04-16-2018, 12:02 AM | #41 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Quote:
Abysmally low hit rates, sure. Sub-percentile at least some of the time. But many ships took solidly 2-digit hit counts in battles. I'm pretty sure age of sail ships really could and did get hammered by a lot of hits, but I don't have statistics on that.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
04-16-2018, 01:38 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
In the final battle on the 27th, four British ships fired 2,800 shells at Bismarck and scored 400 hits. Then they sank it with two torpedo hits.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
04-16-2018, 07:52 AM | #43 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
I just don't see this "roll every missile" imperative. It's more simulationist but 4e has gone against simulationism in ranged combat in general and Spaceships in particular is a fast and simple combat system.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
04-16-2018, 08:50 AM | #44 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Back on the possibility of using square-root based damage and HP to encourage large ships, after thinking about it more, I think the big challenge is armor. If you don't boost armor, you strip big ships of one of their original advantages. Not quite sure how to do it, though. |
|
04-16-2018, 09:42 AM | #45 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Apparently, King George V's 14 inch shells were largely ineffective against Bismarck's armor, so a lot of those hits were effectively meaningless. I've heard it claimed that the RN so wanted to be sure they killed it, they closed to point blank range. While that gave them a lot of hits, most of them were high, disabling things like gun direction and turrets (and most likely killing the bulk of the senior officers early on) but not having as great an effect on the seaworthiness as would ordinarily be expected.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. Last edited by RyanW; 04-16-2018 at 09:45 AM. |
04-16-2018, 10:28 AM | #46 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
While I don't know if I could respect it because I have little patience with the Rapid Fire rules being used in places where they're very non-simulationist, I do believe Spaceships might work better if it actually was written to enforce the spirit that you brought to the rules. But it's not written that way, and the way it is written either side of that missile/PD exchange gains a tremendous advantage by choosing to use their weapons otherwise.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-16-2018, 11:22 AM | #47 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
The first thing I can think of to offset the increase in beam weapon power under "the square root of destruction" is give an SM-based multiplier to DR. Something like this progression:
SM+4: x1.5 SM+5: x2 SM+6: x2.5 SM+7: x3 SM+8: x3.5 SM+9: x4 SM+10: x5 SM+11: x6 SM+12: x7 SM+13: x9 SM+14: x11 SM+15: x13 This is more or less consistent with how the Square Root of Destruction rules increase the damage output of major batteries. I'm a little worried that for some paradigms it might make ships too tough, but not sure what that paradigm is. |
04-16-2018, 12:24 PM | #48 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Proposed square-root based damage progression for conventional warheads:
2cm: 1d+2 2.5cm: 2d 3cm: 2d+2 3.5cm: 3d 4cm: 3d+2 5cm: 5d 6cm: 6d 7cm: 7d 8cm: 8d 10cm: 11d 12cm: 3dx5 14cm: 6dx3 16cm: 6dx4 20cm: 6dx6 24cm: 6dx8 28cm: 6dx11 32cm: 6dx16 40cm: 6dx22 48cm: 6dx28 56cm: 6dx32 64cm: 6dx44 80cm: 6dx60 96cm: 6dx80 112cm: 6dx100 |
04-16-2018, 02:57 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
04-16-2018, 03:16 PM | #50 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
It probably worse better with general GURPS mechanics to use expanded wound size modifiers. I came up with mine here and several other people have had nearly identical schemes.
|
Tags |
combat, spaceships |
|
|