Re: B5-3 Aft

Kevin Walker wrote:

> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:03 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I mentioned that both 4x6 and 6x8 are common sizes.  Common does not 
> alway equal average!	 Common can indicate something less than 50% and

> there can be several sizes that are all common.  My usual playing 
> surfaces have been 4x6, 4x8, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x16 with 6x8 and 4x8 
> being the most common.  If one uses CMs instead of inches the playing 
> area becomes 120x180 MUs for a 4x6 area.  Just a thought.

As I pointed out in a reply to Mr. Ohlson, in the original FT2, it says 
flat out that the rules consider 4' x 6' and MU of 1" to be "average". 
 Since I have seen nothing in MT, FB1 or FB2 amending that statement, I 
consider it to still hold true.

< snip >

>> 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?
>
> Now you are starting to get deeming.	I'm attempting to keep the 
> discussion level headed.  I would appreciate it if you left out the 
> snipes and vitriolic commentary 

You are correct.  I was replying to several posts one after the other, 
some of the others tweaked me the wrong way, and I allowed it to carry 
over to you.

I am sorry.

> There is nothing rare or false about players staying at extreme range 
> when the designed ships allow, using their weapons to damage the 
> opponent while the opponent does not have the range to fire back.  
> This has happened with B4 armed ships, B3 armed ships, and Phalons 
> against KVs several times that I can recall,

This is a much better explanation than the small example ship presented 
earlier.

> including some online battles (although there were fleets and some 
> ships got into closer ranges due to the number of vessels on each 
> side...and shear boredom that can happen when dancing at extreme 
> ranges and the turns taking a week or more each).

What do online battles have to do with it?  Are they available to review

somewhere?  If so, where?

>>>   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
>>
< snip description of real-world "all big gun" dreadnought battleships >

> This has little to do with what I stated above.  The real world 
> "dreadnaught battleships", while interesting, has little to do with 
> the mechanics of what I mentioned with the earlier beam inbalance.  I 
> was pointing out the beam costing issues and the problems we had with 
> it about 5 or more years ago as an illustration of what happens if 
> large beams are too cheap and can equal or exceed the damage potential

> of multiple same cost and size smaller beams. 

It seems to me that you were saying that "designs involving beam weapons

consisting of cramming as many class A beams was the way to go in most 
cases"	was somehow wrong or unfair.  I just thought to remind you that 
this actually was accepted practice and sound philosophy for 40 years.

>>> (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.
>
> This does not invalidate my point.  

But it seemed that you were trying to say that at short range the 
smaller batteries were more advantageous.  I just pointed out that under

the FT/MT designs (you used class A, B & C, rather than 3, 2 & 1), there

was no advantage to the smaller weapons, as your example was 0-12 MU, I 
used the same range.

> At 12-24 MUs the 2xA had 4 dice while the 3xB had 3.	Thus the 2xA 
> were always equal to or better than the same cost 3xB beams at any
range.

And this seems to be the opposite of what you said in the section I had 
quoted above.

>   Which would you take?

As I am trying to design a "centerline big gun supported by B3 (capital)

or B2 (cruiser)"  force for a campaign (as naval designer for another 
player who likes campaigns but not ship designing) and was looking for 
advice for a tweak to the big beam problem . . . I think the answer is 
self-evident.

J