High Guard 3
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Sandcasters can be grouped in batteries. Why would you think they couldn't be given existing published examples with batteries of sandcasters? </font>[/QUOTE]Because my brain wasn't working... </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, well then, that's ok.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Sandcasters can be grouped in batteries. Why would you think they couldn't be given existing published examples with batteries of sandcasters? </font>[/QUOTE]Because my brain wasn't working... </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, well then, that's ok.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
I've done this in order to resolve capital ship combat in somehow practical way.
Its just a "scaling up" of the probabilities given by the dice system used....
Saves quite a bit of rolling, rolling, rolling...
Its just a "scaling up" of the probabilities given by the dice system used....
Saves quite a bit of rolling, rolling, rolling...
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
I've done this in order to resolve capital ship combat in somehow practical way.
Its just a "scaling up" of the probabilities given by the dice system used....
Saves quite a bit of rolling, rolling, rolling...
Its just a "scaling up" of the probabilities given by the dice system used....
Saves quite a bit of rolling, rolling, rolling...
JWMcFarlin
SOC-6
"That's an idea worth looking into. Any ideas on how to put it into effect?"
Well, if you're assuming that its a whole slew of smaller weapons firing at a target that can be hit, it isn't a question of whether damage will occur, it a question of how much damage.
It'd take some table-making, but in essence it's a matter of the dice determining what percentage of weapons in the mass-firing hit, and then multiplying that by the number of weapons, and the damage per weapon. And it has to take into account the to hit roll, so that if the to-hit roll is 6 more weapons are likely to hit than if it is 9.
John
Well, if you're assuming that its a whole slew of smaller weapons firing at a target that can be hit, it isn't a question of whether damage will occur, it a question of how much damage.
It'd take some table-making, but in essence it's a matter of the dice determining what percentage of weapons in the mass-firing hit, and then multiplying that by the number of weapons, and the damage per weapon. And it has to take into account the to hit roll, so that if the to-hit roll is 6 more weapons are likely to hit than if it is 9.
John
JWMcFarlin
SOC-6
"That's an idea worth looking into. Any ideas on how to put it into effect?"
Well, if you're assuming that its a whole slew of smaller weapons firing at a target that can be hit, it isn't a question of whether damage will occur, it a question of how much damage.
It'd take some table-making, but in essence it's a matter of the dice determining what percentage of weapons in the mass-firing hit, and then multiplying that by the number of weapons, and the damage per weapon. And it has to take into account the to hit roll, so that if the to-hit roll is 6 more weapons are likely to hit than if it is 9.
John
Well, if you're assuming that its a whole slew of smaller weapons firing at a target that can be hit, it isn't a question of whether damage will occur, it a question of how much damage.
It'd take some table-making, but in essence it's a matter of the dice determining what percentage of weapons in the mass-firing hit, and then multiplying that by the number of weapons, and the damage per weapon. And it has to take into account the to hit roll, so that if the to-hit roll is 6 more weapons are likely to hit than if it is 9.
John
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
That's an idea worth looking into. Any ideas on how to put it into effect? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that’s the problem. There are various possibilities. It depends on how powerful we want to make massed battery fire.
The question becomes, how many batteries firing together jump from USP Factor 9 to A, which seems to be the great divide of USP Factors.
</font>
- 3 Batteries = USP Factor +1</font>
- 6 Batteries = USP Factor +2</font>
- 10 Batteries = USP Factor +3</font>
- 20 Batteries = USP Factor +4</font>
- 30 Batteries = USP Factor +5</font>
- +1 UWP Factor/10 Extra Batteries</font>
Batteries may be assigned into massed groups dynamically turn by turn by the ship's captain. I have the vauge idea of requiring a “Massed Batteries Fire” program to be running on the ship's computer, too (but hadn’t even begun to think about its requirements; it's size would probably be dependent on the USP size of the ship).
Oh, implicit in the above was the understanding that massed batteries only worked for massed groups of maxed-out batteries, a battery of 10 Triple Laser turrets, a battery 10 Dual Fusion Gun turrets, etc.
I suppose it should, logically, apply to any batteries.
Hmmm, if we applied this to ten batteries of 1 Triple Laser turrets, that would be, what, UWP 6 (+1 at TL-13). Hmm, at that point, going with a single battery might be more effective (except that batteries must be pre-organized during ship’s design), and so for small vessels, multiple batteries provide more flexibility, but the massed batteries fire rule could allow them some extra punch, but not all the punch of a real pre-organized battery.
However, if we apply this to three batteries of 1 Triple Laser turret, then we get UWP 4, which is an advantage to smaller ships which often organize each turret as an individual battery.
That was all I’d come up with.
It’s something to think about, and by firing some major battleship’s 30 Triple Laser turret batteries as a single massed shot, well, the time savings would be awesome. The effects of firing at USP Factors greater than 9 is very valuable in HG2 combat, and somehow, I think getting hit by 300 laser cannon’s can't be too insignificant.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
That's an idea worth looking into. Any ideas on how to put it into effect? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that’s the problem. There are various possibilities. It depends on how powerful we want to make massed battery fire.
The question becomes, how many batteries firing together jump from USP Factor 9 to A, which seems to be the great divide of USP Factors.
</font>
- 3 Batteries = USP Factor +1</font>
- 6 Batteries = USP Factor +2</font>
- 10 Batteries = USP Factor +3</font>
- 20 Batteries = USP Factor +4</font>
- 30 Batteries = USP Factor +5</font>
- +1 UWP Factor/10 Extra Batteries</font>
Batteries may be assigned into massed groups dynamically turn by turn by the ship's captain. I have the vauge idea of requiring a “Massed Batteries Fire” program to be running on the ship's computer, too (but hadn’t even begun to think about its requirements; it's size would probably be dependent on the USP size of the ship).
Oh, implicit in the above was the understanding that massed batteries only worked for massed groups of maxed-out batteries, a battery of 10 Triple Laser turrets, a battery 10 Dual Fusion Gun turrets, etc.
I suppose it should, logically, apply to any batteries.
Hmmm, if we applied this to ten batteries of 1 Triple Laser turrets, that would be, what, UWP 6 (+1 at TL-13). Hmm, at that point, going with a single battery might be more effective (except that batteries must be pre-organized during ship’s design), and so for small vessels, multiple batteries provide more flexibility, but the massed batteries fire rule could allow them some extra punch, but not all the punch of a real pre-organized battery.
However, if we apply this to three batteries of 1 Triple Laser turret, then we get UWP 4, which is an advantage to smaller ships which often organize each turret as an individual battery.
That was all I’d come up with.
It’s something to think about, and by firing some major battleship’s 30 Triple Laser turret batteries as a single massed shot, well, the time savings would be awesome. The effects of firing at USP Factors greater than 9 is very valuable in HG2 combat, and somehow, I think getting hit by 300 laser cannon’s can't be too insignificant.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
What makes lasers (and all HG weapons with factors of 9 or less) so relatively weak is the +6DM they have for rolls on the damage tables. Maybe using massed batteries could get those weapons a negative DM on the damage rolls to help offset that positive modifer and any armor on the target.
Perhaps a -1DM for every two (rounded down) batteries firing. So if I have a ship with 20 batteries of factor-9 lasers that bear, I could choose to fire all of them as a single massed battery. I roll to hit as normal: if I get a hit, I then get to roll damage with a -10DM on the surface explosion table in addition to all other applicable DMs.
The number of damage rolls should probably be reduced, since this idea is assuming that the weapons are all focused onto the same exact point on the target to increase their armor-piercing capability. Maybe the number of damage rolls should be cut in half?
I don't think this rule should be allowed to be applied to anything except lasers and energy weapons, and maybe particle accelerators. It certainly shouldn't apply to missiles, and probably not to meson gun bays.
Perhaps a -1DM for every two (rounded down) batteries firing. So if I have a ship with 20 batteries of factor-9 lasers that bear, I could choose to fire all of them as a single massed battery. I roll to hit as normal: if I get a hit, I then get to roll damage with a -10DM on the surface explosion table in addition to all other applicable DMs.
The number of damage rolls should probably be reduced, since this idea is assuming that the weapons are all focused onto the same exact point on the target to increase their armor-piercing capability. Maybe the number of damage rolls should be cut in half?
I don't think this rule should be allowed to be applied to anything except lasers and energy weapons, and maybe particle accelerators. It certainly shouldn't apply to missiles, and probably not to meson gun bays.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
What makes lasers (and all HG weapons with factors of 9 or less) so relatively weak is the +6DM they have for rolls on the damage tables. Maybe using massed batteries could get those weapons a negative DM on the damage rolls to help offset that positive modifer and any armor on the target.
Perhaps a -1DM for every two (rounded down) batteries firing. So if I have a ship with 20 batteries of factor-9 lasers that bear, I could choose to fire all of them as a single massed battery. I roll to hit as normal: if I get a hit, I then get to roll damage with a -10DM on the surface explosion table in addition to all other applicable DMs.
The number of damage rolls should probably be reduced, since this idea is assuming that the weapons are all focused onto the same exact point on the target to increase their armor-piercing capability. Maybe the number of damage rolls should be cut in half?
I don't think this rule should be allowed to be applied to anything except lasers and energy weapons, and maybe particle accelerators. It certainly shouldn't apply to missiles, and probably not to meson gun bays.
Perhaps a -1DM for every two (rounded down) batteries firing. So if I have a ship with 20 batteries of factor-9 lasers that bear, I could choose to fire all of them as a single massed battery. I roll to hit as normal: if I get a hit, I then get to roll damage with a -10DM on the surface explosion table in addition to all other applicable DMs.
The number of damage rolls should probably be reduced, since this idea is assuming that the weapons are all focused onto the same exact point on the target to increase their armor-piercing capability. Maybe the number of damage rolls should be cut in half?
I don't think this rule should be allowed to be applied to anything except lasers and energy weapons, and maybe particle accelerators. It certainly shouldn't apply to missiles, and probably not to meson gun bays.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, that is why I proposed raising the USP Factors, so that batteries other than Spinal Mounts may rise above 9.
Batteries of USP Factor A or better don't have the +6 DM to damage rolls, that's a huge advantage. That was the purpose of increasing the USP Factor, which both increases the chance to-hit, and the ability to do damage.
There's an excellent point right there. I hadn't thought of Bay Weapons at all. But I can't see why it shouldn't apply for missiles in Bays. If it applies to one type of weapons in turrets, it should apply to all types of weapons in in all types of mounts. Finally, a massed nuke missile salvo can escape the +6 DM which negates the -6 DM for nukes. And since 10 Triple Missile turrets are only USP 7 with TL-13+, then it would take ten batteries of 10 Triple Missle turrents (or 6 50-Ton Missile Bays at TL-13; or 3 50-Ton Missile Bays at TL-14+) to reach USP Factor A. Meson Bays may be a bit problematic, though, in the OTU. Hmm, maybe some balonium exception that says multiple "hyperspace" meson packets interfere with each other in transit . . . uh, yeah, sure . . . and they can't be used for massed battery fire . . .
IMTU, I allow "Hardening" (x2 Cost and Weight over the normal Armor component), which acts as Armor against Meson Guns.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, that is why I proposed raising the USP Factors, so that batteries other than Spinal Mounts may rise above 9.
Batteries of USP Factor A or better don't have the +6 DM to damage rolls, that's a huge advantage. That was the purpose of increasing the USP Factor, which both increases the chance to-hit, and the ability to do damage.
There's an excellent point right there. I hadn't thought of Bay Weapons at all. But I can't see why it shouldn't apply for missiles in Bays. If it applies to one type of weapons in turrets, it should apply to all types of weapons in in all types of mounts. Finally, a massed nuke missile salvo can escape the +6 DM which negates the -6 DM for nukes. And since 10 Triple Missile turrets are only USP 7 with TL-13+, then it would take ten batteries of 10 Triple Missle turrents (or 6 50-Ton Missile Bays at TL-13; or 3 50-Ton Missile Bays at TL-14+) to reach USP Factor A. Meson Bays may be a bit problematic, though, in the OTU. Hmm, maybe some balonium exception that says multiple "hyperspace" meson packets interfere with each other in transit . . . uh, yeah, sure . . . and they can't be used for massed battery fire . . .
IMTU, I allow "Hardening" (x2 Cost and Weight over the normal Armor component), which acts as Armor against Meson Guns.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
In looking at the MT combat rules, I notice that lasers and sand can be factor-A, missiles and PAs can reach factor-C, plasma guns (but not fusion guns???) and repulsors can reach factor-F, and meson gun bays can get to factor-H. All these increases above factor-9 come from tech levels above TL-15.
After thinking about all this I believe now that your idea is better, and just allowing a certain number of massed batteries to gain increases in the USP factor for the massed battery fire is the way to go.
How many damage rolls would a massed battery get?
And presumably the target could mass its defensive batteries to increase the chance of stopping the incoming massed battery shot?
After thinking about all this I believe now that your idea is better, and just allowing a certain number of massed batteries to gain increases in the USP factor for the massed battery fire is the way to go.
How many damage rolls would a massed battery get?
And presumably the target could mass its defensive batteries to increase the chance of stopping the incoming massed battery shot?
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
In looking at the MT combat rules, I notice that lasers and sand can be factor-A, missiles and PAs can reach factor-C, plasma guns (but not fusion guns???) and repulsors can reach factor-F, and meson gun bays can get to factor-H. All these increases above factor-9 come from tech levels above TL-15.
After thinking about all this I believe now that your idea is better, and just allowing a certain number of massed batteries to gain increases in the USP factor for the massed battery fire is the way to go.
How many damage rolls would a massed battery get?
And presumably the target could mass its defensive batteries to increase the chance of stopping the incoming massed battery shot?
After thinking about all this I believe now that your idea is better, and just allowing a certain number of massed batteries to gain increases in the USP factor for the massed battery fire is the way to go.
How many damage rolls would a massed battery get?
And presumably the target could mass its defensive batteries to increase the chance of stopping the incoming massed battery shot?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
The Oz,
Oh! MT. Sorry, I was pretty locked into a CT:Book 5 discussion.
As for how many damage roles, well, I hadn't assigned any. In CT:Book 5, on page 41, if the battery's weapon code exceeds the target vessel's size code, it scores a number of automatic critical hits equal to the difference. However, those rules always assumed the standard single battery fire.
Hmmm. I don't want to let massed batteries get more attractive than spinal mounts.
Maybe:
</font>
Oh! MT. Sorry, I was pretty locked into a CT:Book 5 discussion.
As for how many damage roles, well, I hadn't assigned any. In CT:Book 5, on page 41, if the battery's weapon code exceeds the target vessel's size code, it scores a number of automatic critical hits equal to the difference. However, those rules always assumed the standard single battery fire.
Hmmm. I don't want to let massed batteries get more attractive than spinal mounts.
Maybe:
</font>
- 3 Batteries = USP Factor +1: 0 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- 6 Batteries = USP Factor +2: 0 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- 10 Batteries = USP Factor +3: 1 Extra Damage Roll</font>
- 20 Batteries = USP Factor +4: 1 Extra Damage Roll</font>
- 30 Batteries = USP Factor +5: 2 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- +1 UWP Factor/10 Extra Batteries & 1 Extra Damage Roll/20 Extra Batteries</font>
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
The Oz,
Oh! MT. Sorry, I was pretty locked into a CT:Book 5 discussion.
As for how many damage roles, well, I hadn't assigned any. In CT:Book 5, on page 41, if the battery's weapon code exceeds the target vessel's size code, it scores a number of automatic critical hits equal to the difference. However, those rules always assumed the standard single battery fire.
Hmmm. I don't want to let massed batteries get more attractive than spinal mounts.
Maybe:
</font>
Oh! MT. Sorry, I was pretty locked into a CT:Book 5 discussion.
As for how many damage roles, well, I hadn't assigned any. In CT:Book 5, on page 41, if the battery's weapon code exceeds the target vessel's size code, it scores a number of automatic critical hits equal to the difference. However, those rules always assumed the standard single battery fire.
Hmmm. I don't want to let massed batteries get more attractive than spinal mounts.
Maybe:
</font>
- 3 Batteries = USP Factor +1: 0 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- 6 Batteries = USP Factor +2: 0 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- 10 Batteries = USP Factor +3: 1 Extra Damage Roll</font>
- 20 Batteries = USP Factor +4: 1 Extra Damage Roll</font>
- 30 Batteries = USP Factor +5: 2 Extra Damage Rolls</font>
- +1 UWP Factor/10 Extra Batteries & 1 Extra Damage Roll/20 Extra Batteries</font>
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I think the easiest thing would be to treat the massed batteries in every way like any other weapon with a factor greater than 9.
Both HG and MT say that "spinal mounts get one extra damage roll for each letter" greater than 9. I would read that to mean massed batteries would not get extra damage rolls from this rule.
However, the rule about extra critical hits for weapons whose factor exceeds the size factor of the target specifically says "batteries" and even gives an example using a factor-9 battery hitting a size-4 ship. So this rule would apply to massed batteries.
So all together I would think that massed batteries get no extra damage rolls on any tables but do get the automatic critical hits if the effective USP factor of the massed battery exceeds the size USP factor of the target.
Done this way, massing batteries together gets you better chances to hit and penetrate defenses (including armor, thanks to the loss of the +6DM on the damage roll) but you only get one roll on the damage table (assuming the target is bigger than your massed batteries).
Both HG and MT say that "spinal mounts get one extra damage roll for each letter" greater than 9. I would read that to mean massed batteries would not get extra damage rolls from this rule.
However, the rule about extra critical hits for weapons whose factor exceeds the size factor of the target specifically says "batteries" and even gives an example using a factor-9 battery hitting a size-4 ship. So this rule would apply to massed batteries.
So all together I would think that massed batteries get no extra damage rolls on any tables but do get the automatic critical hits if the effective USP factor of the massed battery exceeds the size USP factor of the target.
Done this way, massing batteries together gets you better chances to hit and penetrate defenses (including armor, thanks to the loss of the +6DM on the damage roll) but you only get one roll on the damage table (assuming the target is bigger than your massed batteries).
