Re: MT missiles and point costs

Reen-Shuler Adrian <reen-shuler.a@mellon.com> wrote:

[Much easier to see what you're commenting with this format. Thanks!]

>>I'm afraid don't quite see how you can say that "all weapon systems
>>have the same cost" - unless you mean to say that 3 = 6 = 9 = 12 =
>>18 = 60, but I seriously hope that you don't!
> 
>I meant they all have the same cost per a given mass (i.e. massx3),

Quite a different thing, that is :-/

>I guess I'll have to be more specific in the future.

Yes please. English isn't my first language, so I sometimes have a
tendency to interpret what people write literally (just ask Laserlight
about that...) :-/

>With vector (at least in my  experience), it's a rare day that 2 
>6-arc Class-2 batteries are worth the same points as 3  3-arc Class-2
>batteries.

That's mainly because the weapons are balanced for the standard (ie,
Cinematic) movement rules rather than the very optional Vector rules.
The two systems have rather different balance requirements; *all*
multi-arc weapons are somewhat overmassed in Vector due to the relative
ease of keeping the enemy in the fire arcs of your choice.

>>>Also, has anyone ever come up with a point cost for the special
>>>missiles from MT (i.e. the EMP and Needle missiles)?
>> 
>>MT and FB1 both say that they cost 6 points per missile...
>
>I noticed the point costs given for MT missiles, but since the EMP
>missiles are vastly more potent than nuclear missiles (at least
against
>anything bigger than a DD) it seems they should have a hirer point
>cost.

Please define "vastly more potent" somewhat more exactly, since it is a
very vague expression and we seem to put rather different meanings into
it. To try to show what I want to know, here's an example with a couple
of attached questions:

A missile (EMP or nuke) hits a previously undamaged ship of a
particular
design (published in FB1, BTW). If the missile carries a nuclear
warhead, it will on average knock out 14% of the target's systems
through standard threshold checks (and inflict quite a bit of armour
and hull damage as well, usually starting on the 2nd row of hull
boxes), while an EMP warhead would knock out on average 19% of the
systems but leave the armour and hull undamaged. 

1) Which of the two missiles would you consider to be "more potent"
against this ship design? Would you consider that missile to be "vastly
more potent" than the other?

2) Roughly how big would you think the "particular design" in question
is to get the above results (on average 14% of the systems knocked down
by one nuclear MT missile, 19% by an EMP missile)? 

Curious,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry