So what's better - a spinal weapon or 40 x 100t bays?
- Thread starter Chas
- Start date
From a pure punch perspective, the spinal mount. But you have to factor in defenses, energy consumption, do you need to engage more and smaller targets more than single, larger and more heavily defended ones?
Plus with the meson changes, only way to really smack someone with a meson weapon is via a spinal mount.
Plus with the meson changes, only way to really smack someone with a meson weapon is via a spinal mount.
a) 40x100t particle bays = 32DD damage
b) 4000ton spinal is = 10DD
However, the particle bays will require a LOT hard points and staterooms. To be exact, another 40 double occ staterooms.
Also the 32DD, maximum damage of 1920, minus up to 600 from armour (40 hits vs 15 armour), with a resultant maximum of 1320.
The Spinal is 600 damage maximum.
Firecontrol (until we get to capital damage rules), cannot be split between all the bays, but needs to off-set the penalty on the spinal. However, dodge will have more impact vs 1 spinal than vs 40 bays.
Conclusion:
Bays are superior. Unless I've missed something in my math?
**
**EDIT: Hold up! If you make that Particle-E a TL15 version, the weight drops from 4000 to 2800. So it is really only equivalent to 28 bays. So that means 22DD approximately, 1320 maximum damage, minus 420 from armour, resulting in 900 damage.
900 vs 600 from the spinal - Eh... closer, but Bays are still superior.
b) 4000ton spinal is = 10DD
However, the particle bays will require a LOT hard points and staterooms. To be exact, another 40 double occ staterooms.
Also the 32DD, maximum damage of 1920, minus up to 600 from armour (40 hits vs 15 armour), with a resultant maximum of 1320.
The Spinal is 600 damage maximum.
Firecontrol (until we get to capital damage rules), cannot be split between all the bays, but needs to off-set the penalty on the spinal. However, dodge will have more impact vs 1 spinal than vs 40 bays.
Conclusion:
Bays are superior. Unless I've missed something in my math?
****EDIT: Hold up! If you make that Particle-E a TL15 version, the weight drops from 4000 to 2800. So it is really only equivalent to 28 bays. So that means 22DD approximately, 1320 maximum damage, minus 420 from armour, resulting in 900 damage.
900 vs 600 from the spinal - Eh... closer, but Bays are still superior.
I was working through it before sleep took me.
Hardpoints are a non-issue, in something approaching a ship of the line, these become throw away, with hundreds and hundreds of hardpoints you don't have the tonnage to do anything with bar put in turrets/point defense.
So I was looking at 3 key options (and I'm always working at TL15) where I was figuring things were at:
A very high yield rapid fire Particle E. So tonnage at 4000 tons (two advantaged bringing it to TL14, then the TL bonus and rapid fire cost balance out). 700 power points. 10DD with 1s and 2s =3s. Crew 40. No armor deduction.
40 x Long range, high yield 100t bay Fusion cannons. 4000 tons. 3000 power points (don't see dropping high yield advantage for energy efficient, you're only saving 37.5tons of the 150 tons needed for the power plant for this) 2DD with 1s = 2s. Assume armor deduction of 15 on each hit. Crew 80.
80 x high yield 50t bay Tachyon Cannons. 4000 tons. Power 960. 5D with 1s = 2s. Crew 80. No armor deduction.
Crew no biggy at double staterooms +20 tons is neither here nor there. Power consumption balance for the Fusion gun, you could drop a bay if you wanted. But hey, this is your primary offense, the whole reason the ship is being created for.
Fusions being affected by nuclear dampers? Not a particularly effective argument. One I'll return to though. Suffice it to say in a Jump 4 capital ship tonnage for weapons is very tight. And a 100ton of fusion gun bay vs 100 ton +crew of -1DD of a nuclear damper 5 unit set is not a good choice. You are better to have the offensive clout. Somebody with 80 x Fusion bays, vs somebody with 40 fusion bays and 40 sets of nuclear dampers who wins? The guy with the guns every time. This screen balance needs further examination. An equal weight of screens should neutralize an equal weight of offensive weaponry as a minimum, ideally it should be more.
Okay, let's assume the 100t fusion gun gets the nerf bat and we do have 1DD as the best a 100 t bay can do.
To be continued...
Hardpoints are a non-issue, in something approaching a ship of the line, these become throw away, with hundreds and hundreds of hardpoints you don't have the tonnage to do anything with bar put in turrets/point defense.
So I was looking at 3 key options (and I'm always working at TL15) where I was figuring things were at:
A very high yield rapid fire Particle E. So tonnage at 4000 tons (two advantaged bringing it to TL14, then the TL bonus and rapid fire cost balance out). 700 power points. 10DD with 1s and 2s =3s. Crew 40. No armor deduction.
40 x Long range, high yield 100t bay Fusion cannons. 4000 tons. 3000 power points (don't see dropping high yield advantage for energy efficient, you're only saving 37.5tons of the 150 tons needed for the power plant for this) 2DD with 1s = 2s. Assume armor deduction of 15 on each hit. Crew 80.
80 x high yield 50t bay Tachyon Cannons. 4000 tons. Power 960. 5D with 1s = 2s. Crew 80. No armor deduction.
Crew no biggy at double staterooms +20 tons is neither here nor there. Power consumption balance for the Fusion gun, you could drop a bay if you wanted. But hey, this is your primary offense, the whole reason the ship is being created for.
Fusions being affected by nuclear dampers? Not a particularly effective argument. One I'll return to though. Suffice it to say in a Jump 4 capital ship tonnage for weapons is very tight. And a 100ton of fusion gun bay vs 100 ton +crew of -1DD of a nuclear damper 5 unit set is not a good choice. You are better to have the offensive clout. Somebody with 80 x Fusion bays, vs somebody with 40 fusion bays and 40 sets of nuclear dampers who wins? The guy with the guns every time. This screen balance needs further examination. An equal weight of screens should neutralize an equal weight of offensive weaponry as a minimum, ideally it should be more.
Okay, let's assume the 100t fusion gun gets the nerf bat and we do have 1DD as the best a 100 t bay can do.
To be continued...
Nerhesi said:
That's assuming all the bay weapons hit (conversely, the damage from the spinal mount is assuming it hits as well).
I suppose you could use the barrage rules for the bays, but that still means some are going to miss. Damage from a single spinal mount hit should be treated much differently than any other weapon. After all they are supposed to be the two-handed swords of the game, where the bays would be more like short-swords or perhaps even daggers (to keep the sword analogy going).
Logically, if you assume all bays hit, you assume the spinal hits.
It doesn't actually change the math at all. Simple compare the 40 bays firing for 10 rounds (400 bay equivalents) versu 10 spinal weapon attacks over 10 rounds. Exact same values regardless of hit % assuming the to-hit # is the same.
So versus 10k dton and bigger targets, it's actually better for the spinal.
But whether you compare 1 spinal and 40 bays needing an 8+ to hit, or 100 Spinals and 4000 bays need an 8+ to hit - it's the same
Yes - bad rolls may affect Spinals a lot harder, but guess what? So do good rolls
I didn't factor into effect power though. What 28medium particle bays vs 1 particle-E spinal TL15
It doesn't actually change the math at all. Simple compare the 40 bays firing for 10 rounds (400 bay equivalents) versu 10 spinal weapon attacks over 10 rounds. Exact same values regardless of hit % assuming the to-hit # is the same.
So versus 10k dton and bigger targets, it's actually better for the spinal.
But whether you compare 1 spinal and 40 bays needing an 8+ to hit, or 100 Spinals and 4000 bays need an 8+ to hit - it's the same
Yes - bad rolls may affect Spinals a lot harder, but guess what? So do good rolls
I didn't factor into effect power though. What 28medium particle bays vs 1 particle-E spinal TL15
Right, to continue on with the TBC part...
So what are the factors impacting these numbers then?
These are going to be mounted on effectively ships-of-the-line, so if the facing rules carry through, we have a 20% reduction on all fire power from the bays. (let's assume an 80% facing for this)
Firepower control? Barrage rules? How these are to be implemented are highly likely to favor the spinal mount, control and effective mass power of the barrages you might assume are deemed more problematic.
Sensor lock on. It's probably going to be easier to do this as a one time thing for every weapon on the ship, but how the final rules pan out could well be another matter. If you're fighting on a fleet scale they might try to streamline things a bit. Still the boon dice for attack is important, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume it pans out even.
Effect.. likely to be even for all options?
Anything else?
So what are the factors impacting these numbers then?
These are going to be mounted on effectively ships-of-the-line, so if the facing rules carry through, we have a 20% reduction on all fire power from the bays. (let's assume an 80% facing for this)
Firepower control? Barrage rules? How these are to be implemented are highly likely to favor the spinal mount, control and effective mass power of the barrages you might assume are deemed more problematic.
Sensor lock on. It's probably going to be easier to do this as a one time thing for every weapon on the ship, but how the final rules pan out could well be another matter. If you're fighting on a fleet scale they might try to streamline things a bit. Still the boon dice for attack is important, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume it pans out even.
Effect.. likely to be even for all options?
Anything else?
I think Sensor lock-on is likely to remain, as you say, one roll for the entire ship. It isn't a one-time thing however, as it usually becomes an opposed roll - so perhaps we can reduce it to 1 opposed roll rather than 2 (which it currently is)
I also see that facing/# of hardpoints brought to bear for hull shapes has been removed...
Power comparisson would be a good issue to look at.
I would avoid using Tachyon Bays for comparison now as I have a strong feeling their values will be changing. I think Particle is your best bet.
I also see that facing/# of hardpoints brought to bear for hull shapes has been removed...
Power comparisson would be a good issue to look at.
I would avoid using Tachyon Bays for comparison now as I have a strong feeling their values will be changing. I think Particle is your best bet.
Makes sense re the facing phase out. Sometimes thinking about realistic issues isn't actually realistic or game enhancing 
At TL 15, power for the primary offense isn't a biggy, dwarfed by the jaw dropping even basic power point requirements of big ships. The critical issue is straight tonnage for a jump 4 ship's first weapon of choice for offense. The 3000 power points for the fusion bays is still only 150 tons.
Still all in all for the moment I think you'd have to say the Bays have it
QUICK! HELP! SOMEBODY COME TO SAVE THE GAME!!
Joking aside, spinal mounts do look like they should get a rethink, or that bays need to be toned down a bit which might be sensible regards relative hull values, and the meson mounts really need consideration vs. screens as commented.
To be continued...
At TL 15, power for the primary offense isn't a biggy, dwarfed by the jaw dropping even basic power point requirements of big ships. The critical issue is straight tonnage for a jump 4 ship's first weapon of choice for offense. The 3000 power points for the fusion bays is still only 150 tons.
Still all in all for the moment I think you'd have to say the Bays have it
QUICK! HELP! SOMEBODY COME TO SAVE THE GAME!!
Joking aside, spinal mounts do look like they should get a rethink, or that bays need to be toned down a bit which might be sensible regards relative hull values, and the meson mounts really need consideration vs. screens as commented.
To be continued...
I have been mulling this over...
My first reaction here is to simply increase the damage of spinal weapons - these are supposed to be the Death Stars of Traveller, after all, and while armour rapidly runs out of legs against super weapons, the additional hull damage will be a huge factor.
I think what we should be asking is what size ship should be boiled away by the average spinal mount hit, and what ships should be able to survive it?
My first reaction here is to simply increase the damage of spinal weapons - these are supposed to be the Death Stars of Traveller, after all, and while armour rapidly runs out of legs against super weapons, the additional hull damage will be a huge factor.
I think what we should be asking is what size ship should be boiled away by the average spinal mount hit, and what ships should be able to survive it?
msprange said:
Might be good to put it all down on a spreadsheet and see if you can come up with a reasonable scaling formula. Spinal mounts should be scary... but if one hit = one kill, then getting the hit needs to be challenging. We don't want every ship to be a HMS Queen Mary BC and shatter with a single hit.
Matt - if we are increasing hull points to make them match at least grav vehicles, then i'd definitely say increase Spinal Hull damage.
As a sidenote matt - instead of having arbitrary value spinal sizes, can we not simply define the following:
a) Minimum tonnage
b) damage based on absolute tons devoted to spinal weapon
Therefore you can have a 4000-ton, 6000-ton, and even 25,000-ton spinal? Maybe max it out at somepoint...
Example:
Spinal weapon size = Choose spinal weapon size in 1000-ton increments. Maximum of 15,000 ton spinal.
TL11 Particle damage = 2DD per 1000 tons. 50 power per 1000 tons. Radiation.
TL12 Meson damage = 1DD per 750 tons. 50 power per 1000 tons. Ignore armour. Radiation.
TL10 Railgun damage = 2DD per 1000 tons. 10 power per 1000 tons.
TL modifications then only affect size.
This totally thrown out there... but the damage at max would be up to 30DD up from the current 10DD.
If you think about damage, 30DD - up to 1800 hull. If we bring hull values up to 40 points per 100 tons or so, that means you're vapourizing most non-capital ships...
Is that ok? Do you want it to vapourize capitals too?
As a sidenote matt - instead of having arbitrary value spinal sizes, can we not simply define the following:
a) Minimum tonnage
b) damage based on absolute tons devoted to spinal weapon
Therefore you can have a 4000-ton, 6000-ton, and even 25,000-ton spinal? Maybe max it out at somepoint...
Example:
Spinal weapon size = Choose spinal weapon size in 1000-ton increments. Maximum of 15,000 ton spinal.
TL11 Particle damage = 2DD per 1000 tons. 50 power per 1000 tons. Radiation.
TL12 Meson damage = 1DD per 750 tons. 50 power per 1000 tons. Ignore armour. Radiation.
TL10 Railgun damage = 2DD per 1000 tons. 10 power per 1000 tons.
TL modifications then only affect size.
This totally thrown out there... but the damage at max would be up to 30DD up from the current 10DD.
If you think about damage, 30DD - up to 1800 hull. If we bring hull values up to 40 points per 100 tons or so, that means you're vapourizing most non-capital ships...
Is that ok? Do you want it to vapourize capitals too?
Hmmm...
You'd probably want a sliding hit ability, so the monster spinal mounts get less wieldy, and then have an TL advantage to assist.
You could also increase the minimize size values that they can hit as spinal mounts get bigger. So your super spinal mount is only good for ships of the line and planetary bombardment and the ultimate spinal mounts only good for moon base smashing.
Regards the spinal mount damage, only a casual comment, I'd suggest everything up to 40k tons needs to be effectively destroyed or seriously crippled by a hit. From medium cruiser up to Heavy it takes 2-3 hits, 50k tons to 75, and above that 3 or more depending on build. ??
You'd probably want a sliding hit ability, so the monster spinal mounts get less wieldy, and then have an TL advantage to assist.
You could also increase the minimize size values that they can hit as spinal mounts get bigger. So your super spinal mount is only good for ships of the line and planetary bombardment and the ultimate spinal mounts only good for moon base smashing.
Regards the spinal mount damage, only a casual comment, I'd suggest everything up to 40k tons needs to be effectively destroyed or seriously crippled by a hit. From medium cruiser up to Heavy it takes 2-3 hits, 50k tons to 75, and above that 3 or more depending on build. ??
Chas said:
Agreed. Targeting penalties should scale.
Thats a BIG ship to lose in 1-hit. While I wouldn't mind under MGT1 rules because no matter what you were shooting at, you had to contend with a -6, then additional penalties... but anyways. I think we can possibly err a bit and bring up the damage even higher, perhaps so that it can insta-gib a 10k ton ship.. I just somehow feel.. 40k ton is a lot!!!
Nerhesi said:Thats a BIG ship to lose in 1-hit. While I wouldn't mind under MGT1 rules because no matter what you were shooting at, you had to contend with a -6, then additional penalties... but anyways. I think we can possibly err a bit and bring up the damage even higher, perhaps so that it can insta-gib a 10k ton ship.. I just somehow feel.. 40k ton is a lot!!!
Fair enough. I was really thinking of the top end where you didn't want so many hull points and so little effective power in spinal mounts that a battle ran on for hit after hit after hit...
Chas said:Nerhesi said:Thats a BIG ship to lose in 1-hit. While I wouldn't mind under MGT1 rules because no matter what you were shooting at, you had to contend with a -6, then additional penalties... but anyways. I think we can possibly err a bit and bring up the damage even higher, perhaps so that it can insta-gib a 10k ton ship.. I just somehow feel.. 40k ton is a lot!!!
Fair enough. I was really thinking of the top end where you didn't want so many hull points and so little effective power in spinal mounts that a battle ran on for hit after hit after hit...
I think we'd want both.
Ships being torn down by barrages over 5-10 turns.
Ships being cored by an impressive spinal hit
Magic is what's that point between a and b - I was thinking a "capital of significant size" - bigger than destroyer wa my thought
Yes, about 20 ktons? That would be 5 hits to take out a 100k battleship, and multiple hits to take out the super dreadnought which would be fine, the death star isn't supposed to be 'cumply'.Nerhesi said:Chas said:Nerhesi said:Thats a BIG ship to lose in 1-hit. While I wouldn't mind under MGT1 rules because no matter what you were shooting at, you had to contend with a -6, then additional penalties... but anyways. I think we can possibly err a bit and bring up the damage even higher, perhaps so that it can insta-gib a 10k ton ship.. I just somehow feel.. 40k ton is a lot!!!
Fair enough. I was really thinking of the top end where you didn't want so many hull points and so little effective power in spinal mounts that a battle ran on for hit after hit after hit...
I think we'd want both.
Ships being torn down by barrages over 5-10 turns.
Ships being cored by an impressive spinal hit
Magic is what's that point between a and b - I was thinking a "capital of significant size" - bigger than destroyer wa my thought
