unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 2, 2010 19:25:56 GMT -5
In and amongst the discussion on armor was this idea thrown out by Dreadnought:
We played with this rule today and the 'stock' for Autocannons really went up. Before this part of their serious deficiency was in that d6 attack die meaning that even at moderately short ranges (5-6 hexes) a lot of their firepower was wasted and while up close, 60% more of them 'automiss' than anything with a d10.
With this rule, the ACs felt like they had a really decent role - ie, they almost never miss within close ranges giving a nice solid and constant (if unimpressive) damage output. They are still heavily limited by their low penetration so they are in NO danger of being 'too good'. And they did server admirably as anti-Fighter weapons.
All in all, I would HIGHLY recommend giving this try. I think it adds considerable decision-making for weapon choices since the ACs are no longer undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 2, 2010 19:50:37 GMT -5
Did you give heavy auto cannons the anti fighter ability? I was working on their rules the other day and was leaning towards the rapid for rule but no anti fighter for the heavies.just really didn't appear to make much sense and de valued the gatling variety too much I felt.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 2, 2010 20:44:15 GMT -5
No, we just gave the re-roll. I agree that giving the Heavys the Anti-Fighter ability devalues the Gatlings.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 14:02:48 GMT -5
Question about the proposed 'Rapid Fire' rule...are you envisioning giving this to Gatling ACs too or just the Heavy ACs?
I think only the Heavy ACs need the help and giving it to the Gatlings might be overkill for them.
So for my vote, keep it just with the Heavies to give them the boost that they need. If it doesnt make sense thematically to give it to the Heavies and not the Gatlings, then perhaps +1 Pen for Heavies might make more sense?
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 7, 2010 14:24:49 GMT -5
Question about the proposed 'Rapid Fire' rule...are you envisioning giving this to Gatling ACs too or just the Heavy ACs? I think only the Heavy ACs need the help and giving it to the Gatlings might be overkill for them. So for my vote, keep it just with the Heavies to give them the boost that they need. If it doesnt make sense thematically to give it to the Heavies and not the Gatlings, then perhaps +1 Pen for Heavies might make more sense? " Did you give heavy auto cannons the anti fighter ability? I was working on their rules the other day and was leaning towards the rapid for rule but no anti fighter for the heavies.just really didn't appear to make much sense and de valued the gatling variety too much I felt."From Dreads post, I thought this meant both ACs got the rapid fire rule, but heavies can't engage fighters? I have used it this way and like the idea of Gatlings using this. That's what I thought we were talking about on the other thread with the Flak comparison.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 14:53:50 GMT -5
Yeah, that's the way I was thinking too, but Gatling ACs are already extremely efficient. I'm not sure boosting them is a really good idea.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 7, 2010 15:36:31 GMT -5
I'm giving it to both. Gatlings give up a lot to the gatling laser by being both 50% heavier and by not having the compact rule. This will bring them more in line. And if they get a little bit of an edge, so be it. It's not going to break anything and Gatling Lasers are still the clear choice when you want to throw out a lot more firepower at longer range!
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 16:03:12 GMT -5
As my friend pointed out, the Gatling AC actually put out fantastic hull damage for their cost (better than many higher tech weapons). They simply can't crit larger ships. But on anything with AV<6, they are a very very good buy as is for scrubbing down hull points. The only places where Gatling Lasers have a chance against them is vs Fighters and at extreme range. He sent me a very pretty excel file explaining this. I can send it if you'd like t o see it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are 'broken' or anything, but Im not sure they really need to re-roll. Without they are solid. With it, they really make a mess.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 7, 2010 17:12:00 GMT -5
I'm giving it to both. Gatlings give up a lot to the gatling laser by being both 50% heavier and by not having the compact rule. This will bring them more in line. And if they get a little bit of an edge, so be it. It's not going to break anything and Gatling Lasers are still the clear choice when you want to throw out a lot more firepower at longer range! Good, I won't have to go back and redo ships, thanks
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 20:23:07 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not calculating something right? Sure the Gatling AC is 50% heavier, but it does twice the damage (vs shields, and 4x damage vs hull). So the Gatling Lasers are 4 tons for 2 points of damage (for 2 of them) while the Gatling AC is 3 tons for 2 points of damage (again, vs shields). If the shields are down, there is no comparion at all. The Lasers do a max of 2, but only if they both penetrate (they also score no crit). The AC does a minimum of 2, and up to 4 if it penetrates (and inflicts a normal crit). And it weighs less. And its more accurate at engagement range. The ONLY advantage the Laser had is accuracy and range. And the Rapid Fire takes the accuracy advantage away and gives it to the AC. That leaves only range, and even that is somewhat illusory since your true range potential is about FC+4 regardless of what die you roll. Example, for a ship with FC3, both weapons will hit on a 2+ out to r5. Out to r8, the AC can keep up in accuracy (and closer it's actually better via the re-roll). At r9, the Laser finally can score hits slightly more often. And at 10-13, the Laser is the only one that can hit, but at those ranges, little to no damage can be expected regardless. So the absolute ONLY place where Gatling Lasers hold any advantage vs ships is at a range where they are incredibly weak anyways. And at any close range, the Gatling ACs will far far outperform the Laser. Take away the re-roll and it changes back a bit in favor the Laser since the d6 is now weaker out from r5. Am I missing something in the above?
|
|
kashre
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by kashre on Jul 7, 2010 20:56:22 GMT -5
The lower mass per gun and "compact" special rules make the gatling laser a superior anti-fighter weapon to gatling ACs, because they can be packed on in numbers and damage ratings dont mater when shooting fighters. The D10 attack die helps them against fighters as well, since the DV of the fighters is a pretty big penalty to apply to a D6 roll.
I look at it like this: GL are an anti-fighter weapon with a limited ability to effect ships.
GAC are basically small anti-ship weapons with a limited ability to effect fighters.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 21:04:28 GMT -5
Yes, I do too. But I was just making sure I wasnt missing something between the two vs ship targets because it's not even CLOSE to even despite the GLasers being Compact and smaller...the GAC wins hands down (in a landslide) Also note that even vs Fighters though, the GLaser is only better because it is more numerous. Consider that you'll largely be engaging adjacent Fighters, the re-roll actually gives the GAC a BETTER chance to hit (albeit it slightly), but it certainly not a markedly inferior AA weapon. When you factor in that its FAR better as a secondary weapon vs ships, I think it wins out across the board. The only place where I find myself putting Glasers is on ships that otherwise have all d10 weaponry in the vain hope that I might be able to hold the range and turn that into an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 7, 2010 21:28:38 GMT -5
The gatling lasers are intended as a strictly aa weapon and the gacs are definitely inferior in that role.
Real world here: For about the same tonnage you can get 5 gacs or 8 gatling lasers. Only one of those has a chance of wiping out a whole squadron of fighters.
As far as anti ship weapons go, if you're relying on gacs for anti ship firepower you are screwed.
|
|
kashre
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 110
|
Post by kashre on Jul 7, 2010 22:25:15 GMT -5
Y Also note that even vs Fighters though, the GLaser is only better because it is more numerous. Consider that you'll largely be engaging adjacent Fighters, the re-roll actually gives the GAC a BETTER chance to hit (albeit it slightly), but it certainly not a markedly inferior AA weapon. Hrm... that's a good point about the re-roll making GAC a lot closer in effectiveness to GLs... which does seem to throw the balance out of whack... yes, 8 GL are more likely to wipe out an entire squadron... but if my squadron gets knocked down to 2 fighters and THEN the same ship goes on to get 3-5 crits on one of my destroyers... I'd rather lose the whole squadron. I'm thinking we might just use the re-roll rule as vs ships only.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 7, 2010 22:40:00 GMT -5
Yes, that is exactly the point. The GAC is a lot more versatile and its still not a bad AA weapon with the re-roll.
And while it might not be ideal for anti-ship duty, its 'damage over time' per ton is actually pretty darned good compared to a lot of much higher tech weapons.
Also, that versatility still keeps the HAC as a bottom-rung weapon since the GAC will outperform it unless you are completely full up on hardpoints.
The real trick with it is the 'autonomous' ability which means you can simply pile more on without the need to increase FC (unlike for HACs or higher tech weapons). Sure, it cant crit large ships, but neither can a lot of weapons and on per-ton basis, the GAC does really really well.
If you want to keep the versatility and the 'flavor' that the Rapid Fire gives, just drop the Hull Damage by 1 (from 4 to 3). That means that all of the non-penetrating hits on ships will do significantly less damage over time, but it will still shred light ships nicely.
It would leave it as a solid low-tech weapon for killing a variety of small targets but it would restore the balance with the GALs, HACs, and some of the other high-tech weaponry that it can rival in terms of hull damage output.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 7:30:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I was actually considering doing that. I think I'll take that approach.
As far as AA effectiveness goes (assuming FC3):
At range 1 A battery of 5 autocannons will kill 3.75 strike fighters A battery of 8 glasers will kill 5.6 strike fighters
As far as protecting other ships from fighters. . .
At range 3 5 autocannons - 1.5 strike fighters 8 glasers - 4 strike fighters
At range 4 5 autocannons - 0 strike fighters and flatline from there on out 8 glasers - 3.2 strike fighters - continues to gradually decrease
So. . . glasers clearly superior as an AA weapon.
And that's only assuming equivalent tonnage. Which ignores the additional advantage that glasers have which is that you can never have more than 5 gacs on a hard point. . . whereas you can mount up to 10 glasers.
|
|
|
Post by kenh01 on Jul 8, 2010 7:44:56 GMT -5
Does this mean more changes to the shipbuilder? Ken
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 8, 2010 7:46:10 GMT -5
Sent you a note, just change gatling AC damage to 3. That's all that is required. Thanks!
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Jul 8, 2010 9:03:04 GMT -5
OK, great. I've updated my spreadsheet to reflect this change as well. Thanks for looking at it.
|
|