Effect-based starship weapons

[robject]

While the T5 description of PAs mention both physical and radiation damage, is there a specific way under T5 that both of these damage types are reflected and/or inflicted upon a target, or are they both just abstracted together under the standard damage for a barbette-sized weapon?

Currently not, but there are at least four arguments for damage differentiation by effect:

• T5 has a strong precedent for effect-based damage (GunMaker and Personal Combat).
• Starships have damage-specific protection ratings (just like personal armor).
• Relatively undifferentiated starship weapons require some variation.
• The hybrid L-M-S triple turret, grandfathered in from CT, also benefits from damage variation.

A fifth, perhaps decisive point, is that two classes of weapon do indeed have a differentiated damage type. One is Disintegrators: they boil away armor. The other is Missiles, which vary in the type of damage delivered and what its effects are. PROBABLY a look at how T5 details missile warheads is the place to start for detailing beam weapons.


We already know that lasers are different from particle accelerators and plasma/fusion weapons. T5 uses two weapon ranges; thus, damage effect would seem to offer the best chance for differentiation.

Some obvious effects would be

• Raw penetration power
• Radiation attacks
• "Heat" perhaps (?)
• Antimatter attacks

But there are other cases to consider as well:

• The Pulse Laser. In CT it has special effects: a bonus to damage, and a penalty to hit. In T5, its effects are not currently specified.
• The Hybrid L-M-S triple turret. Is each weapon treated like a single turret? Do they have penalties? No information.

 

[whulorigan]

We already know that lasers are different from particle accelerators and plasma/fusion weapons. T5 uses two weapon ranges; thus, damage effect would seem to offer the best chance for differentiation.

Some obvious effects would be

• Raw penetration power
• Radiation attacks
• "Heat" perhaps (?)
• Antimatter attacks

For Plasma/Fusion weapons, one might reasonable argue that damage might be increased/decreased according to distance relative to its standard range band (i.e. closer+increased/farther=decreased) as plasma will initially be compressed and hot, but expand and cool as it moves along its trajectory.

PAs should do additional damage above and beyond the physical hit in terms of radiation damage, but this rad-damage should be special damage assessed to crew and/or sensitive computers or electronics (and resisted by those armor layers designated as anti-radiation and/or other "hardening" options, such as /fib or /phot computers).

Antimatter attacks might be thought of as doing damage like the disruptor/disintegrator (i.e. "boiling away" armor, although much faster), but also doing a radiation hit as above at the same time.

But there are other cases to consider as well:

• The Pulse Laser. In CT it has special effects: a bonus to damage, and a penalty to hit. In T5, its effects are not currently specified.

Perhaps a pulse laser might do an additional damage DM of +1 per die of damage? And Mining Lasers DM +2 per die? But then what do we do to make Beam Lasers a meaningful choice of weapon system? Since Mining Lasers are TL8 Standard, Pulse Lasers are TL9 Standard and Beam Lasers are TL10 Standard, Mining & Pulse Lasers already have the advantage that they can be improved via stage-effects when Beam Lasers are first introduced (so they already have a range advantage over Beam Lasers).

In the case on Mining Lasers one can argue that their standard range should be more severely curtailed (as they are not meant for combat in the first place), but how do we make Beam Lasers stand out as an alternative to Pulse Lasers?

• The Hybrid L-M-S triple turret. Is each weapon treated like a single turret? Do they have penalties? No information.

It seems to me that the rules infer that the increased damage based on weapon mount is loosely related to the number of weapons installed in the mount. (At least for Turrets & Barbettes anyway - otherwise why call the turrets single/double/triple/quad in the first place - just give them size identifiers?) If this is the case, then the Laser in an L-M-S Hybrid ought to do 1D, and the sand should be treated as a "single mount" as well. Otherwise, why would anyone contemplating a laser or sandcaster turret ever go with anything other than an L-M-S? If the single Laser in an L-M-S does 3D because it is a triple-turret mount, and a triple-Laser turret does 3D because it is a triple-turret mount, simple versatility of the weapons system makes the choice of an L-M-S over a triple-Laser or triple-sandcaster a no-brainer.

 

[pendragonman]

Perhaps a pulse laser might do an additional damage DM of +1 per die of damage? And Mining Lasers DM +2 per die? But then what do we do to make Beam Lasers a meaningful choice of weapon system? Since Mining Lasers are TL8 Standard, Pulse Lasers are TL9 Standard and Beam Lasers are TL10 Standard, Mining & Pulse Lasers already have the advantage that they can be improved via stage-effects when Beam Lasers are first introduced (so they already have a range advantage over Beam Lasers).

In the case on Mining Lasers one can argue that their standard range should be more severely curtailed (as they are not meant for combat in the first place), but how do we make Beam Lasers stand out as an alternative to Pulse Lasers?

(acting like anyone wants my opinion...) Here's my thoughts,

Make Mining Lasers have a max range of S-3, Pulse Lasers max range of S-5, and Beam Lasers S-7.

Let's not worry about the type of laser for damage. Let them all have the same base damage. Instead, let there be additional damage per stage effect added. Since Mining Lasers come first TL wise, and Beams last, each type of laser would then be eligible for stage effects bonuses when the next type of laser comes around. This would give the owner the option of a longer ranged weapon of the same damage, or an upgrade on their older weapon so that the damage is ramped up, but the weapon still has its same old range.

So If we are looking at TL 12, Pulse lasers would still be shorter ranged than Beams, but do more damage.

 

[whulorigan]

Make Mining Lasers have a max range of S-3, Pulse Lasers max range of S-5, and Beam Lasers S-7.

Let's not worry about the type of laser for damage. Let them all have the same base damage. Instead, let there be additional damage per stage effect added. Since Mining Lasers come first TL wise, and Beams last, each type of laser would then be eligible for stage effects bonuses when the next type of laser comes around. This would give the owner the option of a longer ranged weapon of the same damage, or an upgrade on their older weapon so that the damage is ramped up, but the weapon still has its same old range.

So If we are looking at TL 12, Pulse lasers would still be shorter ranged than Beams, but do more damage.

In consideration of the ongoing discussion on the L-M-S thread, what about:

Mining Lasers - Standard range R=5 (S=0 [Boarding Range])
Pulse Lasers - Standard range R=7 (S=2 [Fighter Range])
Beam Lasers - Standard range R=9 (S=4 [Short Range])
​

And (similar to what you suggested above) let TL stage-effects be split between adjusting for both increased damage and increased range. Place the upper limit on range by the maximum amount of stage-effect increase that can be performed on the weapon-system (e.g. maximum range increase of +3 bands, or something similar).

What do you think would be a good value for increased damage per stage-effect?

 

[robject]

Just a notational comment. If ranges are allowed to vary per weapon, then range would be included in each weapon's description.

There's a good and bad side to that. The bad side is that every weapon then has its own range. The reason that's not SO bad is that they ALREADY have range in their notation, and they ALREADY vary in range based on... RANGE effects.

There is potential here, and I am willing to ignore my misgivings to follow this route further.

 

[whulorigan]

Just a notational comment. If ranges are allowed to vary per weapon, then range would be included in each weapon's description.

There's a good and bad side to that. The bad side is that every weapon then has its own range. The reason that's not SO bad is that they ALREADY have range in their notation, and they ALREADY vary in range based on... RANGE effects.

There is potential here, and I am willing to ignore my misgivings to follow this route further.

For the particular examples cited above, the base-range variability can perhaps be justified based on the fact that they are all variations of a single type of weapon system - "lasers".

My question would be this: All weapons currently have a default base standard range of "7" (whether R=7 or S=7). Is there a particular game-mechanical reason for this (noting that "7" is the median/mean value of the 2D6 distribution curve)? Would assigning a different "base" standard range to a particular weapon mess with anything in the game mechanics that I am not thinking of?

 

[robject]

First, the base range is base Maximum Range. So a Vdistant Laser Turret has a maximum range of Vdistant.

Task difficulty is distance in range bands, in dice. So if that laser is shooting at something at Distant (R=6) range, then that's a 6D task. That's very difficult to do. But if some fighter swoops in very close range, lasers can easily pepper it with holes. (Also, I believe some offensive weapons cannot attack very close objects. I am fuzzy on which, but lasers are not one of them).

Defense rolls are done differently, since range becomes less important.

Some implications behind base range set are important to know. And you and others probably already know it: Space Ranged weapons are the stand-off offensive weapons. World Ranged weapons are for knife fighting and point defense.

Also note that the task rolls are based on the range type of the weapon. In other words, that range band number IS the number of dice rolled. You don't convert every weapon to Space Range band and then roll dice. (I wonder if perhaps most of the Space-Ranged weapons cannot attack under a certain range).

 

[robject]

I am starting to believe there is a game intention behind splitting weapons up into close-ranged and long-ranged; namely, there are two overarching combat tactics.

(1) Soften up your opponent at long range with salvos of missiles and far-reaching particle accelerators.

(2) Close for the kill with precision, close-ranged "knife fighting" weapons. Or, for the more "herbivorous" traders, fight tooth and nail when your corsair/slaver opponent must close range.

Both cases argue for a spread of damage types. Long-ranged weapons are the PA, Meson Gun, and missiles in their various forms, and TL ranges from 7 for the cheapest missiles to TL 22 for antimatter missiles. But in addition to the lasers, there is a rich weapon variety spanning a slightly wider base TL range (7 to 24) for close-ranged battle, including DataCaster, Jump Damper, Jump Inducer, Tractor/Pressor, Disruptor, Ortillery, and Stasis Gun.

 

[whulorigan]

I am starting to believe there is a game intention behind splitting weapons up into close-ranged and long-ranged; namely, there are two overarching combat tactics.

(1) Soften up your opponent at long range with salvos of missiles and far-reaching particle accelerators.

(2) Close for the kill with precision, close-ranged "knife fighting" weapons. Or, for the more "herbivorous" traders, fight tooth and nail when your corsair/slaver opponent must close range.

Both cases argue for a spread of damage types. Long-ranged weapons are the PA, Meson Gun, and missiles in their various forms, and TL ranges from 7 for the cheapest missiles to TL 22 for antimatter missiles. But in addition to the lasers, there is a rich weapon variety spanning a slightly wider base TL range (7 to 24) for close-ranged battle, including DataCaster, Jump Damper, Jump Inducer, Tractor/Pressor, Disruptor, Ortillery, and Stasis Gun.

An excellent observation. But note that the Stasis Projector and Disintegrator/Disruptor are also long-ranged weapon types, not close-ranged.

 

[robject]

An excellent observation. But note that the Stasis Projector and Disintegrator/Disruptor are also long-ranged weapon types, not close-ranged.

Ah, then I've got errata of my own to attend to.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Defensive v. Offensive.

Rob, regarding the earlier comment about offensive weapons that are probably not good at defense, there are 1.5.

Spines and non-bearing bays.

Turrets and Barrbettes (which are just oversized turrets) can be used defensively and honestly depending on the range of the incoming attack even a Spine or Bay may be able to be brought to bear.

It is more about time than emplacement. If I have time I can get an emplacement bearing, if time is short I make do with what can swing that way.

And you do realize that only people trying to justify piracy really care about this knife fighting crap, right?

As a merchant I am blowing up the corsair and skipping system. As a military ship I am going to blow up all targets, skip getting close, I blast them at range. Why bother putting my mighty cruiser in beam range when I can do the job from spine and missile range?

And never once have I had players ever opt for close in fights. They all just blasted the enemy to pieces and moved on with their day. Now, my guys are some Timmiis, but still that does mean they are looking at the angles and none of them thought letting the bad guys close with them was a good idea. At least not to beam range, missile yes, but never that close that lasers were used against their ship.

I just don't get this fixation for boarding actions. Why would you do that when it is way easier to just EVA a wreck later on? Seems a bit too much like danger and work to me. Even as pirate especially as a pirate. But then I may not be all that good at piracy what with the not being a scummy thief and all.

As much as I hate to say, space combat is the realm of spines and missiles, and everything else is just cute variations on point defense.

 

[aramis]

Note that, except for missiles, Bay Mounts are merely oversized barbettes. See the plans for the AHL if you don't believe me.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I believe you...now where is my AHL file?

Note that, except for missiles, Bay Mounts are merely oversized barbettes. See the plans for the AHL if you don't believe me.

I grew up on anime and Ageis missile cruiser with VLAs so to me a Bay was always a static emplacement that for beams required you to have bearing or manuever the ship till you did. Missiles on the other hand (self propelled, kinetic still works on the abay bearing) can be shot from any angle and will clear the ship before orienting and engaging the target.

Th idea that they might move means that Bays are less VLAs and more 16" Batteries. Hmmm.

I must think on this..*zips back into bomb bay*

 

[kilemall]

Note that, except for missiles, Bay Mounts are merely oversized barbettes. See the plans for the AHL if you don't believe me.

Relevant imagery I believe, the deck plan with a clear superturret on top of the weapon system and the gunner stations.

This pic is a bit better making the Big Turrets clear-

One thing that always bothered me about that design- that bridge screams PLEASE KILL ME FIRST.

Very Red Baron/Caesar with the cape, very very dead.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Oh my it's so big! ;p

Wow, and all this time I thought those were the Barrbettes.

Oh my, those are indeed much more like a 16" battery. Drat.

Well, I may just keep my anime bays, I dig them. And for sure Missile Bays are VLAs.

Dang.

Oh, and thanks kilemall. Very helpful.

 

[aramis]

Relevant imagery I believe, the deck plan with a clear superturret on top of the weapon system and the gunner stations.

This pic is a bit better making the Big Turrets clear-

One thing that always bothered me about that design- that bridge screams PLEASE KILL ME FIRST.

Very Red Baron/Caesar with the cape, very very dead.

That's the "Flying Bridge" - it's not even manned at battlestations; there's a much better protected one elsewhere.

 

[lostscout5]

Relevant imagery I believe, the deck plan with a clear superturret on top of the weapon system and the gunner stations.

This pic is a bit better making the Big Turrets clear-

One thing that always bothered me about that design- that bridge screams PLEASE KILL ME FIRST.

Very Red Baron/Caesar with the cape, very very dead.

I think later AHLs removed the flying bridge. For get what they replaced it with.

 

[Condottiere]