Re: Beam Batteries

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, David K. Lewis wrote:

> >On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, David Kendall Lewis wrote:
> >
> >>		     Min      Max      Range	  Range      Range
> >>		     Arc      Arc	0-12	  13-24      25-36
> >> Mass     Weapons	  Cost	   Cost     Damage     Damage	  Damage
> >> ----     -------	  ----	   ----     ------     ------	  ------
> >>  6 	 2	   16	    32	     6d6	4d6	   2d6
> >>  6 	 3	   12	    24	     6d6	2d6	   N/A
> >>  6 	 6	   12	    24	     6d6	N/A	   N/A
> >> 
> >> With this new scheme A Batteries would still be clearly better, but
would
> >> cost between 33% and 50% more that B/C batteries (depending on the
arc
> >> of fire).	I feel that B & C batteries costing the same per mass is
OK
> >> as More Thrust allows C batteries to act in point defense and I
feel that
> >> this balances B batteries advantage at ranges 13-24.
> >> 
> >> What do the rest of you think?
> >
> >Well... I don't think it'll help very much just to change the cost,
since 
> >weapon costs are usually a rather small part of ship costs (... in my

> >experience the drive is the really big part). Increasing the mass, 
> >however, works better - this makes it a choice between range and
firepower.
> >Increasing the mass of an A battery, using your costs would give the 
> >following table:
> >		       Min   Max
> >		       arc   arc      Damage at range... 
> >Type  Mass  Number  cost  cost   0-12   12-24   24-36   Notes: 
> >----  ----  ------  ----  ----  ------  ------  ------  ------
> > C	  8	  8	16    32     8d6    N/A     N/A    Point defence
ability
> > B	  8	  4	16    32     8d6    4d6     N/A
> > A	  8	  2	16    32     6d6    4d6     2d6
> 
> How are you calculating your Min/Max arc costs?  If we were to use
> your scheme above I calculate the arc costs as:
> 
> Type	   Min	   Max
> ----	   ---	   ---
>  C	   24	   40
>  B	   20	   36
>  A	   14	   26

Um - no, these are the original costs from the FT rules. The costs you
proposed in your previous post were (unless I seriously misunderstood
something) C: 1 + 1/arc; B: 2 + 2/arc; A: 4 + 4/arc, which gives the
figures I posted above for mass 1 C, mass 2 B and mass 4 A batteries.

> >Here, C-batteries swap longer range for a limited point defence
ability 
> >(from More Thrust) and higher durability - two A-batteries are far,
far 
> >more vulnerable to unlucky treshold checks than eight C-batteries!
> 
> True, but with your heavy cost of C Batteries your scheme still 
> favors A batteries (at 58-65% of the cost of C batteries).  I still
> like my solution where A's cost more.

See above. Currently you're using the original FT rules and I use your 
rules; of course you'd prefer your own variant <g> And, as I said;
weapon 
cost isn't very important. Size is, because size determines the cost of 
the drives and the hull, and they are the most expensive system by far 
(... possibly with the exception of advanced fighters (also from More 
Thrust)).

However, if you ever play with lots of missiles (from More Thrust) you
really, really want that extra point defence capacity. Also, it is far
more likely that an A battery will die from a treshold check than two Bs
or four Cs; while it will take a large capital ship some time to start
losing systems to treshold checks, it usually won't be able to stay away
from the enemy for long enough to make the difference between Bs and As
that important - and losing your main armament to one single treshold
check hurts a lot. (Of course, I usually lose all my firecons in the
first
treshold check; in that way it doesn't matter what weapons I have :/ )
Cs
are secondary weapons anyway (except on small escorts), but their new
point defence capability makes them useful on larger ships too, and not 
just as a way to use that extra space.

Oerjan Ohlson

"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
 I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari