Range Bands Thrust required to change...

[Nerhesi]

Matt - you had mentioned earlier that we needed to keep an eye on Range Bands for ships, given the new speed (9G), and other options (Rocket boosters).

I think this is going to be required. I didn't want to bring it up till High-Guard finalization but I realised we obviously mention this in the Core-Rulebook as well. what do you think?

Specific examples:

Craft changing inner-range bands rather quickly. 9G takes you from adjacent to Medium in 1 turn (vs a fixed point).
SDBs and other rocket boosted craft can go from very long, to adjacent in 2 turns.


Possible solutions:

Do we want to look at increasing the range band thrust by +50% or +100%? What issues if any, would this cause?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then you need to increase the actual distance in the range bands. The ranges are very short compared with how fast the accelerations really are.

Real distance traveled at full acceleration [km]; Rows: turns; Columns: Acceleration.

      1 G      2 G      3 G      6 G      9 G     15 G       20 G       25 G
 1     648    1 296    1 944    3 888    5 832    9 720     12 960     16 200
 2   2 592    5 184    7 776   15 552   23 328   38 880     51 840     64 800
 3   5 832   11 664   17 496   34 992   52 488   87 480    116 640    145 800
 4  10 368   20 736   31 104   62 208   93 312  155 520    207 360    259 200
 5  16 200   32 400   48 600   97 200  145 800  243 000    324 000    405 000
 6  23 328   46 656   69 984  139 968  209 952  349 920    466 560    583 200
 7  31 752   63 504   95 256  190 512  285 768  476 280    635 040    793 800
 8  41 472   82 944  124 416  248 832  373 248  622 080    829 440  1 036 800
 9  52 488  104 976  157 464  314 928  472 392  787 320  1 049 760  1 312 200
10  64 800  129 600  194 400  388 800  583 200  972 000  1 296 000  1 620 000

At 20 G we will reach Long in one round and Distant in two rounds.
Even at 1 G we will reach Very Long in seven rounds and Distant in nine.

 

[Nerhesi]

Range bands didn't denote actual distance, at least not directly - because this problem exists today with the current scale. We dont want to get too crazy though and make it such that Range band and actual distance are off by like 4-5 factors.

So ... do we keep it as is, with fighter closing distance from carrier to dog fight in 1 round? (the second round they're already in dogfight mode)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Range Bands are intended to make things simple, I assume. So, keep it simple.

So ... do we keep it as is, with fighter closing distance from carrier to dog fight in 1 round? (the second round they're already in dogfight mode)

By RAW it takes about 100 thrust to close in from Distant to Dogfight. IF the target is cooperative enough to remain stationary it will take a fighter with massive boosters 4 turns to close to dogfight, 6 rounds if the target accelerates away at 9G. Without massive boosters it will take much longer. I don't think this is a problem.

If fighters cannot close in in a reasonable time, fighters are pointless. Most people (?) like fighters and battleships, so the system should not make them pointless.

The easy solution is to choose the amount of thrust required to change range, and then adjust the nominal range in km to look reasonable. Note that the table above assumes full acceleration towards the target, building up a massive speed leading to that you swish past the target in fraction of a round. If you need to match vectors with the target it will take longer.

 

[Nerhesi]

The Range Bands are intended to make things simple, I assume. So, keep it simple.

So ... do we keep it as is, with fighter closing distance from carrier to dog fight in 1 round? (the second round they're already in dogfight mode)

By RAW it takes about 100 thrust to close in from Distant to Dogfight. IF the target is cooperative enough to remain stationary it will take a fighter with massive boosters 4 turns to close to dogfight, 6 rounds if the target accelerates away at 9G. Without massive boosters it will take much longer. I don't think this is a problem.

If fighters cannot close in in a reasonable time, fighters are pointless. Most people (?) like fighters and battleships, so the system should not make them pointless.

The easy solution is to choose the amount of thrust required to change range, and then adjust the nominal range in km to look reasonable. Note that the table above assumes full acceleration towards the target, building up a massive speed leading to that you swish past the target in fraction of a round. If you need to match vectors with the target it will take longer.

As weapons wont hit Distant thought, we need to balance for Very-long and closer. Missiles can hit distant but at a -6 or so..

But basically, the second I get to hit fighters with my "guns/beams" - I have 1 round.. before it's dogfight hell and I better have my own fighters. (Dont get me wrong, I think this is great, especially with any upcoming squadron rules.. I just think perhaps.. 1 round is a bit crazy? how about 2-3?)

But I agree with your approach AnotherDilbert. So it would be basically... double Range band thrust change requirements = double distance. As an example

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You can fire missiles for three rounds. Since the missiles and the fighters accelerate toward each other they will hit at much less than Distant range, so no -6 to attack.

Beam weapons needs Very Long range to get even a single shot at the fighters, but I guess all beam weapons will have that if at all possible.

Remember to consider adventure class ships with 1 - 3 G acceleration, if you increase the thrust required to change range, they will be basically immobilised at Long range or more. If you have 1 G and it takes 100 thrust to change from Distant range, the encounter will be over long before you can close or escape...

I guess the question is moot now that Core is finished.

 

[Nerhesi]

You can fire missiles for three rounds. Since the missiles and the fighters accelerate toward each other they will hit at much less than Distant range, so no -6 to attack.

Logically, yes. By Raw, the launching distance determines if the -6 applies or not.

Beam weapons needs Very Long range to get even a single shot at the fighters, but I guess all beam weapons will have that if at all possible.
...
I guess the question is moot now that Core is finished.

Yes the Q is moot... but Eureka!!!

Page 162: At the start of every round, the pilots of both spacecraft make opposed Pilot checks,

Its funny when something not-intended ends up solving what would be a huge issue. The issue, Fighters are at Very Long, and suddenly dogfighting? Thankfully not!
Due to the above, the dog-fighting roll happens at the beginning of the round, which means the fighter would have had to start at Close or Adjacent range. Thankfully, that means that the fighter/SDB that goes from Very Long to Adjacent or so, can at least be fire-at during that round without having to deal with the dog-fighting difficulties. This logically simulates the "approach" - so thankfully, no instant Long to Dogfight or so - you get one more round of breathing space.

Remember to consider adventure class ships with 1 - 3 G acceleration, if you increase the thrust required to change range, they will be basically immobilised at Long range or more. If you have 1 G and it takes 100 thrust to change from Distant range, the encounter will be over long before you can close or escape...

Do these ships even exist anymore with how cheap M-drives are now? If somehow should they - they're the non-combatants that should be fodder anyways. I dont see any serious navy not going for max available thrust due to it's tactical and strategic usage, coupled with it's ridiculous efficiency

 

[Reynard]

We'll see in High Guard but budgets are the super ship killers. Not everyone lives in a Multi-Trillion Credit universe. Not even the Imperium.

 

[Nerhesi]

We'll see in High Guard but budgets are the super ship killers. Not everyone lives in a Multi-Trillion Credit universe. Not even the Imperium.

Which is why you dont want to waste that finite amount of credits on designs with critical failures.

I'm of the opinion that budgets limit ships, but the inability to dodge, or determine the range of the conflict is a guaranteed ship killer. The difference between 3G and 9G is 2MCr per ton. On a 10,000 ton ship 1200 MCr. On a 100,000 ton ship that is 12,000 MCr.

A not insignificant cost when looked at in isolation. A completely insignificant cost if it means that without spending that, your warship will *never* be in range to shoot the enemy, or will always only evade at 33% effectiveness, etc and so on

The majority of Imperium combat ships (carriers, tenders and support craft aside) had Thrust 5 or Thrust 6 when max Thrust was 6 (Fighting Ships & trillion Credit Squadron)

 

[Reynard]

I guess if every ship on all sides of the conflict can have near maximum thrust plus the best armor and the best guns at a low price then the game is balanced. It's just a very high level game.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This clearly refers to every 6 s combat round.

Page 162: At the start of every round, the pilots of both spacecraft make opposed Pilot checks,

Is preceeded by

P 156, Note that once a spacecraft moves to within Close or Adjacent range of another, immediately start using the Close Range Combat rules

The core book is full of classic adventure ships with low acceleration, these are the ships most adventurers will have. Military designs will have higher thrust, but apart from fighters, rarely above 9 G.

I rechecked the rules, it specifically says "launched at Distant range", so I was wrong in my assumptions. As you say, logic is overruled.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm of the opinion that budgets limit ships, but the inability to dodge, or determine the range of the conflict is a guaranteed ship killer. The difference between 3G and 9G is 2MCr per ton. On a 10,000 ton ship 1200 MCr. On a 100,000 ton ship that is 12,000 MCr.

The real cost is the tonnage required. A ship with 10 000 dT payload will be significantly larger and more expensive with 9 G drives.

A TL 15 ship with J4, M9, Armour 15 will have a payload of around 10-15% if memory serves. A few percent more payload will make a large difference.

You will still want high acceleration, and you will pay dearly for it.

 

[Nerhesi]

Hrm

Perhaps the 6 second round starts but as the 6 minute round is still happening then that still resolves separately? Ugh... I'll check the text again tonight. As it stands now, you have:

Fighter out of range
Fighter at Very long (spend max 25 thrust)
Fighter at Long (spend max 19 thrust)
Fighter Dogfighting

Perhaps this is just a paradigm shift that we need to get used to. Technically at best, it is 2 turn in gun-range.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Remember that the other side is manoeuvring as well. If you accelerate away from the fighters it takes them longer to close in.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Remember also that the fighters must lose the initiative to close in, otherwise you can adjust your thrust to keep them out of Close range.

I assume, even if it is not clearly stated, that if the fighters allocate to much thrust they will overtake their target and start to increase the range in the other direction. Perhaps that is to much to assume?

 

[Nerhesi]

I would think you can't overspend thrust and have it prove detrimental. After all this is over 6 mins, and youv got advanced sensors and so on...

As for the other target countering-thrust, of course that is possible, but the disparity comes from fighters/SDBs with 15/16 more Gs of thrust. So you're basically 25G vs 9G... a littl tough

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To make it simple the movement is either relative, or absolute.

If it is relative you have a severe problem with more than two ships/squadrons. Ship A moves relative to Ship B, Ship B moves relative to Ship C. What is the range between Ship A and Ship C? This seems to be what you assume?

If it is absolute you keep track of an absolute position (in thrust points) for each ship/squadron and all distances are easy to calculate. This is basically what I assumed.