SM on patrol ships ("LCVs") overpowered?

Kadorak

Mongoose
Just checking something for some custom content I'm working on against the community's experience. In B5W there was a class of ships called "Light Combat Vessels", even smaller than say a Tethys police cutter or Haven patrol boat, but still larger than a fighter (even a Drazi Sky Serpent). Somwhat like PFs in SFB is my only other reference. Anyways, in depicting these ships (which are used only by some minor races, Raiders, and the Belt Alliance - inefficient for major races to produce) I've been debating giving them the SM trait to distinguish them. The weakest ones may also be multiple ships per patrol point, forced into a mandatory squadron (so they aren't the best initiative sinks ever).

Anyways, any opinions on if SM on a ship like this would be overpowered? Weapons are fairly minimal and speed is only medium (7-9") so other small/fast ships can outrun them. My playtesting has showed them to be alright except against ships with completely bare arcs that are in numbers too small to provide a 'wingman' covering effect. That said, due to health & location issues I can't play large numbers of games or with a lot of people (most of my playtesting is done with myself), so I want other peoples' opinions on this.

Thoughts?
 
I think if you can post the stats somewhere, we might have a better understanding. It's a little difficult to decide based on one statistic.

I think that SM isn't such a great idea, though. In space, with inertia, you need larger banks of thrusters depending on your top speed and mass in order to turn or stop moving. Larger vessels have low speeds, so its easier to turn. But a small ship would have a high speed, and coupled with the fact that there is little room for additional thrusters, it would be difficult to turn. The low mass of the ship just doesn't make up for the speed + lack of thrusters.

With that in mind, what it means is that they should only have a 90* turn. Although they are smaller than, say, a Tethys, that Tethys is slower (easier to turn), and has much more room for engines. Therefore they are just as adept at turning.

And before somebody starts telling me that B5 isn't realistic, I must say that it is actually one of the most realistic space shows I've ever seen, especially compared to Star Wars. The game is also very good about this. In Star Wars, your fighters move several hundred times faster than a capital ship. In ACTA, they move 2-3 times as fast (without APTE!). And look at firepower- each ship has enough firepower to overkill another of its class very quickly, unlike other shows/games where battles are long, drawn out affairs. A modern destroyer has much greater offence than defence, and there is no reason for that to change in the future (In the future, it might even be more lethal, because I can't envision armor that can stand up to particle beams).

Thank you for reading this suggestion/review/rant, and please, post the ships! Raiders need all they can get!
 
Kadorak said:
Just checking something for some custom content I'm working on against the community's experience. In B5W there was a class of ships called "Light Combat Vessels", even smaller than say a Tethys police cutter or Haven patrol boat, but still larger than a fighter (even a Drazi Sky Serpent).

Anyways, any opinions on if SM on a ship like this would be overpowered?
Overpowered, no, but I'm not fond of the idea. SM should mean more than just 'turns really well'. Are you saying they can outmaneouvre the Whitestar?

Wulf
 
Yes, in the original material they have lower turn costs/delays than the WS and can apply as much thrust as they want in any direction (for turning) without damaging their thrusters, limited only by how much their engines can generate. In fact, they have a lower turn cost, though not turn delay, than fighters.

My original idea was actually to give them 2/90 turns but eliminate the half move turn delay. A lot of people on these boards seem to really dislike any new rules though, so I settled for SM. If a new mechanic doesn't bother people I'd rather return to that rule anyways.
 
Back
Top