Wow, dead topic. Just on the off chance someone will look in here and respond, how do Mass Drivers work out in practice? I just read the rules on them, and they seem to me to combine the worst aspects of DF weapons and drones. Low damage output, low damage resistance, short range, and as semi-DF weapons they don't influence movement. Seems as though these things would pretty be worthless except to suck up defensive phasers/lasers. And as a carrier/pf weapon, they seem even worse.

But, that's from just reading the rules. How are they in reality? Vs. other LMC/Andros, and vs. Alpha?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 09:59 am: Edit

John,

Mass drivers are, "en masse", very damaging. Thier cumulative effect can be quite deadly - and stopping them requires an incredible amount of firepower. Even in single combat, soaking up firepower, or forcing shield degradation, is a good thing over time.

You also have to realize that the mass driver is taken in context. For the Maghadim, they can combine ship-based fire mass drivers with fighter-based mass drivers at moderate range for a *massive* wave and then turn off, rinse, repeat. Tacheon cannons and medium lasers also do decent damage at those moderate ranges - so a GP fleet will be doing less damage with only heavy weapons (becasue the phasers are used on the mass drivers).

The Baduvai with their charged particle accelerators also have a synnergistic effect with mass drivers. Again, the mass drivers can be used to absorb incoming fire so that the Baduvai can take less damage when coming into closer range. The CPAs are extremely deadly up-close (like a photon), but unlike the Fed the Baduvai on the way in can force the enemy to accept damage or use firepower on something other than the Baduvai ship.

Also realize that mass drivers come in more than one flavor. The Baduvai have better mass drivers.

Anyway, I think you're underestimating the effect of these weapons by not taking into account the context in which they are used.

I'm not saying the Magellanics are out-of-control better than GP powers, just that they're hardly helpless. Magellanics suffer from a number of disadvantages, particularly with respect to power curves, and less effective defenses against plasma torps (3:1 damage ratio with warp-tuned lasers).

AS for Andros - well, Magellanics are going to be in a world of hurt - and historically they *were* in a world of hurt. They lacked many heavier vessels, and the power curve was ugly given that the Andros can shoot and fly fast at the same time for quite a while. Only the Baduvai have a massive crunch weapon (the CPA), though the netural particle beam of the Eneen is also fairly effecive at close range.

By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 11:08 am: Edit

===
The deadliest thing (IMO) re MD's is their
separate volley. They hit after DF, and do
a different set of damage, so even if only
a few get thru, Mizia can hurt you badly.

By John Smith (Johnsmith) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Hmm, maybe I'm underestimating them. It just seems they don't do anything that a drone couldn't do better. But as I said, I just started reading up on Megallanics (after having the book for a year or two), so it's entirely possible I'd like them better with experiance.

I did notice that they were a different volley. Could be nasty in Teds M&C campaign, combined with Hydrans or ISC, if they weren't so dang easy to kill.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 01:00 am: Edit

One mass driver is easy to kill.

A full Maghadim CVA group has:

24 fighters (3 squadrons of 8), which can put out 48 of them.
The ship (which will have some range 35 Class III MDs)
The escorts (which will have some range 35 Class III MDs)
Plus some assorted Class II launchers as well.

I think (don't have the SSDs handy) that it's close to 60 MDs.

That CVA group is somewhere close to 700 BPV when all is said and done.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 02:05 am: Edit

The MD is weaker than a drone in some ways, but does have one big advantage. With drones, you can choose when and where you deal with them, and there are cases where you can just avoid them completely. But with a MD, if you're within range, you must either shoot it down or eat it, and on an impulse of your opponent's choosing.

Also note: A little bit of armor goes a long way in making those things a bigger pain to deal with.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 03:53 am: Edit

Andy, by "armor", do you mean the KSM?

There is no "payload system" like on drones.

ECM is also more effective against mass drivers than it is against drones.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 10:43 am: Edit

I'll echo Andy's sentiment - drones (even fast drones) have a long delay before your opponent must deal with them (unless launhced at close range). Mass drivers can cause mayhem with drone defenses out to medium range on a single impulse. That advantage is huge.

Also, don't forget the synnergistic effects I described above with respect to other weapons. Mass drivers are not used in a vacuum (pun intended).

By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 10:55 am: Edit

I have a Maghadim force for the BF550 in the coming CL. I only have 13 Mass Drivers, but depending on the scenario, I would hope to use them to their fullest advantage for everyone to see.

Also, I think that would be the first Magellanic Battle Force, should it reach print.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:04 am: Edit

Yes, I mean the KSM, which is the functional equivalent of an armored drone. The KSM is good for crossing up the opponent who is shooting down the MDs.

If you have an opponent who is willing to eat a few MDs to save firepower, throw in the occasional CPM.

By John Smith (Johnsmith) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Hmm, well, enough of you are agreement that I'll reserve forming an opinion until after I've actually tried them out a bit.

By Sidney G. Kanouse (Konus67c7) on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 10:02 am: Edit

I have considered purchasing the Megellanic module. Is it worth it, and are there different Andromedan ships in it. Thanks for your feedback.

By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 12:53 pm: Edit

===
It's a fun piece of work from Ken B and ADB, a very different shielding system, for example. I like it, i hope you will too. Andros fought the LMC, but there are no new Andro ships in the mod.

By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 04:57 pm: Edit

I've only dabbled with it but I found it highly enjoyable so far.

By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 09:44 pm: Edit

It is quite enjoyable. The focus is on small ships (DD and FF), not cruisers and DNs, so the dynamic is quite different.

By Kevin Humar-Barrett (Cheethorne) on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 09:32 am: Edit

I've been thinking of trying out the Baduvai in a fleet battle against a regular Alpha sector race. Obviously this is non-historical, but is there anything specific that should be noted. As in, should the battles be forced to only squadron size because the Magellanics don't scale properly or are they OK in fleet scale battles (1000+).

I know that they don't have a printed DN ship (at least not that I can find, conjectural as it may be), but would that be that big of a hindrance in an equal BPV battle.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 03:25 pm: Edit

To handle the lack of a DN, agree with your opponent that he won't take anything bigger than a CCH. Similarly, you might want to limit the rest of his fleet so that you both have at least as many SC4 ships as SC3, which should be achievable at 1000 BPV.

Providing you can keep the range open and concentrate MDs you should be OK; otherwise it might get rather painful. Though it'll depend a lot on the opponent empire.

By Kevin Humar-Barrett (Cheethorne) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 08:16 am: Edit

Yeah, I read the whole "laser's do less damage to plasmas" thing, although for the life of me, I have no idea why that rule exists. All it serves to do is make the Magellanics weaker against the main plasma races from both the Alpha sector and the Omega sector.

The only plasma in the Magellanic Cloud is the Plasma-E and given that the plasma had to receive its own section in the rules anyway for its standard two turn arming cycle, I think it would have been easier to simply write in the rules for the Plasma-E that it loses warhead strength at a 3-1 ratio.

Does anyone know if the less damage to plasmas rule was put in there as a balance issue or to provide some additional flavour to the weapons used by the Magellanics, or for some other reason?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Hi Kevin - the reason the 3:1 damage ratio for lasers exists is as follows:

1) We wanted the plasma-E to be 'phaser-able' by Andromedans at the usual rate. It's also a plasma weapon, and so far (with the revision of X-tech) no plasma has a phaser-down ratio of 3:1.

2) We wanted the plasma-E to be a secondary weapon, but still provide maneuver deterrence against historical opponents. So, it needed to do enough damage to make someone turn off, and not so much damage that the Eneen started flying backwards to use it in preference of their Neutron Beams. 15 points was about right, and keeping 15 point plasmas alive meant reducing the damage ratio.

3) VRF shielding in the playtest period was applied entirely to the damage with no leak. If you did 6 points of damage to a 14 box (7 VRF) shield, the weapon did nothing. Which resulted in lots of 'I read the rules and think that 7 PPDs hitting a destroyer and doing 0 damage is wrong and needs to be changed.' reports by people who, when asked about what their plasma was doing, never seemed to notice the 3:1 damage rule, or the power curves of Magellanic ships...

The 3:1 damage rule was intended as a balancing factor - the plasma races had EPTs be considerably less effective, but standard plasma was rather more so; it was also written long before Sabot plasma was published.

By Kevin Humar-Barrett (Cheethorne) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Thank you for answers, I guess this is the benefit of having the original C5 author active in the boards.

I have to say that I like the Magellanic races, especially the Baduvai. I find the Mass Driver to be a very interesting weapon that really focuses on one of the main aspects of drone weapons at the expense of the other: there ability to divert firepower away from the launching ship in exchange for not forcing the opponent to maneuver in certain ways.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 01:03 pm: Edit

My goal was to make them fly differently enough that people would have to develop new tactics, but no so differently that nobody would bother playing against them in Alpha octant ships.

In terms of 'class for class' matchups, the ones that come closest to being a match to Alpha are the "War Cruiser" analogs - the Baduvai CW, Eneen NCL and Maghadim CL.

The destroyers and smaller are thicker skinned than an Alpha ship, but also have horrible power curves; they're like attacking armadillos in some ways.

The cruisers vary from being a bit tougher (and pricier) to a bit weaker and cheaper, and all have some quirks that make direct comparisons tricky, like rarity.

If you play on SFBOL, I'm running Diplomacy by Other Means, and the Magellanics are available there.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Thursday, January 07, 2010 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Now, if only we could get C5 reprinted with all the errata included...

By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 08:35 am: Edit

I thought it was reprinted with the errata included. Is there more that I missed?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 01:29 pm: Edit

A question for anyone who's had experience flying the Eneen; how important (or not) has the use of HPRs in doubled output?

How much of a difference does the extra power the doubled reactors give, and is it worth the risk of chain reaction?

Or can the Eneen get by with playing it safe, and leaving them in normal output?