Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970415151143.58B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
Kurki-Suonio writes:
> > > Next: Scatterguns vs. Submunitions packs.
> 
> > Can anybody tell me why scatterguns are just so much better than 
> > submunitions packs?
> 
> I'll bite ;-)
> 
> Who knows? It's a good thing the Kravvies fight among themselves, or
they 
> might not have bothered to invent any other weapons!

Nah, they need the railguns to beat up defenceless aliens. 
Otherwise they'd have to go home when they spent all their 
scatterguns.

> Let's compare:
[...]
> Hmmm... the scattergun seems only 2-3 times as effective as
submunitions. 

More, say I. The all-arc capability alone seems to justify that.
Asking around on the list people seemed to agree with a value of 
n+n/arc (in mass and points) for beam weapons. Applying that to a 
4-arc SMP gets you mass 2.5, cost 7.5. Using your nifty 
mass<->points formula gets mass 1, cost 15... *if* it was just a
4-arc SMP. That seems like a fair cost for an SMP that covers both 
your front and your arse.

Let's look at this from a different POV as well. Is a scattergun 
an SMP with a secondary anti-fighter capability... or an expendable 
PDAF with a secondary anti-ship capability?

Both. Awesome isn't it?

Round, balanced, human ships carry PDAF and the big ones devote 
mass to screens (which is a defence against ships and fighters). 
The Kra'Vak get to use this space for scatterguns as anti-fighter
systems in addition to all the anti-ship gubbins they carry.

Is a scattergun better than a PDAF?

A scattergun is expendable, but, hell, there ain't so very many
fighters in the Full Thrust sky. A ship isn't so likely to be hit 
for more than the three turns of endurance that a fighter has. 
Three turns of PDAF fire on average net you 2 fighters, meaning you 
get hit for around 14-16 fighter-turns of damage. Blow off a 
scattergun and you net a (more variable) average of 3.5. You get 
hit for 0-15 fighter-turns, averaging 7-8. 

So you could say a scattergun was twice as good as a PDAF (more
if you play fighter morale rules)... but then you have the ability 
to use the unused guns as SMP's. Unused PDAF are worth nothing. This 
efficiency, being usuable against everything bar mines, is 
outrageously valuable. Having a scattergun is like having two PDAF 
plus an SMP that you don't use, or two SMP and a PDAF that you don't 
use.

> I think upping the cost to 10 pts. might suffice. That would also be a

> fairer trade-off with fighter squadrons. Or maybe 15 pts.

Well, lets be conservative and call it one 4-arc SMP from above
(15 pts) and two PDAF. That's three mass and 21 points. Bring it
down to 1 mass as per your formula... call it 30 points.

This rather suggests it needs a little toning down.

For a start, I say ditch the 4-arc capability. This would promote
some groovy tactical play where fighters try to keep on the right
side of a Kra'Vak ship to avoid it's remaining scatterguns.
Secondly, drop the damage it does to half-a-die. I could live with
it then as a 5 point weapon.

Observation: There is no reduction in scattergun damage for the 
thick armour carried by Kra'Vak cruiser and capitals... but there
is for heavy fighters. They must be *really* heavy.

> Next: The Price of Weight
[...] 
> Thus if we have two otherwise identical systems, the one massing more 
> should cost 5pts. less per mass point difference.

Wouldn't it be so much easier if, say, a damage point was a 1-mass
"system"?

...or does that have too much flavour?

-- 
David Brewer