined in 6 turns of combat feels "about right" to me.


The issue of the balance between Meson and Particle Accelerator weaponry is still to be tested, as is the question of the big ship / small ship balance.

With these in mind, the fourth playtest will put the Cruisers (P) against some up-gunned Cruisers (M), with factor-N meson guns (nice ) - in order to see whether the fix has tipped the balance too far in favour of the Particle Accelerator.

Thereafter, it will be necessary to see what happens in clashes between cruisers and dreadnoughts; and between dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. Once these encounters are behaving themselves properly, it will be time to see whether the fixes also cure the evils of Hamster Wars.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Based on my previous example, the simplistic fix may be to have PAs ignore half the armor on the Surface and Radiation Tables. The resulting DM of +7 means any hit is damaging in at least some manner vice the 72% chance of no damage at all. If the same applies to the Spinal Rule then you get 7 extra damage rolls on each table too.

That is, effectively, the fix I was playing. But I was applying it to "spinals" rather than PAs; and it also applied for the effectiveness of armour in reducing the number of damage rolls a spinal weapon gets (so the maximum reduction achievable with armour-15 is 8, which meant that the factor-P particle accelerator was still getting 7 rolls on the damage tables even against ships carrying this much armour; whilst my fix to the rules for effectiveness of armour in reducing critical hits caused by oversize weapons - namely, that the oversize weapon must always get at least one critical - also gave them one critical every time they hit. It was these that really chewed up the Cruisers (M)).

 

[mike wightman]

May I submit this concept:

300kt meson BB

T meson, jump 3, m-6, agility 6, armour 15, damper 9, meson screen 9, pp 8

220 factor 9 repulsor bays, fill the rest of the USP with the usual batteries

or

300kt PAWS BB

T PA, jump 3, m-6, agility 6, armour 15, damper 9, meson screen 9, pp 8

220 factor 9 repulsor bays, fill the rest of the USP with the usual batteries

 

[Amber Chancer]

They look pretty good, Mike.

 

[McPerth]

(The following uses the RAW)

The Meson J hits on 4+. DMs are -5 at Long Range and -3 at Short Range. Effectively they have to roll 9+ at Long Range and 7+ at Short Range. Penetration is 9+ for Screens and 6+ for Configuration. If it hits and penetrates it has a DM of 0 on both the Radiation and Interior Explosion Tables. Additionally, because it is a Spinal, it gets 9 Extra rolls on each table for each hit (see HG2 p.41).

Just one question here:

I see you apply a +2 to hit for the mesons at short range. While IITR having read this somewhere, when reviewing my copy of HG2 (from the FFE The Classic Books) Icannot find this modifier. Where is it shown?

Of course, if this modifier is in play, point 2 in claiming Cruisers(P) used wrong strategy in my previous post (claiming cruisers(P) should have closed range to difficult missile fire) is doubious at best...

The meson bay is not there for its offensive value. It is there for its defensive value - which translates into a derivative offensive value. By giving the ship an extra weapon types, the weapon hits against it have to be shared more widely, which means the main armament keeps a higher factor for longer. Yeah, I admit that this is "playing the rules" ... but tough. That's how I design ships It only draws 100EP and this does not actually allow a PP reduction. It may allow the same ship to be fitted into a slightly smaller hull, but that is all. However, for these purposes I wanted to design ships which used a common tonnage and engineering set-up, so I was comparing as nearly like-with-like and the only variables were the weapon mix.

See that by this same reason your Cruisers(M) should have a PA bay on them, and they don't...

Also, their 5 FG turrets give you a 7 rated battery (so sustaining 7 weapons hits), while having them as single turrets organized in 5 batteries with single weapons (factor 5) would sustain 9 weapon hits (at the cost of needing 4 gunners more. I have not run the numbers, but I guess they can afford that).

Not debatable at all. You're right - the Cruisers (P) did get their strategy wrong. However, since the issue was decided by missiles, not meson guns, the fact that their "optimum" strategy was one which would have degraded the meson attack quicker and the missile attack more slowly is not one which affects the principal conclusion reached.

As you said, the battle was decided by missiles, something you denied in another post (IIRC). And that would be another reason to having mounted more missile bays in your Cruisers(P), even if that meant reducing their PAs.

 

[Vladika]

Just one question here:

I see you apply a +2 to hit for the mesons at short range. While IITR having read this somewhere, when reviewing my copy of HG2 (from the FFE The Classic Books) Icannot find this modifier. Where is it shown?

DMs Allowed To Hit:
+ relative computer size.
- target agility rating.
+ target size modifier.
Meson Gun:+2 at short range.

HG2 p47

 

[McPerth]

DMs Allowed To Hit:
+ relative computer size.
- target agility rating.
+ target size modifier.
Meson Gun:+2 at short range.

HG2 p47

TY, I was shure I've seen it somewhere, but only checked page 45 modifiers, not realizing they were only for missiles/beams to hit.

Then point 2 in my criticism about Cruisers(P) strategy is quite dugious, as it raises the MG to hit rolls (raising the crippling hit probablility from about 4.5% to about 11.7%), while the lowering of the missile fire damage probability is quite more difficult to calculate, as some hits will be avoided by sand and repulsors, while their hits are less crippling on the short run (not so on the long run).

See this will change as MG are being degradated by the PA hits (and so their ability to overcome the Meson Screens) and missiles take more importance.

 

[Amber Chancer]

See that by this same reason your Cruisers(M) should have a PA bay on them, and they don't...

You are right: and if there had been energy points and tonnage available to give them the a Particle Accelerator Bay, I would have done. But there weren't. They are very tight ships.

Also, their 5 FG turrets give you a 7 rated battery (so sustaining 7 weapons hits), while having them as single turrets organized in 5 batteries with single weapons (factor 5) would sustain 9 weapon hits (at the cost of needing 4 gunners more. I have not run the numbers, but I guess they can afford that).

This is true ... but I am not entirely consistent in how I do these things. By the time the Fusion Gun has been wiped out, the main armament has come down a long way, too, and is nearing the limit of its combat usefulness in any event.

 

[McPerth]

You are right: and if there had been energy points and tonnage available to give them the a Particle Accelerator Bay, I would have done. But there weren't. They are very tight ships.

This is true ... but I am not entirely consistent in how I do these things. By the time the Fusion Gun has been wiped out, the main armament has come down a long way, too, and is nearing the limit of its combat usefulness in any event.

See that reducing your FG to 5 as I suggested would have also given you 10 spare EPs. Not sure if they would have been onough for a PA bay, but if not you could also have reduced them to single wepon (and single turret), freeing 8 more at just the cost of 2 weapon hits against your own design (factor 5 turret against factor 7). After all, you yourself said it would not matter much how many hits will they be able to sustain once your main weaponry is damaged...

And if you intend your design to be also useful against other fleet compositions, those extra FG batteries could be useful against light fighters (as long as those fighters are not equiped with similar computers, as you could not hit them otherwise, nor too heavily armored, that's why I specified light fighters) that could otherwise swarm your cruiser.

They could als obe useful for ground support if this mision is also intended.

That's one of the problems of those single mision/intent fletes thought for a single contest engagement...

 

[Amber Chancer]

OK ... it's time for the next round of play tests.

I've designed a new 36KT Cruiser (M) as follows:

Hull: 36,000 tons. Needle/Wedge. Fuel scoops & purification plant.
Jump-3; 6G; Power-plant B; 3,960 EP; Agility 6
Model /9 fib computer
Spinal meson gun (factor-N); seven 50-ton missile bays (6 bearing); 7 triple beam laser turrets organized as 1 battery; 1 single fusion gun turret organized as 1 battery
Armoured hull (factor-E); Meson Screen (factor-9); Nuclear Damper (factor-9); five 50-ton repulsor bays; 60 triple sandcaster turrets organized as 6 batteries (5 bearing)
Crew: 41 officers, 261 ratings
Cost: MCr 35,600.22 singly; MCr 28,480.176 in quantity


I shall pitch a squadron of four of these beauties (the Prince, the Queen, the Regent and the Sultan) against my squadron of four Cruisers (P) - the old Whisky, X-Ray, Yankee and Zulu.

I shall fight this encounter first with classic HG2 rules, unamended.

I shall then re-fight it, using the "fixes" previously evolved, vis:-

1. Armour only counts at half factor (round halves up) for the purposes of reducing the number of hits scored by a spinal particle accelerator, and as a DM to the damage rolls for a spinal particle accelerator

2. Disregard the table for Meson guns to penetrate meson screens. Instead, Meson screens act as "armour-against-meson-attack" in exactly the same way that armour acts against all other kinds of attack (including the factor being halved when the attacking weapon is a spinal weapon)

3. Whilst the number of critical hits scored by a weapon with a larger factor than the target ship's size code can be reduced by armour (or, in the case of meson weapons, by meson screens) it can never be reduced to less than 1.


Combat reports to follow once I have fought the two engagements.

 

[Amber Chancer]

See that reducing your FG to 5 as I suggested would have also given you 10 spare EPs. Not sure if they would have been onough for a PA bay, but if not you could also have reduced them to single wepon (and single turret), freeing 8 more at just the cost of 2 weapon hits against your own design (factor 5 turret against factor 7). After all, you yourself said it would not matter much how many hits will they be able to sustain once your main weaponry is damaged...

And if you intend your design to be also useful against other fleet compositions, those extra FG batteries could be useful against light fighters (as long as those fighters are not equiped with similar computers, as you could not hit them otherwise, nor too heavily armored, that's why I specified light fighters) that could otherwise swarm your cruiser.

They could als obe useful for ground support if this mision is also intended.

That's one of the problems of those single mision/intent fleets thought for a single contest engagement...

McP -

These designs may not be ones I would normally use - they have been produced solely for the purposes of testing rule variations in near-laboratory conditions.

These ships do not need to fear mugging by fighters. With their Factor-E armour the only non-spinals that can harm them are nuclear missiles; and their Factor-9 nuclear dampers cannot be penetrated by anything less than a factor-7 salvo with factor-9 computing power behind it (or factor-8 with factor-8 computing power; or factor-9 with factor-7 computing power).

 

[McPerth]

McP -

These designs may not be ones I would normally use - they have been produced solely for the purposes of testing rule variations in near-laboratory conditions.

These ships do not need to fear mugging by fighters. With their Factor-E armour the only non-spinals that can harm them are nuclear missiles; and their Factor-9 nuclear dampers cannot be penetrated by anything less than a factor-7 salvo with factor-9 computing power behind it (or factor-8 with factor-8 computing power; or factor-9 with factor-7 computing power).

And they are quite useful for that (yet the disparity in missiles could well unbalance your near-laboratory conditions). It's probably my fault that I always doubt how much can laboratory conditions tell us what would happen in real world...

 

[Amber Chancer]

First play test completed, fighting it out with conventional HG2 rules. The outcome is, of course, entirely predictable - but it was quite a fun little battle for all that, so here's a full report.

FIRST TURN

All 8 ships in the line. Initiative: Cruisers (M). Long range.

Prince was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator which did no damage.

Queen was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator which caused 1 weapon hit to its Meson Gun

Regent was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator which caused a 2-point degradation of its Meson Gun.

Whisky was hit by two nuclear missiles, causing a loss of 148 tons of fuel.


SSECOND TURN

All 8 ships in the line. Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long Range.

Whisky was hit by a further 2 nuclear missiles, causing a loss of 148 tons of fuel.

Queen was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing one weapon hit which was taken by its missiles.

Regent was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing one weapon hit which was taken by its missiles.

Sultan was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator which caused no damage.


THIRD TURN

All 8 ships in line. Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long Range.

Whisky was hit by two more nuclear missiles, causing 1 weapon hit which was taken by its Particle Accelerator

Prince was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, which caused no damage

Queen was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing 2 weapons hits which were taken by its Repulsors and Lasers

Regent was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing loss of 148 tons of fuel

Sultan was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing 1 weapon hit which was taken by its Meson Gun.


FOURTH TURN

All 8 ships in line. Initiative: Cruisers (M). Short range.

Prince was hit by a factor-N Particle Accelerator, causing a weapon hit which was taken by its Meson Gun.

Queen was hit by a factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing a weapon hit which was taken by its sandcasters.

Sultan was hit by a factor-P Particle Accelerator, causing a weapon hit which was taken by its missiles.

X-Ray was hit by a nuclear missile, causing loss of 148 tons of fuel.


FIFTH TURN

All 8 ships in line. Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long range.

X-Ray was hit by 4 nuclear missiles, causing loss of 148 tons of fuel and 2 weapon hits which were taken on the Particle Accelerator and Repulsor.

Yankee was hit by a factor-L Meson Gun, causing 3 critical hits which destroyed its spinal mount and bridge; its fuel tanks were shattered; its entire crew was killed many times over; its computer suffered 3 hits; its power plant suffered 2 hits; its meson screen was reduced by 6 factors and its nuclear damper by 3 factors; and it took a 4-point hit to its missile bay.

The Cruisers (P) failed to register any hits on the Cruisers (M).


SIXTH TURN

The Cruisers (P) left the shattered Yankee to drift away, and formed their three remaining ships into a line to face up to the four Cruisers (M).

Initiative: Cruisers (M). Short Range.

Prince was hit by a factor-N Particle Accelerator, causing 2 weapon hits which were taken by missiles and repulsors.

X-Ray was hit by a factor-M Meson Gun. It suffered 3 critical hits which knocked out the Meson screen and disabled the Manoeuvre Drive and Power Plant; its fuel tanks were shattered; its computer was reduced to factor-5; its nuclear damper was reduced to factor-3 and its entire crew was killed many times over. It was also hit by 2 nuclear missiles which failed to do any damage.


SEVENTH TURN

The Cruisers (P) left the shattered X-Ray to drift off as well, and formed their remaining two cruisers into a line to face the four Cruisers (M).

Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long range.

Zulu was hit by 2 nuclear missiles, causing two weapon hits which were taken by the Particle Accelerator and the missile bay.

Prince was hit by a factor-N Particle Accelerator, causing the loss of 148 tons of fuel and a 2-point weapon hit which was taken by the lasers.


EIGHTH TURN

The commander of the Cruisers (P) decided it was time to try to save his assets, if he could. He put Zulu in reserve and Whisky in the line. The Cruisers (M) put all of their ships in the line.

Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long Range.

Zulu attempted to break off by acceleration from reserve. Whisky attempted to break off by Jumping, diverting all energy from its offensive weapons to the Jump Drive - providing sufficient power to enable a Jump-1 to be made at the end of the turn, provided the ship survived.

The entire fire power of the four Cruisers (M) was turned on the Whisky, and she was hit by a factor-M Meson gun, a factor-L Meson gun, and 2 nuclear missiles. The Whisky suffered 6 critical hits which knocked out the Jump drive and both screens. Its fuel tanks were shattered, its entire crew was killed many times over, its computer was reduced to factor-1, its power plant took 6 hits and it took a 3-point hit on its missile bay, a 4-point hit on its meson gun bay and a further weapon hit which knocked out a battery of sandcasters.

The Whisky being rendered impotent, the line was broken and the Cruisers (M) were able to fire on the Zulu as well. They failed to score any Meson hits, and only hit it with two nuclear missiles, causing 2 weapon hits which were taken by its lasers and sandcasters.

Having started in reserve, the Zulu made its break-off attempt at an effective agility of 8, and was able to evade pursuit. It was subsequently able to jump to safety.



CONCLUSIONS: this engagement demonstrates why the HG2 spinal weapon rules need rebalancing. Spinal Mount Particle Accelerators are all but impotent compared to Meson Guns. Two squadrons of essentially comparable ships, differing only in choice of spinal mount weapon, did battle with one another - and there was never going to be any way that the Particle Accelerators could do more than tickle their opponents, whereas the Meson weaponry was bale to chew its enemy to pieces.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Second play test completed, using my mods. It was short, sharp and brutal - largely because of some very good die-rolling by the Cruisers (M). They didn't DESERVE all those 9s. The result, though, will not be to many people's taste. It certainly isn't to mine!

Here's what happened.


FIRST TURN

All 8 ships in line. Initiative: Cruisers (P). Long range.

The Whisky was hit by 2 nuclear missiles, causing 1 weapon hit which was taken by the Particle Accelerator.

The X-ray was hit by a factor-N meson gun, causing one critical hit and loss of one armour point but no actual damage (it called for the destruction of the boat deck - but this ship has no boat deck). The Jump drive suffered 2 hits; the Power Plant suffered 2 hits; the computer suffered 2 hits; the crew suffered a hit; both screens suffered 2 hits; and 6 weapon hits were taken (including a 2-poitn hit on the Particle Accelerator)

Yankee was hit by a factor-N Meson gun, causing a critical hit which disabled the jump drive. It also suffered 2 hits to its power plant, 2 hits to its computer, 2 crew hits, a 2 point hit to each of its screens, a 2 point hit to its Particle Accelerator and a 4-point hit to its missile bay.

Regent was hit by a factor-P Particle Accelerator, which caused a critical hit destroying its computer. It also caused a loss of 738 tons of fuel and 8 weapons hits of varying severity, which between them reduced its Meson Gun to factor-G.


SECOND TURN

The Cruisers (P) put the Whisky and Zulu in line, with X-Ray and Yankee in reserve.

The Cruisers M put Prince, Queen and Sultan in the line, with Regent in reserve.

Initiative: Cruisers (M). Long range.

The Regent, with no functioning computer, sought to break off by acceleration.

The X-Ray and Yankee used their emergency agility, and sought to break off by acceleration as both had suffered irreplaceable crew losses.

The Queen was hit by a Factor-P Particle Accelerator which caused a critical hit, decimating the crew. It also caused loss of 295 tons of fuel, a hit to the manoeuvre drive and 9 weapon hits of varying severity.

The Whisky was hit by a factor-N Meson Gun which caused a critical hit disabling its Jump drive. It also suffered 3 computer hits, 4 power plant hits, 2 crew hits and 3 weapon hits of varying severity.

The Zulu was hit by a factor-N Meson Gun, which caused a critical hit disabling the Manoeuvre drive. Its entire crew was killed many times over, its Jump drive suffered 2 hits, its power plant suffered 2 hits, its meson screen was reduced to factor-6 and it suffered 4 severe weapon hits. It was also hit by two nuclear missiles, which caused a further weapon hit.

The Regent succeeded in breaking off by acceleration.

With Whisky and Zulu both disabled, the line was broken and the damaged X-Ray and Yankee were exposed to a further round of fire before they could break off. It wasn't looking good for them ...


I didn't roll these further attacks. These "fixes" aren't helping ... they're making it all too brutal.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Some conclusions, and some further ideas.

1. "Fixing" rules isn't easy!

2. Meson-screens-as-armour isn't working ... you need that "top penetrate" roll which knocks down the potency of the weapon, or the Meson hits come too readily.

3. What is needed is some way to up the potency of the Particle Accelerator main armament, to give them a better chance of degrading the Meson attacks before they start registering significant numbers of hits. It may be that the way to do this is to scrap the rule that reduces the number of rolls a spinal PA gets by the target's armour factor - whilst leaving in place the full armour DM on the damage tables. This will mean that all a big-ass PA can do is fry the enemy's weapon systems ... but it will do it FAST.

4. There is still a need to balance down the amount of damage the Meson weaponry does when it scores a hit - and in particular, to prevent it from killing the entire crew many times over with almost every hit. Perhaps the way to do THIS is to limit the number of hits you can score on any system (including crew) to one hit per turn. Any surplus hits are lost; although if you roll several hits on the same system, you can always choose to have the most severe applied. This ruling will also help to ensure that those BIG ships truly can stand in line longer.

5. I think the "oversize weapons always score at least one critical" ruling is worth persevering with as it does help to redress the balance in favour of the Particle Accelerators a bit.


So ... I feel another play test coming on :file_21:

 

[mike wightman]

I've said all along - you have to keep the penetration roll for the meson screen.

The damage reduction is to bring the number of meson hits into line wirth the number of PA hits.

Reducing radiation hits by nuclear damper rating as well will take away some of the crew hits.

 

[Vladika]

Some conclusions, and some further ideas.

1. "Fixing" rules isn't easy!

:devil:

2. Meson-screens-as-armour isn't working ... you need that "top penetrate" roll which knocks down the potency of the weapon, or the Meson hits come too readily.

Meson Screens as Armor works pretty well IF you also keep the screen penetration rule.

3. What is needed is some way to up the potency of the Particle Accelerator main armament, to give them a better chance of degrading the Meson attacks before they start registering significant numbers of hits. It may be that the way to do this is to scrap the rule that reduces the number of rolls a spinal PA gets by the target's armour factor - whilst leaving in place the full armour DM on the damage tables. This will mean that all a big-ass PA can do is fry the enemy's weapon systems ... but it will do it FAST.

1/2 Armor? Needs more testing, but, one change at a time.

4. There is still a need to balance down the amount of damage the Meson weaponry does when it scores a hit - and in particular, to prevent it from killing the entire crew many times over with almost every hit. Perhaps the way to do THIS is to limit the number of hits you can score on any system (including crew) to one hit per turn. Any surplus hits are lost; although if you roll several hits on the same system, you can always choose to have the most severe applied. This ruling will also help to ensure that those BIG ships truly can stand in line longer.

If Meson Screens act as armor, there will be no Crew hits at Factor 9. You either pay the design price or risk the hits.

5. I think the "oversize weapons always score at least one critical" ruling is worth persevering with as it does help to redress the balance in favour of the Particle Accelerators a bit.

Agreed.