Re: B5-3 Aft

Kevin Walker wrote:

> If one can out range and out accelerate the defenders and they have to

> stay around to guard a resource, the attacker has a winning 
> situation.  Either the defender leaves the resource undefended, 
> attempts to engage the attacker (which happens at the attackers whim),

> or the attacker simply picks the defender to pieces at range.  Not fun

> for the defender for certain.

However, in the described situation, with the specified ships, the 
"attacker has to make a pass and then shoot as he leaves (ala light 
cavalry archers).  As he approaches, that gives the KV a chance to get 
off a shot, and any hit is going to be at least crippling, if not fatal 
to the Fragile raider.

>> No, it does.  The previous discussion has revealed that the cost 
>> balancing is only correct as written for Cinematic play on larger 
>> tables.  On average size tables, the costing over-rates the larger 
>> batteries, and vector appears to need some more tweaking to balance 
>> right.
>>
>> Holding up examples that work in very specific situations (like this 
>> ship) but not in general, common situations, and then extrapolating 
>> general conclusions from the results is not correct.  In critical 
>> analysis, this is called a "straw man argument".
>
>
> Average sized tables is a bit of a opinionated factor.  What is 
> average?  4 by 6 is common, so is 6 by 8.  There is a big difference 
> in area between the two (double).  I've played on 16 by 6 foot 
> surfaces and then again on 4 by 4 and many others to boot.

But in terms of range, the difference is much less.  A B3 still covers 
half of a 6x8, and a K-gun about 1/3.  As for Average, you admit that 
4x6 is "common" (I take that to mean more than half of cases) and if you

add 6x8, then I guess it's probably more than 75%.  As for my opinion, I

asked how many people usually play on a surface as large as O.O.'s (c. 
80 MU x 120 MU), and you are the second person to answer, but you didn't

say what your usual play area is, only the extremes of your experience. 
 Therefore I have evidence of 2 people (and one maybe) who play on large

tables.  Not a lot.

> If your primary focus in balancing weapons with vector based movement 
> on a 4 by 6 foot surface is your focal issue, then whether big beam 
> weapons are worth the cost is not as critical as on a larger playing 
> surface.

For the fifth (5th) time:

 I.  Do.  Not.	Play.  Vector.

I would like to play vector again, but most of my group doesn't like it.
My "primary focus" was to a simple statement that, IMNSHO, B4+ are 
overpriced compared to B# and less.  As it turns out, O.O. explained how

this is true for medium sized tables, but that the usefulness of B4+ 
increases dramatically if the play area is larger (or you use cm on a 
4x6 or 6x8).

< snip>

> These examples are not meant to be general conclusions, but 
> illustrations of why costs have to be factored the way they were.  
> This type of factoring is not a "straw man" as it is hardly imaginary.

The example of a human T8 or T8A ship with a single B5 bearing into the 
aft three arcs is not a straw man?  What are you smoking?

>   The issue of high class beam weapons being king of the battle area 
> came up years ago and has been factored into current play-testing.  
> When the costs of larger beam weapons were smaller, I witnessed most 
> designs involving beam weapons consisting of cramming as many class A 
> beams was the way to go in most cases

In the real world, these were called "dreadnought battleships", and some

were really ridiculous, like the American
classes with 5 or 6 twin 12-inch turrets (making the ship really long), 
or the French class with quadruple 16-inch turrets (to save dwt from 
having more but smaller turrets).  The term "Dreadnought" refers to a 
battleship or battleship-cruiser (latter termed a battlecruiser) armed 
only with guns of the largest caliber (originally 12") and possibly a 
number of small secondaries (3", 5" or 6") for use against small ships 
like MTBs and DDs.  "Super-dreadnought" refers to dreadnoughts with a 
main battery of 13.5" or 14" guns or (latter) larger.

The arms race of 1905-1922 was to see who could build the most powerful 
* all big gun * battleships.

> (if you wanted more arcs then sometimes the smaller class B and Cs 
> were okay or 3 class Bs had more dice at 0-12 MUs than did 2 class
As). 

Unfortunately for your argument, at <12 MU; 3x class B = 6 dice, and 2x 
class A = 6 dice, and both = 6 mass.

J