Archive through February 08, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(D) Weapons:
Gravity Mines:
Archive through February 08, 2005
Rule (M___.0) Gravity Mines
proposed by Jeff Wile
This is a new type of mine (available in two sizes, Large Gravity Mine, or Small Gravity Mine). In almost all respects, Gravity mines are indistiguishable from Explosive Mines save that of detonation. instead of an explosive detonation (of either 35 point or 10 point capacity) a gravity mine generates a spherical gravity wave of either 35 point force level (see rule (P9.42)) or 10 point Force level.
Gravity Mines must comply with all rules pertaining to explosive mines(including detection range (M2.4) and triggering (M2.40).
When detonated, a Gravity mine generates a Spherical Gravity Wave that expands out from the mines location hex at the speed of 1 hex per impulse. The Spherical Gravity wave behaves exactly like that of rule (9.0) Gravity Waves except that the artifically created Gravity Waves are not as powerful as that generated by a Black Hole.
To resolve the effects of Gravity Waves, large mines start by using the Chart printed in rule (P9.42) effects all objects (except those that are immune to the effects of Gravity waves, see rule (P9.3) that is to say 35 points of force damage to objects within the same hex, in an expanding wave that progressively loses 10% of its force with each aditional impulse that elapses.(typically 22 impulses and all objects within 22 hexes of the detonation of the large Gravity Mine). Small Gravity Mines start with 10 points of force in the hex of detonation, and effect all objects in an expanding sphere (except those immune to the effects of gravity waves) for 10 impulses and out to a range of 9 hexes over the duration of the 10 impulses the expanding gravity wave affects.
Restrictions.
1. Gravity Mines may only be deployed in mine fields as part of a purchased mine package. (Gravity mines are ten times the cost of a explosive mine (typically 10 for a small Gravity Mine, 30 for a large gravity mine, compared to 1 and 3 for normal explosive mines.)
2. Gravity mines may never be deployed during a scenario. (in theory, a gravity Mine could be part of the cargo of a ship in the scenario, but in all respects (size cargo points, etc) gravity mines are indistinguishable from normal explosive mines.
Color commentary:
Gravity mines were only possible due to Operation Unity. Examination of the Andromedan Bases, ships and equipment allowed new insights into the nature of the Universe. The earliest prototype Gravity mines appeared in year 205. Limited production of gravity mines could have started at that point, but widespread use of Gravity Mines in minefields and defenses of bases did not occur until years later.
many attempts to create a transporter gravity bomb were undertaken, but results were mixed. IF players wish to use Transporter Gravity bombs, the effectiveness is directly related to crew quality. Poor Quality crews can Never successfully deploy a gravity TB. Normal quality crews, succeed only 1 in 6 times.
I made this proposal using the 35 and 10 point "force" levels as that was the standard for explosive mines.
IMO that is too strong for this idea, but rather than spend 25 to 50 more words describing why the effects were not consistant with the normal mines, I "went with it."
As a modification to this proposal, what I would rather see is 2 changes.
1. that the "force" levels generated by gravity mines be reduced to 16 points for a large gravity mine, and 4 points for a small mine.
and,
2. that the reduction in force of the gravity wave (being by definition, "artificial" suffer proportionately more degradation. something like a 25% loss per impulse instead of 10 percent per impulse.
the result being that for a large mine, at 0 range 16 points of damage, range 1 (next impulse) 12 points of damage) range 2, 8 points of damage, range 3, 4 points of damage and range 4 zero damage. the small mine would (comparatively) do 4, 3, 2, 1 points of force damage at impulses 0, 1, 2, & 3.
comments?
I think 4 /16 are appropriate. 25% degradation is also a good idea. The 16 pointer would actually degrade at 16,12,9,7,5,4,3,2,1
Or how about 50% degradation:
Large = 16, 8, 4, 2, 1
Small = 4, 2, 1
Fun thing is if you do full strength and 50% deg:
Large = 35, 17, 8, 4, 2, 1
Small = 10, 5, 2, 1
Which gives damage close to the original mines.
Also, remeber that this damage will be spread over 2 or 3 shields.
Also I would put in a rule that the wave does not affect facings.
Ken:
I went back and forth a couple of times on it before I posted the idea.
The argument infavor of the full strength large mine was the 100% effect at range zero (35 points of damage for the 35 "force level") would be the same as it is for the large explosive mine, the incremental damage as the gravity wave expands in the sphere following the chart in rule (P9.0).
for 10 times the cost, I thought it appropriate that it start with the strength of the explosive mine that it replaces.
I could see 50% degradation...artifical gravity waves being... well artifical 
The other aspect that I am not so sure about is the "area of effect" of the gravity wave sphere. too much like a D&D fireball spell? with the original proposal (the first post above) the potential is to damage ships and units up to 22 hexes away... and is potentially devastating.
This could be the ultimate anti attrition unit weapon that the andromedans always wanted, (and never got!).
I think I like your suggestion of the 16, 8, 4,2 and 1 damage chart(50% degredation).
I had a question about how this might work. Sounds like a neat idea. You might not have gotten this far in your idea to answer this but here goes.
This wave expands out one hex every impulse right? Suppose there is a ship at R0 and the mine detonates. So impulse one, ship takes damage. Now suppose that for the next several impulses the ship is moving one hex\imp. Ship moves, wave moves. Does the ship take damage again? (ship is moving directy away from point of detonation). I guess what im asking is, is the ship "faster" than the wave, or is the wave faster thus passing the ship so damage only occurs once?
Just as a note when you double the distance you halve the power or intensity so the loss of 25% per hex movement seems too low.
No rulebook handy, but in a minefield, wouldn't this detonate ALL the mines in range as soon as the first one is triggered? (and successive G-Mines would trigger more of their neighbors in a chain reaction?)
Chad:
The order of movement is already designated. ships move in the SOP (See rule (B2.0)).
ships normally move in phase 6A2 (Voluntary Movement Stage.)
Gravity waves move during phase 6A1 (Involuntary movement stage.)
According to rule (P9.3 Effect) damage from a gravity wave is only applied to units that already occupy the hex.
IMO (subject to additional clarification of other players or staff members or the Steves ) that since the Gravity Wave moves first(since it occurs earlier in the SOP) there is no chance for a ship that has already been hit by the gravity wave to get hit again (outside of being displaced there by a Andromedan or some other event.)
See rule 9.31 to 9.317 for examples of things not effected by gravity waves, which, happens to include mines and terrain.
Normal Gravity waves do have an effect on plasma torpedos (considered to have expended range equal to the strength of the wave at the time of impact.)
(We may want to consider a rule concerning artificial gravity waves vis a vis plasma torpedos?!? is this needed?)
Ken K:
Rule (P9.0 Gravity Waves) specifies a 10% Degradation Rate.
The proposal has had several different suggestions to modify the Degradation Rate, make your case and support it with why you feel it should be a different rate than specified by rule P9.0.
Again, this is a discussion board, and I do not have final say with the proposal.
Convince us that you are correct, and then (hopfully) you will be in a position to convince SVC and the "Powers that Be" that the DR(short for Degradation Rate) for Gravity Mines is different than that of normal Gravity Waves.
Personnally, I suspect that a Gravity wave is the same for both naturally occuring GW's as it is for artificially created GW's.
From a Game perspective, (I mean playability) a faster DR and a lower force level may be better than a higher Force level and a slower DR.
That is why I encouraged Ken H above, as from a SFB POV a more local effect and a lower damage potential may play better than a gravity mine able to affect units up to 22 hexes away from the detonation hex.
Troy L:
Rule P9.315 "Gravity Waves will not damage mines or Def Sats."
If you disagree, then build a case for gravity mines being different from normal explosive mines.
Jeff:
I really like this proposal and it would add an interesting wrinkle in the minefield game. In my opinion, the lower force level and faster DR would be the way to go. I feel that that would be a reasonable trade off for the area effect that the mine has compared to the smaller one of a regular mine. I also have a hard time with the mine creating a gravity wave as powerful as the higher force level and slower DR when compared to the explosion strength of warships. I really don't see something as small as a mine making something remotely as powerful as a gravity wave with much as a third of the strength of one made from the awesome force of a black hole. Perhaps another way of calculating force strength on impact is to divide the orginal force strength by the number of hexes it is currently expanded to.
William Curtis Soder:
Thank you. I appreciate the comment!
The points you (and others) have raised will need to be addressed.
The original Force level charts for (real) black hole generated Gravity Waves start at 100 force level points... so (per the original post) 36 force level points (10 force level points for small mines) vary at 36% and 10% of the "real thing".
with a higher Degradation Rate (DR) it seems more reasonble somehow...in that it does not affect the same volume of space...
It should also be remembered, that Black holes can generate many gravity Waves while a mine could do so one time.
I am not following your final thought in your post... are you suggesting that the procedure should be resolved as a range effect? (perhaps similar to the methods used in resolving ESG's?)
Here are 2 points.
1- Damage from a gravity mine/wave is spread over 2 shields. (3 if on a hex/corner line). I would personally rule that r0 is on the corner. So a 16 point mine would do 5 pts to the 3 facing shields with 1 pt distributed at the ship owners option. Even 35 pts would only do 11 to 12 points per shield. Actually you can only hit just 2 shields at r2+
2- Damage that is spread is usually counted as less effective and therefore cost less BPV and power. I draw this conclusion from the power to damage ratios of PPD's, helbores, and env. plasma verus the damage of pure DF weapons.
So I think a 35/10 wave with 50% DR is reasonable. If a smaller ammount is desired I suggest a 32/8 wave. Using these numbers will even allow you to have a single damage chart for both mines.
Jeff:
I always seem to have trouble bringing my point across accurately. What I was suggesting with the last point was full damage in the first hex when it detonates. When it moves the next impulse, you would divide the damage by the 6 hexes it now occupies. The next impulse, it would be divided by the 12 hexes it has spread itself out to and so on as it expands to nothingness.
Also, I haddn't realized Ken's point and if the damage is spread out over the shielding, the higher damage isn't such a game breaker but I'd still go with the faster DR.
Ken and William:
IMO SFB has appeal as a game system in that it balances "Realism" vs game mechanics.
It is possible to make such "Realistic" rules so complicated that they detract from the playability of the game.
That was a reason for the original proposal referencing the existing rules for Gravity waves (Rule P9.0), those rules were already in the game had been playtested and been exposed to the market since publication of the rules years ago.
I am not dismissing either of the points made, but I would very much like to avoid "overcomplicating" the rule.
I was looking at the higher DR factors as a way to "localize" the effects of the Gravity Mine, rather than have the area of effect be the volume indicated by the chart in rule P9.42.
the way ships shields are affected by Gravity Waves are also determined by rule P9.0.
Just wanted to avoid having to "reinvent the wheel" since the Gravity wave rule had already been written.
Seems like several people have commented favorably as to the 50% DR... and no one seems to suport the 10% DR... pity, that option had the least work related to it since it already existed.
does it sound like we can settle for a 35/10 point force level for the large/small grafity mines?
at a 50% DR that would be a damage chart of:
range/imp lg/sm
0........ 35/10
1........ 18/5
2........ 9/3
3........ 5/2
4........ 3/1
5........ 2/0
6........ 1/0
Comments? suggestions?
I kinda like that one Jeff. I wouldn't mind playing with or against it in a game. Yeah, I understand the whole 'reinvent the wheel' thing. Most of the time I will try to find something within the current game system to compare something to for a better balanced reference. I still think that this is a well thought out proposal. You also didn't ramrod you idea and were more than willing to take other opinions into account which I think helped flesh out some of the fine details.
WCS:
Thank you.
Well, Unless anyone else has words of wisdom to impart, I think it is time to rewrite the proposal reflecting the above comments.
Reading over the topic, I notice that we have not addressed the plasma torpedo question.
Per the normal rules for Gravity waves, plasma torpedos that encounter gravity waves expend movement equal to the force level of the gravity wave at the level theGW that exists, and in the hex where the plasma torpedo is in contact witht the gravity wave.
I have a problem with that in that such gravity mines as proposed, could reduce the warhead strength of said plasma by detonating the gravity mine when within range of the plasma...(say in a botched mine sweeping attempt).
General question, is it reasonable to determine that plasma's are immune to the effects of artificially created gravity mines? or is this a minor concern and the Romulans can be safely assumed that having their primary weapon disarmed by gravity mines force waves would have zero game effects?
Re: Plasma Torps.
As the year in service is Y205, there is currently no T-bomb version, and the cost is 10/30 BPV, I think that it should affect plasmas.
Reasons:
Cost will limit the number of such mines vs. the unlimited supply of plasma.
Unless a base is suicidal or on a planet, these mines will be at least 5 hexes away from the base. This means that closing to < r5 and launching will cause any gravity wave to miss any plasmas.
Ken H.
I don't think this could be in a normal minefield - the area effect it has would surely damage other mines enough to render them ineffective or unreliable.
How big is it? Can it be on a ship?
30 BPV is way too cheap for this thing if it only has 10% degradation. Such valuable mines would almost certainly be command controlled ; just two of them properly placed could wipe out an entire CVA fighter complement. Put 3-6 around a planet, about 15-20 hexes out, and you have a formidable defence against enemy attrition units.
If this can be put on a ship, it is amazingly potent. Suppose you are running away at close to max speed, and can drop one of these out the hatch - talk about pursuit deterrent!
Another thing - suppose you are attacking a base with fighters, and you have none. Drop one of these from a little way out, and those base fighters either have to get in the base, get blown up, or run away from the base where they can't help it. Having ships, you ride in on the gravity wave, taking it on a non base-facing shield.
Oh, and my last point.
Drone wave from a Fed SCS group? What drone wave?
David Slatter:
Please see rule (9.0) Gravity Waves. Mines are immune to Gravity Waves.
As to the question of size, the intent of the rule is that they are virtually indistinguishable from normal explosive mines, except the nature of the detonation for a gravity mine results in a spherical gravity wave, not an explosion.
With regard to the Degradation Rate...as noted above, several people have endorsed a 50% DR instead of the original 10% DR. When I restate the updated proposal, I will use the 50% DR.
Your comment about the effect a Gravity Mine would have on attrition units is correct. We will not know what the correct BPV for such devices is until (or unless) the Gravity mine is accepted for playtesting. It could be higher than 10 times the explosive mine price, or it could be lower. Ithink we can rely on ADB to set the BPV correctly, if the proposal gets that far.
The proposal (as written) prohibits transporter bomb / gravity mines for precisely the reason you state. infact, the proposal is that such mines can only be part of an established mine field package.
As such, gravity mines could therefore not be used by an attacking force...and defenders would know where and under what conditions their own gravity mines operate... if they lose fighters or attrition units, I would think the cause would best be characterized as carelessness. deciding where gravity mines are placed is an important consideration in minefield planning, IWT!
and good point about fed SCS's. failure to respect minefields (even if there are no Gravity mines present) is a good way to lose attrition units quickly. Gravity mines would make mine fields even more challenging.
David S.
Yes they are too powerful with only a 10% degradation. That is why 50% degradation is currently popular.
BTW, Gravity waves do not affect mines, defsats or planets so you could put 6 around a planet as way to destroy 2-3 waves of attrition units. BUT, then the mines are spent. They are also in the X1 to X2 era where attrition units have to be alot tougher to survive.
Also these mines cannot just be rolled out of the shuttle-bay like normal mines.
My thinking , currently, is to go with the 35 point and 10 point force levels for large and small mines (respectively).
If someone wnats to campaign for smaller levels, now is the time to do it... other wise I'll just go ahead and repost the idea at these numbers.
I sat down to post a revised Gravity Mine proposal, and was struck by a thought...
If we are going to generate an artificial gravity wave as a result of a mine detonation...is it reasonable for the gravity wave to exist in isolation?
Looking at this intuitively... the SFB map represents space, an airless void where star ships, attrition units (like fighters and PF's) and munitions (such as drones and plasma torpedos) manuver.
If we then create a gravity mine detonation that results in a spherical gravity wave that expands out to a range of 4 hexes (for a small mine) and 6 hexes for a large mine, we are changing the "gravity map" (using the 10 and 35 point force levels and a 50% DR) for that area of space.
IOW the Gravity Mine Detonation artificially changes the effects of Gravity in the area of the affect (either 4 or 6 hexes, depending on the size of the gravity mine).
Should the Gravity Mine Rule we propose reflect the return to "the Normal Gravity Map"?
As I see it, the easiest option is to ignore the whole question.
The second option would be to include in the rule the return of equilibrium... and I suspect that could be reflected by treating the gravity mine detonation hex as if it were a black hole 32 impulses after the mine detonated where every object with in the area of effect (either 4 or 6 hexes, again depending on the size of the mine) would move towards the hex of detonation.
the only things that would not be affected by the return to equilibrium would be bases (with active positional stabilizers) planets(too large to be affected) or artificial things such as ESG's, Tholian Webs and such.
The problem I have with this part of the idea is that contrary to rule (P9.0) where Gravity waves do not affect mines... this new suggestion would cause mines (and everything else within the range of effect) to move 1 hex in the direction of the hex of detonation.
Does anyone have a suggestion? do we need to reflect this part in the proposal at all?