mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
What if it has a USP-9 nuclear damper and ten repulsor bays 
Abstract combat thoughts
- Thread starter mike wightman
- Start date
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
It'll still take damage from nuclear missile bays. The nuke damper cuts the expected hits to 1/6th, and the repulsor bays add to the point defense (stopping one missile bay each) but with such low armor (f-3) any penetrations of the active defenses will do some damage. A "Protected" ship is well defended against "Turret" weapons (by its bulk, if nothing else) but can be damaged (not instantly killed) by "Bay" weapons.
And any ship with such low armor is even more vulnerable to spinal particle accelerators. Hit this ship (USP code P, armor-3) with a factor-T spinal PA and you get 32 extra die rolls (16 Surface, 16 Radiation). Not to mention the 3 automatic Critical Hits the ship would take from the spinal PA.
That said, a ship with a good nuke damper and lots of repulsors =should= have some special ability against "Bay" weapons (as I have defined them). Perhaps there could be a subscript to indicate ships that their "Turret" weapons count extra (double?) when used as point defense against missiles?
And any ship with such low armor is even more vulnerable to spinal particle accelerators. Hit this ship (USP code P, armor-3) with a factor-T spinal PA and you get 32 extra die rolls (16 Surface, 16 Radiation). Not to mention the 3 automatic Critical Hits the ship would take from the spinal PA.
That said, a ship with a good nuke damper and lots of repulsors =should= have some special ability against "Bay" weapons (as I have defined them). Perhaps there could be a subscript to indicate ships that their "Turret" weapons count extra (double?) when used as point defense against missiles?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Ok, you've convinced me.
I like it
And I like the repulsor subscript idea...
I like it
And I like the repulsor subscript idea...
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Now we need to think of how to calculate the values for "Turret" and "Bay" weapons. I think it should be kinda statistical, based on expected hits.
First, divide the number of turrets by 10 (grouping them into maximum factor batteries). Looking at the Beam tables, we see that a factor-9 beam battery firing at an agility-6 target (assuming equal computers) will hit on a 10+ (one-sixth of the time). So we could divide the number of batteries by 6 to get the expected number of hits per turn of fire.
Going to the ridiculous extreme, a 1,000,000 dton ship armed solely with turrets would have 10,000 turrets, giving 1,000 batteries and 166.7 probable hits per turn. It could bring 50% of those to bear (from the Batteries Bearing table) so that gives a final value of 83 (rounding down). That's a pretty big number but still only two digits.
For "Bay" weapons we follow the same basic procedure. A ship can have one "Bay" per 1000 dtons, and a factor-9 missile bay hits an Agility-6 (equal computer) target on an 8+ giving 41.67 percent hits. So using our former ISS Ridiculous (1,000,000 dtons) armed solely with 1,000 missile bays, 416.7 of those bays will hit per turn and 50% of them bear so that give a "Bay" factor of 208.
That's a really big number. But a Tigress-class DN with her 430 missile bays (as described in Supp. 9) would end up with a "Bay" rating of 89.6, large but manageable.
Further modifiers/subscripts: ships with lots of sandcasters need to have their "Turret" rating marked/modified somehow, in the same way that ships with lots of repulsors need to be marked. These weapons are purely defensive and perhaps should not be counted in the "Turret" total but (if present in sufficient number) earn a "bonus" in the form of a subscript.
Ships with lots of missile turrets also need a subscript to indicate that their ability to use their "Turret" value for point defense is reduced? Unless we want to allow turret missiles to be used against "Bay" missiles?
First, divide the number of turrets by 10 (grouping them into maximum factor batteries). Looking at the Beam tables, we see that a factor-9 beam battery firing at an agility-6 target (assuming equal computers) will hit on a 10+ (one-sixth of the time). So we could divide the number of batteries by 6 to get the expected number of hits per turn of fire.
Going to the ridiculous extreme, a 1,000,000 dton ship armed solely with turrets would have 10,000 turrets, giving 1,000 batteries and 166.7 probable hits per turn. It could bring 50% of those to bear (from the Batteries Bearing table) so that gives a final value of 83 (rounding down). That's a pretty big number but still only two digits.
For "Bay" weapons we follow the same basic procedure. A ship can have one "Bay" per 1000 dtons, and a factor-9 missile bay hits an Agility-6 (equal computer) target on an 8+ giving 41.67 percent hits. So using our former ISS Ridiculous (1,000,000 dtons) armed solely with 1,000 missile bays, 416.7 of those bays will hit per turn and 50% of them bear so that give a "Bay" factor of 208.
That's a really big number. But a Tigress-class DN with her 430 missile bays (as described in Supp. 9) would end up with a "Bay" rating of 89.6, large but manageable.
Further modifiers/subscripts: ships with lots of sandcasters need to have their "Turret" rating marked/modified somehow, in the same way that ships with lots of repulsors need to be marked. These weapons are purely defensive and perhaps should not be counted in the "Turret" total but (if present in sufficient number) earn a "bonus" in the form of a subscript.
Ships with lots of missile turrets also need a subscript to indicate that their ability to use their "Turret" value for point defense is reduced? Unless we want to allow turret missiles to be used against "Bay" missiles?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hull size modifier to be hit?
For point defense does batteries bearing count?
How about assuming the weapons are being fired at a target with maximum defence versus that threat, and then we can increase the damage or what not for every TL difference or less than ideal defence.
So if those 430 missile bays are reduced to 15 versus a #9 ND, this we could have a missile bay factor or 15.
For point defense does batteries bearing count?
How about assuming the weapons are being fired at a target with maximum defence versus that threat, and then we can increase the damage or what not for every TL difference or less than ideal defence.
So if those 430 missile bays are reduced to 15 versus a #9 ND, this we could have a missile bay factor or 15.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And I like the idea of anti-missile turret missiles. They are useful against fighters as well, so counting them as point defence makes sense to me.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I have tried to base things on "best offense at that TL vs. best defense at that TL" so that ships are evaluated based on their own TL and then TL modifiers would be added/subtracted when ships of different TLs fought each other. This idea does have problems with "Bay" weapons at lower TLs since missile bays reach maximum factor fairly early but nuclear dampers (the best defense against "Bay" missiles) at TL12 and TL13 are not much use against factor-9 missiles (stopping 1/36th and 1/6th, respectively).
Your idea (evaluating against max defense and then adding effect against lower TL targets) might be the way to go. It would result in ships getting pluses to-hit/damage based on the TL of the target, regardless of the TL of the firing ship but the advantage of reducing the values for counters to the smallest possible would be really handy.
I suggest ignoring the +1/-1 hull size modifiers, and only including the +2/-2 modifiers, so ships of size 0 (fighters) would be harder to hit while ships of size Q+ (heavy cruisers and up) would be easier to hit.
I think batteries bearing does apply to point defense. Weapons on the far side of the hull just can't come to bear. Perhaps some mechanism could be found for the "Turret" and "Bay" factors of larger ships (say, size Q and up?) to withstand/ignore the first few hits? Or maybe those ships (the big ones) would have enhanced damage control (they will have the most DC parties by far).
I like anti-missile turret missiles, too. It's a house rule IMTU.
Your idea (evaluating against max defense and then adding effect against lower TL targets) might be the way to go. It would result in ships getting pluses to-hit/damage based on the TL of the target, regardless of the TL of the firing ship but the advantage of reducing the values for counters to the smallest possible would be really handy.
I suggest ignoring the +1/-1 hull size modifiers, and only including the +2/-2 modifiers, so ships of size 0 (fighters) would be harder to hit while ships of size Q+ (heavy cruisers and up) would be easier to hit.
I think batteries bearing does apply to point defense. Weapons on the far side of the hull just can't come to bear. Perhaps some mechanism could be found for the "Turret" and "Bay" factors of larger ships (say, size Q and up?) to withstand/ignore the first few hits? Or maybe those ships (the big ones) would have enhanced damage control (they will have the most DC parties by far).
I like anti-missile turret missiles, too. It's a house rule IMTU.
