Re: [FT] FB2 Balancing Corrections Proposed

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> What Brendan wrote about the SV was that they are able to sit at their
> own table edge without maneuvering, putting all their power into the A
> pool. They then outgun all enemies at all ranges, which is a problem.
> He did not write that the Sa'Vasku can get into short range while
> simultaneously having unbalancingly much firepower; that part of his
> posts treated the Phalons only.

Correct. So we either have to
a) Reduce them at short range
b) Remove their long-range capability
c) Decrease across the board.

I don't like c) as it remove flavour.
I don't like b) cause that REALLY removes flavour
I don't like a) much for that matter, but it seems the easiest to
implement.

> [Snip. I agree with Brendan's SV worries, but also with Brian's
> comments to Alan's suggestion regarding the Stinger nodes.]

[Bri] This is a MAJOR crimp in smaller SV ships. Take a
Fo'Sath'Ann. If it moves at what would be a normal thrust for
a Human frigate (6), this takes 3 power points leaving 3 If it
put 1 into D for the spicule and 2 into A for the Stinger you
get the equivilent of MD6, 1 PDS, 1 Class-1 Beam.
Now look at the Tacoma (same mass), convert 1 Class-2 to armor
and 1 Class-1 for the extra hull box. You end up with MD6,
1 PDS, 1 Class-2 Beam, and 1 Class-1 Beam. That is the Human
craft gets an extra Class-2 Beam for 1 point cost more than
the SV.

The smallest of the SV ships becomes almost useless, unfortunately.
It would need a hull box/armour  replaced by a 1 pt power source to
make it work at all. :-(

As for the Tacoma comparison above, the ability of a SV ship to
suddenly gain Thrust-12 is worth a fair bit too!

> On Phalons:
> What Alan probably doesn't know is that this mathematical analysis was
> preceeded by 18 playtest battles in July last year, featuring the
1-2-4
> Pulsers. He does know (or at least has known) that it was followed up
> by another 17 battles, this time using the 1-2-6 Pulser version, in
> September and October :-/

Hey, I missed the problem too. Worse, I should have campaigned for
1-2-4 which I preferred, but in the face of both your analysis and the
playtesting evidence, I honestly thought I hadn't got a leg to stand on.

> Most of the July battles pitted near-identical Phalon fleets against
> one another; the only differences between the fleets was the Pulser
> configurations used. The ratio of M Pulsers to L Pulsers didn't seem
to
> matter very much, but the fleets with the larger number of Pulser-Cs
> invariably lost. (Eight battles out of eight; in the other four
> inter-Phalon battles both sides had the same number of Pulser-Cs but
> different mixes of Ms and Ls.)

I see no problem with this. If fighting other Phalons, don't tune your
Pulsers
to close range. *shrug*

> The last six July battles were against Human fleets (mostly FB1
> designs, but also some all-P-torp custom ones). Here the Phalons were
> completely massacred in the two battles where they had around half
> their Pulsers in C configuration. The other four battles, featuring
> Pulser mixes with up to  one-third Pulser-Cs, saw two narrow Phalon
> victories and two equally narrow Phalon defeats.

The problem is not with Mixed tuning ships. Setting half your pulsers to
C config means you fall between 2 stools. Make em ALL C class and see
what happens.

> My conclusion from those battles was that the M and L Pulsers were
> reasonably OK balanced both against one another and against the human
> beams,

I concur BTW...

> but that the C version was much too weak - at least on our
> table, which has a fair amount of space to evade in.

Quite a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, I would have done the
same.

> After these battles I did a maths analysis to try and get the
Pulser-Cs
> at least within shouting distance of the other two types (they were
> different types back then, not just different configurations). This
> resulted in the 1-2-6 version, which was then tested in the 17
> September-October battles (which I reported on the playtest mailing
> list when the FB2 work started up in earnest).

> With Alan's changes, I need to compare 1 PC-6 with 4 B1-6s instead:
>
> Weapon: Vs ships: Vs fighters: Thrust: 2 4 6
> 1xPC-6 4 1 27.8 30 33
> 4xB1-6 4 "2" 19.8 22 25
>
> The Class-1s still have the same anti-ship firepower and better
> anti-fighter/missile firepower (though not as much better as before),
> but they now only cost about 8 points (24-30%) *less* than the
> Pulser-C. To me, this makes the Class-1s look very attractive compared
> to the Pulser-C -  "better firepower for three-quarters the price"
> looks like a bargain.
>
> Now, considering all the bad press the B1s have had over the five-six
> years I've been on this list I get a distinct feeling that any system
> which makes the B1s look like a bargain, well... it can't really be
> *that* powerful :-/
>
> Out of curiousity - would any of you arm your fleet exclusively or
> almost exclusively with B1 batteries? If not, why not?

No, because of the repair problem. Basically, if you have exclusive
B1s then you have zero chance of repairing any significant loss,
there are just too few DCPs. Otherwise, Hell Yes! In a dogfight in
Cinematic, that all-round arc is worth 50% of the cost, especially
with Thrust-4 or less.

But against KV, this might change. Certainly the B2(All Arc) becomes
a very powerful weapon against them, and 3 B1s might be better.