Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)

Beth wrote:
:
> >What I`m asking, is that is there a number
> >cruncher out there that can compair the
> >chances/dammage potential of these two
> >missiles against PDS?
>
>Oerjan is probably enjoying a well earned summer holiday so I'll TRY
and 
>help out Bif.....

Summer playtest period, which some consider to be a "holiday", began 
yesterday :-/ Frantic RL workload in the previous weeks and old friends 
suddenly dropping in for the night has caused a log-jam in my mailbox 
though :-(

>Recently Oerjan worked out this table comparing the average damages of
SMs 
>and standard MTMs against upto 6 PDS (where we're looking at total PDS 
>involved, not PDS per MTM or SM). As Oerjan eloquently explained when
we 
>were discussing the topic, you must consider the case where theres more

>than one PDS/MTM to get a true feel for their potential power (through
the 
>stauration of PDS). <I hope I'm doing justice to your explanation
Oerjan.>

You do indeed :-) The updated tables (sent from Derek's account) were 
correct too so I won't copy them here; suffice to repeat that the
average 
damage of the Mk-3 is 2.25x that of the normal MTM and the Mk-2 is 1.33x
of 
the normal MTM.

However:

>You get the Mk-3 version at 2.25x as expensive and the Mk-2 version at 
>1.33x as expensive. Thus the k-3 version costs would be best modelled
by 
>something like Mass 3, Cost of massx4.5, which is a bit difficult under

>current FB integer costing system - so k-2 version is probably simpler
to 
>go with at mass 2, cost of massx4.

Um, well. You have to look at the *total* cost of the weapon - ie.,
weapon 
cost plus basic hull structure and engines (refer back to the thread on 
weapon design systems). If you multiply the *mass* of the weapon by the 
above factors without changing the cost/mass ratio you automatically get

the total cost right (because the engine and hull costs change in 
proportion to the weapon Mass), but if you change the mass/cost ratio
you 
need to calculate the total cost.

The standard "total cost" (thrust-4 standard engines and FTL) for a Mass
2 
MTM is 10.6, so the Mk-3 should have a total cost of just under 24 and
the 
Mk-2 should have a total cost of just over 14. This gives an Mk-3 at
Mass 
2, cost 9-10xMass or Mass 3, cost 5-6xMass while the Mk-2 becomes Mass
2, 
cost 5xMass.

However... these masses and costs assume that the standard MTM is itself

balanced against the SMR. At the moment there's, um, quite a few
different 
opinions on how true that assumption is <g>

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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