Re: Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970421090537.12529C-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
Kurki-Suonio writes:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> 
> > There is a gamble, as you mention, in allocating points to 
> > defensive systems such as PDAF and screens. The cost should not
> > only be related to their defensive abilities, but to the amount
> > of offensive weaponry displaced.
>  
> IMHO, the cost should relative to effectiveness against attacks
modified 
> by the likelihood of such attacks. E.g. in human-human games screens
have 
> near perfect likelihood score, but in KV-human games it's ZERO, since 
> everything the KV's have ignores screens anyway.

Well, this all goes to illustrate the difficulties in ascribing
points values. No wonder JMT doesn't bother any more. My personal
idyll would be to drop mass from the design process, which was
another, long dead, thread. It would both simplify things and free
the process up a little.

Presumably one could write a scheme for re-evaluating points values
for human ships fighting the Kra'Vak. Screens... -15 points? Waste
of mass?

> > There is no gamble in purchasing scatterguns because they are 
> > both defensive and offensive. No offensive weaponry is displaced.
> 
> Hmmm... Do you think C-batts should be more expensive if they're
allowed 
> AF fire? They fit this bill perfectly. 1-arc C costs equal to PDAF.
> It exchanges slight reduction in AF power with AS power.

Well, the points difference between with-AF and without-AF will not
nearly be as large as the numbers that we've been talking regarding
scatterguns; 20... 25... 30... what's an extra point here and there?
C-batteries, like, totally suck, dood. Without the AF capability who
would use them at all (mature non-maximising scenario gamers 
excepted, natch).

> Btw: Does the "C's as PDAF" rule ever mention firing arcs?

No, but I, personally, imply them. I suppose that they remain beam
batteries and bear only through the arcs designated.

> But sometimes the clear lack of internal logic suggests oversight
instead 
> of design choice. Like the hvy ftrs/scatters issue.

Fair point.

> > ...weren't you justifying the use of aluminium cans above?...
> 
> What I find historically justifiable is not necessarily the same thing
I 
> find the subject or flavor of a desirable game. Please understand this

> difference.

I do. I was making a joke. Sorry, I'll try to write more clearly in
future.

> While Harpoon is a very good game, I don't play it because I don't
like 
> the setting. 

Well, if we're on the topic, I though it was a dreadful game that
split hairs in some places while making collosal generalisations in
others. I haven't evaluated the new edition, though. Does it still 
inherit rules from Fred Jane regarding proportional loss in ship
capability to hit points of damage inflicted?

> You could justify turning FT into a game of stand-off missile ships 
> launching salvoes at extreme range and then running home to reload in 
> numerous ways, but it's not the kind of game I'd want to play.

Me neither... although one could make a decent game of it by 
borrowing from, particularly, Captain's Edition Harpoon (which I do 
like). One would need to play up the EW and the anti-missile 
defences and make sure the game included some definate objective, 
rather than just beating on an enemy fleet for the sake of it. 
Launch missiles... run... lose planet... (lose supply of 
missiles...) lose game.

-- 
David Brewer