Re: Tactical Speed

>Michael Sandy wrote:
>
>>Say, what is the logic behind heavy ballistae and catapults having
>>shorter ranges than light ballistae and catapults?  I can see larger
>>crew requirements and slower loading, not to mention slower to
>>turn, but shorter range?
>
>I would guess that it was done that way primarily for game balance
>reasons. If the heavier weapons, with the greater damage capabilities,
>also had greater range than the lighter weapons, you would never see the
>lighter weapons being used. Sure, they would still have the advantage of
>needing fewer crew, and taking less time to load, but that means squat
>if a volley from heavy weapons hits you while the enemy keeps out of
>range of your lighter weapons.

What about seriously limiting the arc of the heavy weapons, or radically
increasing the turret size they need?

This way, smaller weapons might be ideal for clearing enemy decks
before boarding, but larger weapons would be the choice for stand
off weaponry by a large mobile foe.

If you have some kind of toughness characteristic, that ignores the
first X damage, then light weapons, which fire faster in 360 would
be useful against boarding pods and flitters (which are too light to
be tough), while you would need heavy weapon for going against
Capital ship.

I had an idea once for a trebuchet that used the maneuvers of the ship
to cock itself.  Yes, it was a gnomish design, a very heavy catapult
stone firing straight ahead, on a catamaran hull.  I was disappointed
that the Acme of medieval siege weaponry turned out to be such a
wimpy weapon.

Michael Sandy