ErinPalette
Mongoose
Nerhesi said:
I'm actually trying to find that dictate from Marc. Can you give me the link for that, please and thank you?
Tachyon Anything
- Thread starter Jeff Hopper
- Start date
I'm actually trying to find that dictate from Marc. Can you give me the link for that, please and thank you?
ErinPalette
Mongoose
Thanks so much!
Nerhesi said:We have a lot of exciting work happening here that I'm proud to be a part of!
I am really liking this book (the new Traveller as a whole, actually), and it is giving me the nice fuzzy feeling I get when working on something cool
Just hope all these rules continue to (more or less) all hang together...
cliffbates65
Mongoose
Nerhesi said:
But in CT High Guard they Meson weapons are also low level Bay Wapons. I think Mr Miller was saying that meason turrets or barbetts [mspld] aren't Cannon.
Also low leveled tachyon weapon (or Ion) just not variations of the Partical Accelerator??? Perhaps the name will differ by how a given space culture developed it. If a tachyon is akin to the meson in its effect then Canon would permits no turrets style units, but if like a PA then follow the rules for PA and just add a mkdifier for EMP or Jump Stasis field effect on non bubble ships.
I'm not in contact with Mr Miller - but he is in contact with Matthew
As for what Tachyon and Ion are. I'm not really concerned about what something is at it's core... is it really just a different particle weapon? a variation of plasma? perhaps a modification on the laser? Honestly - not a big deal. The benefit is meaningful choice granted by having a new option.
As for what Tachyon and Ion are. I'm not really concerned about what something is at it's core... is it really just a different particle weapon? a variation of plasma? perhaps a modification on the laser? Honestly - not a big deal. The benefit is meaningful choice granted by having a new option.
cliffbates65
Mongoose
Nerhesi said:I'm not in contact with Mr Miller - but he is in contact with Matthew
As for what Tachyon and Ion are. I'm not really concerned about what something is at it's core... is it really just a different particle weapon? a variation of plasma? perhaps a modification on the laser? Honestly - not a big deal. The benefit is meaningful choice granted by having a new option.
The genius of Traveller was the ballance it had with realism that most space games didn't. I see no difference that tachyon or Ions weapons add. If its choice then just call PAs Ion weapons and Meson, Tachyon but follow the rules PA and Meson.
When you turn to molecular disentergration, there arises disentergrators, etc.
Dwelling too much on realism in any game always reveals issues. For realism's sake, traveller should not have any crew-skills playing into space combat. Personal combat using battledress should throw away skills as well. Computers and turret/mounting articulation make people redundant. It is a slippery slope.
Uhm.... I think the difference is VERY self evident. Disabling ships (ion) - didn't exist before without random/semi random damage rolls. Tachyon provides a very meaningful alternative - do I go for higher overall damage and great power efficiency, but on an advanced weapon that can therefore only take 1 mod? It also does less damage to low armoured targets and has less range than particle weapons...
Balanced, meaningful, unique options.
That a little tongue in cheek, no? All it would be is us creating new labels for existing effects?...
There is no disintegration here. Trying to explain anything in a scifi game too much will always lead to problems as it inevitably leads to personal interpretation, and what each of us thinks should be in the game; or worse, how each us thinks something should work.
cliffbates65 said:
Uhm.... I think the difference is VERY self evident. Disabling ships (ion) - didn't exist before without random/semi random damage rolls. Tachyon provides a very meaningful alternative - do I go for higher overall damage and great power efficiency, but on an advanced weapon that can therefore only take 1 mod? It also does less damage to low armoured targets and has less range than particle weapons...
Balanced, meaningful, unique options.
cliffbates65 said:
That a little tongue in cheek, no? All it would be is us creating new labels for existing effects?...
There is no disintegration here. Trying to explain anything in a scifi game too much will always lead to problems as it inevitably leads to personal interpretation, and what each of us thinks should be in the game; or worse, how each us thinks something should work.
A small grumble with Tachyon's. They will be a 2 tech level wonder before they are totally invalidated by the rules as written. Which I don't believe has happened to any other weapon design.
As soon as molecular bonded armor comes into fashion at TL16, Tachyon's are worse than useless in a same tech level combat. I'd suggest a scale down of the AP, not a complete removal of the AP by molecular bonded armor. That way you'll be able to get a good and rational balance with bay mounted tachyons. Right now the small bay Tachyon is the best option of the various weapon sizes. Look at the balance again with the AP and then give molecular bonded armor a certain figure, and give the bigger bays better numbers to suit.
You could also include a weapon advantage for Tachyons if you wanted to help.
As soon as molecular bonded armor comes into fashion at TL16, Tachyon's are worse than useless in a same tech level combat. I'd suggest a scale down of the AP, not a complete removal of the AP by molecular bonded armor. That way you'll be able to get a good and rational balance with bay mounted tachyons. Right now the small bay Tachyon is the best option of the various weapon sizes. Look at the balance again with the AP and then give molecular bonded armor a certain figure, and give the bigger bays better numbers to suit.
You could also include a weapon advantage for Tachyons if you wanted to help.
Chas said:
You're correct - which is why they'd be relevant in OTU only/really. Simply put, without the molecular armour - they're a valid choice. With it, they're invalid. So since Molecular armour doesn't exist Until TL16 (maybe even increase that )... they're great! (again, OTU only)
With that in mind, they're kinda great - I've made some recommendations though because the weirdness that is small Tachyon bay, and ridiculous AP on larger stuff now. Its in the other thread regarding running the numbers - but basically:
You balance vs Particle weaponry.
Range is 1 band shorter.
Power is a ton cheaper.
Take off dice of damage, and replace with 5 AP.
Dont do the above for more than 2 dice. (10 AP should be max..)
You end up with a real tough choice of "hmmm... do I get this power efficient, higher average damage, weapon?"
Chas said:Further to buffered planetoids let's have the big bay tachyons back at some serious AP levels.Nerhesi said:Chas said:
Nope.
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=116089
See ya there
Right now they're in line with the power scaling, so I dont think we want to change that. I think once we look at how we should do "sniper" / large bays then we obviously have to revisit all those bays. As it stands though, increasing AP on the Tachyons now instantly makes particle bays an obsolete or trap-choice. They already have much better power efficiency, and higher average damage
Chas said:Particle bays are a much older technology. They should be obsolete by some other weapon by TL15, besides which they're getting a whole bunch of advantages which Tachyons can't get...
Yeah - I'm a bit against the replacement paradigm where instantly you move on to the next weapon which is better in all cases. IF you think about it, that means TL15 ships, power amour, vehicles, and so on should all have the same systems and single weapon system. I feel that creates a really a boring atmosphere where if you dont make that obvious design choice when building/kitting your blah, then you are a bad designer!
I like seeing high tech ships, vehicles, etc have some choices rather than just "Whats the best gun in all scenarios?". I think Traveller caters to that too (especially now with improved missiles, torps and lasers compared to MGT1).
Let compare Particle vs Tachyon vs Fusion:
Particle Small Bay with Improvements: Intense Focus or Accurate, plus Energy Efficient
6D, max damage 36. Average damage 21. 21 power. +1 to hit. Costs 60 MCr.
vs
Tachyon Small Bay with Improvement: Long Range.
4D AP 10, max damage 34. Average damage 24. 20 power. No Bonus to hit. Costs 45 MCr.
vs
Fusion Small Bay with Improvements: Accurate, plus Long Range.
1DD, max damage 60. Average damage 35. 50 power. Costs 24 MCr.
A real choice! I love unclear choices! Both Particle and Tachyon weapons now have the same range, and pretty much the same power cost (negligible difference). But... do I pick the 3 higher average damage per hit and 75% of the total cost... or do I get the +1 to hit, with lower average damage but higher max damage! Or do I just say go with the massive Fusion guns and overpower whatever screens you have because I know I'll get in close and do ridiculous damage!
Damn you Mongoose why couldn't you make everything a clear min-max for me!!! arrgggghh
(no please dont... we like meaningful options!)Chas... you just like the name Tachyon don't know?
I did say the big bays for the AP rise and stated in another thread I meant the medium and large bays should get the rise in AP for tachyons. Have a look at the averages there with either
Very High Yield
or
3 x size reduction
for particle accelerators vs. tachyons. And you find tachyons get seriously crimped. When particle accelerators get to hit at very long range right from the get go as well it's not a choice. Particle accelerators get in every time. Power and cost is neither here nor there for what is going to be primary offense for a majority of builds. With fusion guns also in the mix there's really no place for the Tachyons. Upping the AP for the tachyon big bays and things get interesting, you do get your armored planetoid smasher, while your particle accelerator can remain king of the long range sniping with the +1 accurate.
Very High Yield
or
3 x size reduction
for particle accelerators vs. tachyons. And you find tachyons get seriously crimped. When particle accelerators get to hit at very long range right from the get go as well it's not a choice. Particle accelerators get in every time. Power and cost is neither here nor there for what is going to be primary offense for a majority of builds. With fusion guns also in the mix there's really no place for the Tachyons. Upping the AP for the tachyon big bays and things get interesting, you do get your armored planetoid smasher, while your particle accelerator can remain king of the long range sniping with the +1 accurate.
Response eaten by forums...
Yup - I'll definitely try it out with the larger bays. I wasn't taking into account size reduction, but power is going to come into play (obviously less though than bay size), because we have to take into account the size of the powerplant required.
Cost is DEFINITELY a factor in capital ships, as me and you have pointed out earlier comparing TL15 ships for example to TL12s. If the Particle Cruiser is able to put out 30% more damage, but costs 100% more, then it may actually be a clear loser. Because in trillion credit squadron, actual sector/colonial/etc fleets, your limiting factor is usually how much budget you have allocated to that fleet.
I'll compare tonight
Yup - I'll definitely try it out with the larger bays. I wasn't taking into account size reduction, but power is going to come into play (obviously less though than bay size), because we have to take into account the size of the powerplant required.
Cost is DEFINITELY a factor in capital ships, as me and you have pointed out earlier comparing TL15 ships for example to TL12s. If the Particle Cruiser is able to put out 30% more damage, but costs 100% more, then it may actually be a clear loser. Because in trillion credit squadron, actual sector/colonial/etc fleets, your limiting factor is usually how much budget you have allocated to that fleet.
I'll compare tonight
Nerhesi said:
Actually I'd still state in the bigger picture cost and power is still of relatively minimal importance Nerhesi. When you consider what the difference in power is, and what the difference in cost is, on what for many ships will be primary armament, their entire reason for existence, and then compare all the other power consumption and cost involved in getting this into space, it really is neither here nor there. As mentioned at TL 15 you're only loosing one 100 ton medium bay per approx. 20 you include due to power constraints on the worst case fusion weapon paradigm - that's not going to materially affect your choice. You might look at the balance compared to other weapons at lower tech levels, but at a ton or 2 either way it's got to be a small disparity in damage to be of consequence. Similarly paying a few extra million credits for better weaponry isn't an issue. A 0.01% increase on your ship cost for 10% increase on firepower? A no brainer.
