CAV 2.M Preview 2

The blog went quiet for a little while there but I'm back, with some major project milestones coming up. Work on CAV 2.M in particular is progressing well, and this week I thought I'd discuss the process of rectifying discrepancies between CAV 1, CAV 2, and my design goals for CAV 2.M.

There are three main sources of information on models in the CAV universe. The first two are their in-game statistics from the two editions of the game. Having never played CAV 1, and given the changes between the editions, the CAV 1 data cards are rarely helpful. The CAV 2 data cards are my baseline for in-game stats, but provide next to no extra information on the model.  Far more useful are the Journals of Recognition (JoRs), two softcover supplements printed for CAV 1 which provide 1-2 pages of history and backstory for each model in the game at the time. Unfortunately, there are numerous discrepancies both within the JoRs, between the JoRs and the second edition data cards, and within the second edition data cards. As I had to make adjustments to many data cards in any case, I decided to address as many of these issues as possible.

One of the most widespread conflicts involves the game's energy weapons, laser bolt guns (LBGs) and particle bolt guns (PBGs). In general, LBGs are presented as relatively weak weapons that are primarily effective against soft targets such as infantry and aircraft, while PBGs are specialized for punching through hard targets. Particle bolt guns are generally presented as the more advanced of the two. The distinction was less clear in CAV 1, and in fact a number of models' weapon systems were changed from LBGs to PBGs in the transition to CAV 2. This introduced several timeline conflicts, while failing to address a number of problematic models. Also, one of my goals in CAV 2.M is to make different weapon types slightly more distinct; a number of unusual energy weapons were making this difficult. The conflicts are as follows:

• in CAV 1, the Tyrant CAV features the first laser bolt system, debuting early in 2246; in CAV 2, it is one of the models that has changed to a PBG.
• the Cougar CAV, introduced in 2246, mounts LBGs but their CAV 2 stats are distinctly PBG-like.
• the Lance tank, introduced in 2249, mounts a moderately powerful Rexus IIb PBG, but the Rexus I PBG doesn't debut until 2255 on the Knight CAV.
• the Falcon CAV, introduced in 2260, mounts LBGs that are moderately strong against all targets, making them unique among LBGs and PBGs. However, the faction-specific version of the Talon CAV mounts the same LBGs but with more typical LBG stats.
• the Katana CAV, introduced in 2246, had its CAV 1 LBGs changed to PBGs in CAV 2.

Also of note:

• Common to both LBGs and PBGs is frequent use of the Linked special ability (allowing a reroll on a missed attack), representing multiple weaker guns chained together for greater penetration. Of the models I've mentioned, this is seen on the Katana, Knight, and Tyrant.
• the predecessor of the laser bolt gun was the laser beam cannon. It fired a continuous beam requiring several seconds of directed fire to cause damage, and as a result was primarily used for penetrating armored structures where movement was not an issue and use of ammunition-based weapons would be wasteful.
• the Tsuiseki gunship, introduced in 2251, mounts a single moderately powerful PBG.
• the Knight CAV, introduced in 2255, mounts a weak linked PBG.
• No other models introduced prior to 2260 mount PBGs, while they become far more common and effective after that date.

To reconcile these facts, I elected to revert the LBG-to-PBG changes and simultaneously expand the variety among LBG systems. This requires changing in-game stats of a few weapons, but maintains the greatest integrity to the game background. First-generation LBGs (those found on the 2246 Tyrant, 2246 Cougar, 2246 Katana, and the 2249 Lance I) were built for armor penetration, following from the earlier laser beam weapons, and had a relatively slow rate of fire due to power limitations. These systems could not compete with Gauss and missile weaponry in terms of firepower, but reduced need for resupply made them occasionally useful. In game terms, these LBGs will have a RAV and Piercing value of 1-2 each.

By the early 2250s, development of the PBG introduced an ammo-free weapon system which could hold its own next to ammunition-based weaponry. At the same time, a second generation of LBGs was emerging, with an emphasis on rate of fire rather than armor penetration. This application proved far more efficient, vastly improving the effectiveness of LBGs against soft and mobile targets (exemplified by the 2255 Ghost CAV), while leaving armor penetration to the superior PBGs. The release of the Mitso-Ta Tsuiseki gunship in 2251 marked the first widespread use of the new PBG, made possible by the heavy aircraft's powerful breeder and large power cell. In 2255, Hughes-Marietta debuted the versatile Knight CAV and its Rexus I PBG. Adapted from aerospace fighter designs, it used two linked barrels to improve penetration and reduce power demands. Unsatisfied with their success, Hughes-Marietta continued development and in 2257 unveiled an overhaul of the Lance, replacing the now-obsolete LBG with the powerful Rexus IIb PBG alongside a host of other improvements. By 2260, improving reactor design and refined PBG technology allowed for widespread use of the new weapon system.

Most other issues are restricted to a single model. An excellent example is the Puma, which features conflicting information in its Journal of Recognition entry. Its listed production dates begin in 2255, but the descriptive text references a ten-year anniversary in 2255, when an improved design with ECM capabilities and several variants were introduced. The in-game stats were my main guide here; despite being the ECM-capable version, its weaponry and secondary systems are dated and roughly equivalent to the 2254 Panther, making a 2265 anniversary unlikely. Verdict: the design originated in 2245, but the data card in the game represents the updated (and vastly superior) 2255 model.

There are also, as I mentioned, a variety of minor issues, primarily with weapon names. Fixing these is usually straightforward, simply a matter of picking a formatting style and sticking with it (e.g. Hf3 versus Hf 3), but there are a couple of problematic cases where a rename will probably be called for. Most challenging is developing background information for models not included in the Journals of Recognition, particularly production dates. Many are essentially arbitrary, with my only guide being when the given UCOR designed and released other models.

Hopefully that was interesting and informative. I'm wrapping up one final section of the rules now, so I expect to have some exciting things to share over the next few weeks. Stay tuned!