A few things to look into...

[unclejoe]

OK, so we played a few more games tonight (introducing the game to two new players) and had a great time. Unlike many games that you 'figure out' after a few plays, this one has continued to impress.

Anyways, here are a few issues that I think might need a quick look:

1) Mag Cannons: These seem a wee bit too good for their cost and/or tech position. They pretty much put the torpedoes to shame via their d10 attack die. Sure, they do less vs shields, but there are plenty of weapons that efficiently strip shields away so that is not too terrible of an issue.

Comparing them to Heavy Disrupters, their increase is 16% more shield damage, 12% more hull damage and (more importantly) a +1 to pen. That alone is worth the the 19% cost increase even without the damage increase IMO. And both are at the same tech level (on the revised tree - on the original, the Mag Cannon was actually 1 lower than the HDisruptor).

When you look at the rate of increase on other weapons, you get less bang for your buck as you get heavier weapons (presumably because part of the advantage of the heavier weapons is more effect per battery slot).This effect is pretty clear in the Torpedo line where each higher torp is 30-33% more tonnage than the previous for a modest damage increase. Ditto for the lasers which scale up in cost quickly for modest improvements in performance.

When compared to almost any other weapon increase, the Mag Cannon comes off EXTREMELY favorably. And you can fit it on a CA which makes it as versatile as the torps and disruptors.

I wouldnt want to see costs change at this point (due to obsoleting pre-made ships etc), but maybe consider removing the +1 pen from the Mag Cannon or else cutting it's damage down a tad?

2) The F/P/A and F/S/A weapon arc. This arc is way too big and take a lot of the maneuver out of the game for little cost. I dont think you wanted 360 degree weapons, but this arc is the next best thing. And in fact, at range 1, it IS 360 degree field of fire. This arc comes out to about 320 degrees of fire and that is just too much IMO. It really cheapens the maneuver aspect of the game if people use these for a lot of weapons since it really doesnt matter where you go, you're likely in arc to be hit.

IMO, this should be a special arc that is 180 down the center-line of the ship. So if you had a F/P/A battery and a F/S/A battery the only places they would overlap would be the directly forward hex row and directly rear hex row. Either that or this turret should cost SIGNIFICANTLY more (like 3x armor or something) since it gives such a huge field of fire.

That's it for now on this front.

And by the way, thanks for all your work with this game. We have been skeptical of many of the space tactical systems on the market but this one seems to really have hit the mark with our group. And with continued refinement, it is getting better and better!

[kashre]

I totally agree on the arc thing.


Actually, I have often wondered if it really effects balance the way the F and A arcs covers 3 hex sides but the P and S arcs only cover 2 hex sides, even though 1 arc weapons cost the same whether they're in the front or on the sides.

And I second the need for a left-side, right-side arc... there are a ton of Sci-Fi universes where you need that arc to accurately portray a lot of ships. You also need 360, but that has balance issues associated with it.

[warchariot]

We found the same with the F/S/P arc. It is way to big and in fact the first time we play, we thought it was 180 instead of the 320. That game had more maneuver. Our unoffical house rule has been only forward hard points can have this field. The two P and S hard points can only have P and S arcs and we don't use the A/P/S acr at all. Of course missiles go where thet want so there is no arc. I could also see allowing auto cannons a big arc.

[kashre]

I don't think I agree with F/P/S being overpowered... most non RDF ships BC and over tend to have Delta 1 because delta gets so expensive... when you can only make one heading change per turn, it gets really hard to mass your firepower without broader arcs. And F/P/S still leaves a big blind spot on your butt for RDF ships to exploit.

I would at least allow P/S to have F/P and F/S arcs so you can have large batteries of narrow(ish) arc guns in the front and have backups/shield strippers that can cover everything but the hind end.

[unclejoe]

The F/S/P is fairly avoidable though (but it is pretty large). We've had plenty of weapons not be able to fire from that mounting. I don't have a beef with F/S/P personally, but the F/S/A and F/P/A is just too much.

With the arcs as they are now, I dont spend much on P or S firing weapons. The arc is pretty narrow. I have a fair amount of F mounted smaller weapons (paying for a turret makes them too costly for their effect). But the majority of my heavy weapons were F/P/S. After my friend point out just how insanely big the F/S/A and F/P/A are though, I can't imagine using any other turret mounting. And judging from what we saw with that arc, it takes a lot of the fun out.

I could see the following being 'legal' arcs:

F
P
S
F/P
F/S
F/S/P
S/A
P/A
P/S/A
A

That still give a LOT of variety without having the 'super arc'. And it still leaves room for maneuver to matter to dodge weapons. We have become pretty skilled at dodging F/S/P weapons.

[darby]

I concur. Cost should go up for each arc a respectable amount, as right now it seems a little inexpensive. I'd also like to see some of the arcs not actually touch/be a bit more narrow in order to have maneuver be even more important. (I'm not aiming for Nappy Naval in space, but it's be nice to be able to get into weapon defilade on occasion!)

[unclejoe]

I just think the same turret shouldnt be able to include both F and A. Both of those are VERY large arcs. So having both on one mount is just too much coverage. Adding in a P or S on it just makes it overkill IMO.

[TheDreadnought]

I'll see about killing the F/P/A, F/S/A arcs. . . they were a late addition.

More firing arcs are coming in future fleet books.

[unclejoe]

Rather than killing them, any objection of just having them be a special 180 arc down the centerline?

[TheDreadnought]

I'll just include that next time I do an arc update in the fleet books.

[unclejoe]

Sweet, sounds great!

Any thoughts on the Mag Cannon? The more I look at it, the more I think it's just a tad too good of a bargain.

[TheDreadnought]

I like it the way it is.

Really though. . . kinetic weapons are intentionally designed to be king. The mag cannon is an outgrowth of that and it provides an important role in making CAs a serious threat.

Ultimately, I don't think it's breaking the game, but if it really bugs you, just house rule it.

[unclejoe]

Yeah, it wont break the game, but it just looks the Mag Cannon was intended to be a d6 attack weapon (evolution of the auto-cannon with mediocre shield damage and high hull damage). But instead it eclipses the Disruptors and the Torps.

I actually thought it could have been a typo for the attack die in the Mag Cannon.

[TheDreadnought]

Heh. . . you busted me.

It was originally a d6 attack weapon. But got bumped to a d10 later on because it wasn't powerful enough.

[unclejoe]

I guess that's why it feels so out of the progression.

OK, well maybe we'll just move it up on the tech tree one or something. It just feels clearly superior to every other weapon at it's tech level as it is now.

Thanks for the info!

[unclejoe]

OK, so here's what I did to the table. I moved Mag up 1 and moved Cluster Missile up one to smooth things out.

Reasoning was this:
Mag Cannon is a cruiser sized weapon while Rail Gun is BC+ so I figured they'd don't really interfere with one another at the same tech.

Cluster Missile and Bombardments both appear to be evolutions of the standard ASGM, so having them together and one tech ahead seemed to makes sense.

With this layout, the Mag Cannon is still really good for it's cost, but at least it's higher tech than competing weapons in other trees.

Conventional Weaponry

Level 0
Max P Def 0

Level 1
Gatling Autocannon
Heavy Autocannon
Grape Shot
Fusion Torpedo

Level 2
ASGM
Max P Def +1
Space Mines (non-stealth)

Level 3
Cluster Missile
Bombardment Missile

Level 4
Rail Gun
Mag Cannon
Max P Def +2

Level 5
Heavy Rail Gun

Just for anyone interested

[warchariot]

I see the Mag Cannon, Rail gun and Heavy Rail gun as a progression up the tree. Yes, a mag cannon can be placed on lighter frames, but what if your at Tech 3 for weapons. You can't buy any of the big guns for any ship. I have designed BB and BC with Mag cannons because of this. Also, having two weapons which are so close on one tech level seems to make that a must buy tech level, which is what I thought we were trying to get away from.

But that's just me. ;D

[unclejoe]

Yes, I agree with that, but I didnt want to make an actual change to the weapon at this point so the only other thing to do was the move it up the tech tree.

If you dont see the Mag Cannon as a too good of a buy, then it's not a problem to leave well enough alone. But I know my group gravitates to the 'best' choices and that one sticks out pretty far.

Also, the Rail gun doesnt really obsolete the Mag Cannon - it's clearly better, but you pay a price in tonnage for it. I could still see mounting MCs on a BC even having the Rail Gun available. But I really cant see wanting to use Disruptors or AM Torps with having a Mag Cannon available. Sure, you could contrive situations for it, but 90% of the time, the Mag Cannon will be the better choice. It's just clearly better in the progression than the others IMO.

[warchariot]

It is better than those weapons at 3 and below. Since Dread has said he isn't going to change the stats of the mag cannon, it is a matter of where on the tree. The rail gun does cost more and can't go on smaller frames, however the only other gun type weapons are the autos, which as you have pointed out, fair poorly against high AV targets. IMO the only solutions, taking all that into account, is to have the mag at Tech 3,
.

[unclejoe]

Or Rail Gun to 3. It's certainly not beyond the realm of reason to have a large weapon developed and then refined into a smaller package (ie, the Mag Cannon). The Rail Gun would be available for larger ships at low tech, and the Mag Cannon could 'up gun' CAs at TL4 (or provide a lower mass alternative for your BCs/BBs).

Also, on the AC front, the Gatling ACs actually represent a pretty good value in hull damage potential. They are extremely effective on a per-ton basis and they don't require FC. The big killer for the HvyACs is the need for FC in a weapon that is ineffective vs high AV. The Gatling does not share that deficiency and is, in fact, one of the best weapons for mass to hull damage ratio. )