| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Yasriia wrote: | | Do I understand it right, that there is stat-wise no difference between fire-linked and multi-barreled? |
Not quite. The fire control and damage stats are teh same (4 shots are four shots), but there are differences in the cost, weight, and durability/redundancy.
For example, a quad laser cannon with stats similar to the four linked lasers on an X-Wing would cost and weight less, but if the quad cannon took damage the whole gun would be inoperative, wheras the X-Wing would still have 3 working laser cannons.
Think of a multibarrled weapon as something like the quad lasers on the Millinium Falcon, and linked weapons as something like the 4 seperate lasers on the X-Wing.
[quiote]
And it looks very interesting. I like it  [/quote]
Thanks. I'm trying to match the vaules given for weapons in in other D6 books and D20, so it is mostly a matter of reverse engineering what was already there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Yes, although the stats wouldn't match up exactly.
To make a combo iton/blaster you would probably need to sell off the iuon gun's range to match the blastrer, then either treat them as linked weapons or a multi-barreled weapon. The cost would probably be less than your "Scorpion" but the weight would be much greater.
Adjusting the fire rate would have to wait until I get the turbolaser's worked up. Basically the fire rate is mostly a limit of the ship's power core.
Reducing the weight down to 300kg would require the minuaturization rules, which I'm stil working on. Roughly it is a power function (sqaure or cube, I haven't decided yet) so the cost scales up dramatically.
But the overall design would work. |
Right. Well, my 300kg was based on assumptions that this system doesn't make, so that weight is obviously incompatible. Based on the feedback I've gotten, I guess it'd weigh in closer to 2.5 tons or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Right. Well, my 300kg was based on assumptions that this system doesn't make, so that weight is obviously incompatible. Based on the feedback I've gotten, I guess it'd weigh in closer to 2.5 tons or so. |
For kicks I built a "scorpion" using the guidelines I poisted. It enddned up looking like this:
Fire Control: 3D
Range: 1/7/15
Damage: 4D+2 (ion)/3D+2 (laser)
Cost: 3225 credits
Weight: 2.25 mt
The way I built it was I built the ion gun and the laser separately, and then treated the weapon as a double barreled weapon, using the highest cost and weight between the two weapons.expensive of the two weapons You ended up being pretty close for your revised weight, and I was surprised that the ion cannon and laser were identical in cost and weight before factoring in for range. The Scorpion's realtive short range make the weapon much lighter and less expensive.
The Ion Can came out like this:
Damage: 4D+2 Cost: 1425 credits, Weight 2.75mt
Reduced Range: -50% RN, -25% Cost, -1.25mt
Fire Control: 3D Cost 1000 credits
Final Cost: 2075 credits, 1.5mt
And the laser like this:
Damage: 3D+2 Cost: 1425 credits, Weight 2.75 mt
Reduced Range: -40% RN, Cost -20%, Weight* -1mt
Fire Control; 3D Cost: 1000 Credits
Final Cost: 2150 Credits, Weight: 1.75mt
Double Gun Mod: x1.5 Cost =3225 credits, Weight +.5 tons= 2.25mt
Since the weapon does two differernt types of damage I didn't give it a extra die to damage.
With the ways the design guidelines work, it would probably be worth it to up the range to the base for lasers (1-3/12/25), the cost to 3650 credits, and the weight to 3.25 tons. But that sort of second guessing is easier once we got some design rules to work with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that the rules are posted, has anybody tried using them? Anybody spot any problems?
Secondly, as an Optional rule, weapons can be placed on smaller mounts than normal. Each step smaller in size adds 1 to the weapon's mishap number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Now that the rules are posted, has anybody tried using them? Anybody spot any problems?
|
I plan to build a page full of weapons soon, just to become more familiar with the system. I'll let you know if anything seems out of proportion or anything.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel that the weapons are to cheap. Over a ton of weapons hardware for the cost of two heavy blasters!!
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | I feel that the weapons are to cheap. Over a ton of weapons hardware for the cost of two heavy blasters!! |
I too find it odd that a starfighter scale laser cannon only costs 3 times as much as a blaster rifle, but that's what WEG did. The prices match up with those given in Tramp Freighters and Starships of the Galaxy.
You could kick up the prices (say x10?) and as long as you did so across the board the results would be consistent. Just don't blame me if ships sell for less than the cost of their armaments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | Now that the rules are posted, has anybody tried using them? Anybody spot any problems?
|
I plan to build a page full of weapons soon, |
I can save you some of the work. I got writeups of all the starfighter scale weapons in Starships of the Galaxy and can post them in a few days. Most of the weapons match up, but a couple oddball designs like the escort quad lasers, and turbo lasers still need more work./quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | I feel that the weapons are to cheap. Over a ton of weapons hardware for the cost of two heavy blasters!! |
I too find it odd that a starfighter scale laser cannon only costs 3 times as much as a blaster rifle, but that's what WEG did. The prices match up with those given in Tramp Freighters and Starships of the Galaxy.
You could kick up the prices (say x10?) and as long as you did so across the board the results would be consistent. Just don't blame me if ships sell for less than the cost of their armaments. |
I dont have the weapons list on this computer, but I think i raised the prices to x6 or x8 or so.... Regarding the value of ships in relation to the cost of a weapon, selling a used car can often yield less cash than the cost of replacing its engine.. I guess its the same for starships in the SWU.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
I dont have the weapons list on this computer, but I think i raised the prices to x6 or x8 or so.... Regarding the value of ships in relation to the cost of a weapon, selling a used car can often yield less cash than the cost of replacing its engine.. I guess its the same for starships in the SWU. |
I understand. I find the weapon prices in Tramp Freighters to be rather low, but I wanted to keep this consistent with Tramp Freighters and Starships of the Galaxy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
I can save you some of the work. |
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's actually doing the work and getting a feel for the system that I think I need to do.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: |
I can save you some of the work. |
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's actually doing the work and getting a feel for the system that I think I need to do. |
Okay, enjoy. That's what it was made for! 
I got a few adjustments I want to make down the road, too. Technically, all the D20 weapons came with +2 (=1D) fire control and it cost a lot to improve that, but that didn't match up with GG6, so I just went with 2D. But now, I think I can dig up more accurate D6 analogs, and thiis will alter the final prices some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay... here's an idea:
A twin-linked, double blaster. Imagine a double barreled blaster linked to another double barreled blaster.
I'm thinking that it would be like this:
Base damage: 4D
Bonus for double barrel: +1D
Since it's a four-barreled weapon, it would get a bonus of +1D Fire control, and a bonus of +2D damage.
The final result would be:
Fire Control: +3D (2D base, +1D for quad weapon)
Damage 7D
Cost: 2950
Weight: 4.5 tons
So, you get a lower cost and a weight savings, but if you damage one of the weapons, you lose 2D damage (down to 5D), instead of losing only 1D damage. Kind of a compromise between linking and multi-barreling your weapons.
Did I do the calculations right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now you are getting clever.
How about a svivel mounted quad autoblaster? That way you get +3D firce control! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah. 8) I was trying to come up with something interesting without being a power gamer  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
