Torpedo ideas

[animus]

Why is it that a torpedo is as fast as a laser beam?

Has anyone proposed having a system where a ship could defend itself against torpedos by using it's AF weapons? Surely the technology is there in the future to shoot down an incoming missile.

Also, what about giving torpedoes a move instead of a range and allow anything to shoot at it? Give it stealth 5 and/or dodge 2+ or something wicked, but allow it to stay on the board relentlessly homing in on its target. It would make torpedoes most effective when fired at short range when the defender wouldn't have a chance to blow it out of the sky. Only in close quarters, before lock on, would they be the direct fire weapon they are today.

I see a little more bookkeeping, but I like the idea. Might just be cool in 2nd Ed.

 

[Cerebral Cortex of the Da]

I agree. The old Mayday and other GDW games had missles as counters and were targetable but the modifiers were high due to their size.

To make Torps really difficult, stealth 5 AND dodge 3+ would make them worth having.

CCotD'

 

[Alexb83]

Also, you could have ballistic torpedoes intercepted by escorting fighters.

 

[locarno24]

Ever seen the Earthforce sourcebook expansion? Essentially it was a Full Thrust conversion for B5.....

Similar idea, anyway. They had missiles having pretty much the same statline to hit as Minbari Nial fighters....

 

[Rynar]

More measuring, more placing... More fike BFG, no thanks!

And Iterceptor grids already exist. Not everyone has them, but that's logical. It is Inteceptor grids who could use some work.
:wink:

 

[H]

Why is it that a torpedo is as fast as a laser beam?

Has anyone proposed having a system where a ship could defend itself against torpedos by using it's AF weapons? Surely the technology is there in the future to shoot down an incoming missile.

Also, what about giving torpedoes a move instead of a range and allow anything to shoot at it? Give it stealth 5 and/or dodge 2+ or something wicked, but allow it to stay on the board relentlessly homing in on its target. It would make torpedoes most effective when fired at short range when the defender wouldn't have a chance to blow it out of the sky. Only in close quarters, before lock on, would they be the direct fire weapon they are today.

I see a little more bookkeeping, but I like the idea. Might just be cool in 2nd Ed.

Surely thats what interceptors represent, otherwise it's just more book keeping and trying to place loads of counters all over the show, making the sag even more annoying.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Why is it that a torpedo is as fast as a laser beam?

They're not, you can't Intercept Beams. If you can point me to one instance of a fighter on B5 shooting a missile, I'll grant you that might be permissable. I've been working on the idea for my Star*Blazers conversion, but I most certainly will not be using dozens of little counters (Star*Blazers uses hundreds of missiles!)

Wulf

 

[Alexb83]

Even though it was indicated by the B5 team that interceptors had an effect on beams 'reducing the severity'

"About the Alexander/Clarkstown battle
The interceptors have two components, one that throws a ball of energy at an incoming weapons charge (physical or energy) and causes dissipation, and the other is a net-like energy web that reduces the severity, but does not deflect or absorb, beam type energy. This allows some time for maneuvers after beam contact.
Note that Major Ryan (He'll always be D-Day to my brother!) was very reticent to fire on the Clarkstown at all. Knowing that the Interceptors were down made his job all the more difficult. The rear facing beamn on the Alexander is similar in design to the front facers on the Clarkstown. When the C-town fired on the rotating section ofthe Alexander, it did not explode, as the interceptors were still active.

George Johnsen
CoProducer, B5"

from Lurker's guide... http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/master/guide/054.html

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Even though it was indicated by the B5 team that interceptors had an effect on beams 'reducing the severity'

That effect is included in the Hull rating of a ship. Being entirely passive, it doesn't have much effect at the granularity of ACtA, even when it's lost.

Wulf

 

[Alexb83]

Hmm, yes, the hull thing always confused me, you appear to be rolling to damage the ship twice in every case. (rather than hit it, then damage it - though I suppose it's much of a muchness as it's two sets of dice). First you penetrate the hull (or not), second you try and damage the ship.

I guess gunnery crews in ACTA are a good deal better than they are in the series, where we frequently see ships missing their targets completely

 

[H]

Hmm, yes, the hull thing always confused me, you appear to be rolling to damage the ship twice in every case. (rather than hit it, then damage it - though I suppose it's much of a muchness as it's two sets of dice). First you penetrate the hull (or not), second you try and damage the ship.

I guess gunnery crews in ACTA are a good deal better than they are in the series, where we frequently see ships missing their targets completely

Actually, I can quite effectively miss every ship no matter how many dice I roll

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Torpedo counters work perfectly well in BFG. You can launch them at stupid ranges and they move every turn, giving you various tactical options. You can use them to deny an area of space to the enemy, target static installations at long range or disrupt an enemy formation by firing at long range and giving them chance to take evasive action. Or hold them for close range action when they'll hit in one move, like I always did.

It's just a different way of doing things, at the end of the day.

 

[Alexb83]

Hmm, yes, the hull thing always confused me, you appear to be rolling to damage the ship twice in every case. (rather than hit it, then damage it - though I suppose it's much of a muchness as it's two sets of dice). First you penetrate the hull (or not), second you try and damage the ship.

I guess gunnery crews in ACTA are a good deal better than they are in the series, where we frequently see ships missing their targets completely

Actually, I can quite effectively miss every ship no matter how many dice I roll

Ah, but you don't miss them, you just fail to penetrate the hull

I can only suggest rolling your dice /at/ the target ships. Perhaps then you may hit them afterall.

 

[H]

I'm pondering tanks approach of buying new dice for every single roll!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I think I might try that... go to a game with a fresh pack of dice, and take a bag marked "dead dice." After rolling a die once, toss it in the bag and never use it again except to make bizarre, gamer-related jewellery...

 

[H]

what about the implications of throwing dice that rolled 6's away? you have to decide, is it a good dice, or pure luck, do you kill it, or throw it. . .

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Ah, but once the die has rolled a six it will be spent and next time will give you a one. In the bag with it...

 

[animus]

Well this thread has been hihacked by dice graveyards...

Back to torpedos. In the case of having them move and be shot at as fighters, you'd limit them by not allowing ships like the Sag to split their torpedo dice - it's just a big moving bomb - it could be shot down by regular beams and other capital guns before it gets really close and then, if the ship has interceptors, again when they get close.

It might weaken the weapon, but it might make for some strategic interest. You could always tweak to make it meaner if it gets through.

 

[captainsmirk]

If you can point me to one instance of a fighter on B5 shooting a missile, I'll grant you that might be permissable.

I believe they do it when attacking the Defense Sats in Endgame...

Nick

 

[Alexb83]

Severed Dreams, opening scene IIRC. 'They've started bombing mars!'

Also thirdspace, where you see aurora starfuries using missile racks.