Capital Scale Weapons Change Idea

[Hellraiser]

So based on another thread about Cap Missiles v/s Standard for Anti-Fighter work, I got to thinking about the current brackets & some changes that would make Cap scale better at dealing w/ fighters.


So Currently, the rules are as follows, IIRC  (Correct me if I'm wrong, going from memory)

Capital Weapons = +5 To Hit Fighters
Sub-Capital Weapons = +3 To Hit Fighters
AA mode for NL/SCL = -2 Bonus To Hit Fighters
Barracudas = -2 Bonus To Hit Fighters

Standard Range Brackets (And Sub Cap Brackets)  =  P1-6-12-20-25
Capital Range Brackets =  12-24-40-50


So I'm thinking of the following change ideas.

1.  Remove AA Mode  (Barracudas still get a bonus)
2.  New Fighter Penalty Brackets =
  SC-Mis   -1
  Cap-Mis   +0
  SC-Las   +1
  SC-Can   +2
  N-Las   +2
  N-PPC   +3
  N-AC/Gs   +4

3.  Sub-Cap Weapons now use Cap Ranges  12-24-40-50
4.  Cap Scale Weapons expand to longer brackets =   20-40-65-90


I don't have books in front of me to see if there are other outliers like the Barracuda that operate differently that the other general rules so feel free to toss in stuff I missed.

I also didn't mention "bracket fire" since its the same rule regardless but now would work WITH the built-in bonus of NL being better at hitting fighters over all & not having to choose from 3 different modes to shoot things  (Regular-Bracket-AA)


Let me know what you think.

[AlphaMirage]

I rather like the present one except for the standard range brackets so I normally use the expanded table in the back of the book and think that should be standard. The bonus to hit fighters is also good, these are unwieldy mechanisms meant to deliver crushing damage to other warships. They should have some kind of weakness when trying to hit a fighter forcing them to use supporting units.

My preference is to halve the range of standard weapons on Aerospace platforms allowing the sub-capitals a niche while not encroaching to much on the capital weapons. Their present range is to long for how lightweight and powerful these systems when compared to others, as well as the probably engagement range between themselves. That said I want more of a dogfighting and dive bombing feel in my space combat fighters. They should be trying to evade fire coming from a warship until the very last moment when they drop bombs (which should be more utilized) or unleash their main weapons.

[Hellraiser]

They should have some kind of weakness when trying to hit a fighter forcing them to use supporting units.

My preference is to halve the range of standard weapons on Aerospace platforms allowing the sub-capitals a niche while not encroaching to much on the capital weapons. Their present range is to long for how lightweight and powerful these systems when compared to others, as well as the probably engagement range between themselves.

Agreed, and I think they still have some significant penalties to hit in many cases as I noted above.
It was more making the "AA" mode as a standard for some weapons being built in.

Also as I mentioned in the other thread, the issues I have w/ the idea 1/2 range of standard weapons is that applies to Warships only, or, are you saying they are also that 1/2 range against other fighters?
Because I'm not a fan of saying my MPL has 6 range when I shoot A-target but only 3 range when I shoot B-Target.  That gets messy IMHO.
Which is why I went with expanding the range of the SC & Cap weapons.

When combined w/ the lower to hit fighters & bracket mode shooting it should make a good gauntlet of fire for the Fighters to have to evade through for a few turns.

[AlphaMirage]

I was thinking in general. Space hexes are gigantic and if using velocity and acceleration rules you can basically close the distance quite easily.

In general though I'm not sure having that many different modifiers per class is wise. I actually prefer the alternate firing modes

[Hellraiser]

I was thinking in general. Space hexes are gigantic and if using velocity and acceleration rules you can basically close the distance quite easily.

Agreed, hence the use of the longer cap brackets.
The fighters have to run an even longer gauntlet.   (Assuming we can find maps big enough, but in the days of digital maps it seems feesible)

In general though I'm not sure having that many different modifiers per class is wise. I actually prefer the alternate firing modes

I was debating that when I made them.

Overall, I came up with the fact that AA mode is already 1 modifier & in CBT we have all sorts of +/- levels for things like MRM/HML, Pulse, LBX/Hag, Flak, TC, C3,  etc etc

So having a chart to reference for the 1 act of using Cap(Sub) Weapons against ASF targets didn't seem too bad.

I tried to keep the feel of the Sub-Cap & missiles were both better than the other guns & the Lasers got a boost to compensate for AA mode.
But all around I was trying to make it easier to swat flies to make up for those flies being OP as a whole in the WS v/s ASF landscape.

2.  New Fighter Penalty Brackets =
  SC-Mis   -1
  Cap-Mis   +0
  SC-Las   +1
  SC-Can   +2
  N-Las   +2
  N-PPC   +3
  N-AC/Gs   +4

Using the chart above & bracket fire would give something like a triple rack of NAC20's only a +2 to hit fighters IIRC.
The extended range chart band also moves "Cap-Medium" out to 40 so well beyond any Extreme range fire from fighters.

I forget the % reduction but I think that is something like 60 cap damage * 60%?  or 360 standard damage to a fighter squadron if it hits?   (Again no books in front of me)
Evading fighters is +2 IIRC, which means a Vet WS crew needs 9's to swat them down?   (I think)
Short range of 20 means even better shots while they are still at "long" and heaven help if they stop evading.

[idea weenie]

In addition to the range increases, my ideas would be the following:
1) Capital Targeting systems
Similar to the Targeting Computer, but using the extensive sensors on larger craft with a dedicated mainframe to crunch numbers, this is a massive installation that gives the mounting sip a bonus to-hit an opponent.  Figure Order Of Magnitude increases in size give a 1-pt bonus to hit.  Overall targeting would be used to keep ASF honest and afraid, while specific targeting systems would be used when the mounting ship wants to focus fire on a single target.  Multiple targeting systems can be taken, but cannot stack effectiveness (often used for AA director, Primary targeting system, and secondary targeting system)


2) Capital ECM systems
Instead of just using maneuvering to make the to-hits harder, this is a larger form of Guardian ECM that makes targeting the mounting ship far more difficult.  Again, order-of-magnitude increases in mass would make the mounting platform 1 pt harder to hit.  There could be general ECM systems designed to interfere with all opponents, and specific ECM systems that can only affect one target.  The general ECM would be used to make ASF have a miserable time trying to hit it, but would be very massive for their size.  Single-target ECM would be used when two battleships are dueling each other, or  torpedo boat style Dropship would be making a run to unload its short-range heavy ordnance.


3) Hardened armor
This would require changes to the Bay listings, as they would have to tell how many weapons were in that bay.  When that bay fires, take the Hardened armor value, multiply that by the number of weapons in the bay, and that is how much standard damage is ignored from that Bay's hit.
So the following weapon bays may seem the same:

• M Laser Bay - 600 pts standard damage
• L Laser Bay - 600 pts standard damage
• SCL/3 Bay - 600 pts standard damage
• HNPPC Bay - 600 pts standard damage

If they hit armor, there is no difference.  But if the bays listed the number of weapons present, it would look like:

• M Laser Bay (120) - 600 pts standard damage
• L Laser Bay (75) - 600 pts standard damage
• SCL/3 Bay (20) - 600 pts standard damage
• HNPPC Bay (4) - 600 pts standard damage

So assuming they fire at a vessel with Hardened armor 6, then they do the following amounts of damage:

• M Laser Bay (120) - 0 pts standard damage (120*6 = 720, and weapons cannot do less than 0 damage)
• L Laser Bay (75) - 150 pts standard damage (75*6 = 450, 600-450 = 150 pts of damage)
• SCL/3 Bay (20) - 480 pts standard damage (20*6 = 120, 600-120 = 480 pts of damage)
• HNPPC Bay (4) - 576 pts standard damage (4*6 = 24, 600-24 = 576 pts of damage)

So you need heavier weapons to punch holes into Warships, but once the armor is penetrated this hardening does not affect the internal structure. Hardened armor would mass much more than regular armor, so you'd have fewer armor points total (but each point would be much harder to remove).  External items are vulnerable to being damaged via critical hits, but those would have a targeting penalty to hit:
"Alpha one-one, pull back from the battleship, you are not equipped for anti-shipping"
"Negative, I'm out of position.  I can't hurt it, but I can try and damage that primary sensor array so it can't hit the Belshemire as effectively"
"With all the jamming that ship is throwing out, you'll have to be right on top to hit that system"
"I know.  But they sent all of their ASF and AA forward, and there is a narrow volume where its anti-fighter weapons can't hit me.  Wish me luck."

A facing's armor might be written as H-6, Th-70, Armor-5000.  This would represent a slab of armor that has 6 pts of hardened armor, enemy vessels need to inflict 70+ pts of damage to threshold it, and there are a total of 5000 pts of armor.


4) Larger ship, larger bay
Capital ships are currently set up where their max size bay is the same, no matter if it is a 150 kton Frigate, or a 2.4 Megaton Battleship.  My proposal would be something like Mass/10,000 (FRU), is the maximum size of a single Bay.  So the 150 kton frigate can have bays up to 15 capital damage, while the 2.4 Megaton Warship can have bays up to 240 pts in capacity.

[Daemion]

My thoughts:
Anything can hit a fighter if it's not actively being erratic. 

So, instead of applying the AA penalties and bonuses as a trait of the Warships, why not use it as a choice for the fighters.  So, if a Fighter chooses to spend the thrust to go erratic (Jinking, I think it's called...) they get to apply the targeting penalty against the cap and sub-cap weapons.  Otherwise, there's no penalty applied.

(Note: Leave the actual bonuses as a counter for the weapons that get it.) 

[Hellraiser]

So, instead of applying the AA penalties and bonuses as a trait of the Warships, why not use it as a choice for the fighters.  So, if a Fighter chooses to spend the thrust to go erratic (Jinking, I think it's called...) they get to apply the targeting penalty against the cap and sub-cap weapons.  Otherwise, there's no penalty applied.

(Note: Leave the actual bonuses as a counter for the weapons that get it.)   

So remove the current "Evading" bonus & remove the penalty to hit fighters.
And Insert the old Fighter Bonus as the new "Evading" bonus = +5/+3?

Interesting, it means when a fighter isn't evading its super easy to hit, compared to now, but in turn, evading is a bigger bonus but less overall.

So its sort of like giving the big guns a "Pulse" bonus to what they already have, but in turn making evading a bigger bonus.

[Hellraiser]

1) Capital Targeting systems
2) Capital ECM systems

3) Hardened armor

4) Larger ship, larger bay

Very intersting.

Honestly 1 & 2 seem a bit complex to me.

3 on the other hand is like an Uber version of the idea of "Crits/Threshold" being based on single weapons.

4 is also interesting, I like that a Leviathan can have a bigger bay than a Vincent. 
This is really no different than the way Armor is calculated based on size.

[Daemion]

So remove the current "Evading" bonus & remove the penalty to hit fighters.
And Insert the old Fighter Bonus as the new "Evading" bonus = +5/+3?

Interesting, it means when a fighter isn't evading its super easy to hit, compared to now, but in turn, evading is a bigger bonus but less overall.

So its sort of like giving the big guns a "Pulse" bonus to what they already have, but in turn making evading a bigger bonus.

That's my thought.  It all comes down to leading, along with computer aided targeting.  If, for some reason, a fighter is not actively doing evasive maneuvers, it can be led and shot just as easily as a drop- or other kind of ship.

[idea weenie]

Honestly 1 & 2 seem a bit complex to me.

3 on the other hand is like an Uber version of the idea of "Crits/Threshold" being based on single weapons.

4 is also interesting, I like that a Leviathan can have a bigger bay than a Vincent. 
This is really no different than the way Armor is calculated based on size.

1 & 2 would have the complexity on the construction side, but the ship record sheet would just list them as:
Targeting (Single): +5, +5, +3
Targeting (All): +2, +2
ECM (Single): +5, +5, +3
ECM (All): +2, +2

The first line means that the ship can target up to 3 ships with its single-target sensors, getting a +5 bonus against 2 targets, and a +3 bonus against the third target.
The second line means that the ship also gets a +2 bonus to-hit against every target in range, and that there are two sets of sensors (so if one gets destroyed by a critical hit, it still has another set).
Since only one bonus can apply at a time, that means the +2 bonus will not stack with the +5 or +3 bonuses, or with the other +2 bonus.
A similar process is used for the ECM lines.  It will be harder to hit against two opponents in range, a third will find it merely difficult, and everyone else will find shooting at it will be as if it was a range bracket farther away.  A space ECM system was added in case the first one took a hit.

Another ship might be listed as:
Targeting (Single): +6, +3
Targeting (All): +1, +1
ECM (Single): +6, +3
ECM (All): +1, +1
This ship is designed to duel another vessel, but is not that good if multiple opponents get in range.  It will need escorts to make sure it is not stung to death by an ASF swarm or cluster of PWS.

An escort ship might be listed as:
Targeting (All): +3
ECM (All): +3
Not designed to fixate on a target, this vessel is designed to engage smaller opponents and perform a Disco Ball or Death Blossom maneuver.  Every unit is getting shot at equally, and all of them have a harder penalty to hit the vessel.  However the lack of backups for the Targeting or ECM systems means it will be very vulnerable if an attacker gets a critical hit on those systems.


3 was originally from an idea for resisting armor, but I wanted it to be more effective vs bays that used lots of small weapons to achieve the same damage as fewer larger weapons.  The problem was that the current bay listing does not tell how many weapons are present, so that would have to be added.


4 was just me wanting a big battleship bay

[I am Belch II]

Would love to see some updates to Warship battles. Different upgrades to ships to make them more useful. The SL/CLan ships were useless against fighters, but the SL did control space compared to other houses.

[Hellraiser]

Would love to see some updates to Warship battles. Different upgrades to ships to make them more useful. The SL/CLan ships were useless against fighters, but the SL did control space compared to other houses.

I guess your Battleship doesn't need to be good at AA fire if your actually sporting 2 Battleships & 4 Destroyers in your flotilla v/s the single Cruiser the enemy has,  LOL.

[HobbesHurlbut]

I don't have books in front of me to see if there are other outliers like the Barracuda that operate differently that the other general rules so feel free to toss in stuff I missed.

It's not as much of an outlier when you look at the other capital missiles;
Barracuda; bonus to hit
White Shark; bonus to crit chance
Killer Whale; simple damage
and well
Kraken-T; sheer damage but teleoperated