Re: FT: Graser-1 to Beam cost comparisons

Glen Bailey wrote:

 >>This is part of your problem. You're
 >>consistently looking at the G1's MASS,
 >>when you should be looking at its COST.
 >
 >Fair enough, I'll look at it from a cost
 >angle.  But, you cannot just look at weapon
 >systems alone, especially when it comes to
 >cost.  They do not operate in a vacuum.  :)

Of course they don't. That's why I wrote, in the section immediately
after 
the one you quoted above:

 >>If you, as you did in one of your previous posts, compare 1x G1-6 (4
 >>MASS) with 1x B2-6 + 1x B1-6 (also 4 MASS), then the Graser costs
 >>about 20% more than the weapons you compare it to (when you include
 >>the costs for weapons' respective fractions of the ships engines,
screens
 >>etc.; on a straight weapon cost comparison the G1 is of course 33%
 >>more expensive - 16 pts vs 12).

The Graser costs only about 20% more than its own Mass of beams instead
of 
the 33% more the straight per-Mass count suggests *precisely because* it

doesn't operate in a vacuum. The "missing" ~13% are due to the fact that

the beams require larger engines to achieve the same thrust rating, a 
larger hull structure to hold them etc. - and the costs for these bits
also 
have to be included in an "equal-cost" comparison", even though they are

"hidden" in the ship design system.

 >I wasn't sure how to do this, except to go
 >ahead and design two ships with the same cost
 >of Beams and Graser-1s (G1).

Since you need to include the "hidden" part of the weapon cost in the 
comparison as well as the actual per-Mass cost, it is actually quite 
simple: design two ships which have the same points cost (or as close as

you can make it), the same thrust rating, the same hull and armour 
integrity (in # of boxes, not as a percentage of the TMF), and the same
# 
of FCSs and PDSs - ie., don't change *anything* except the armament and
the 
TMF. OK, in this case you may want to change the number of PDSs to
account 
for the B1s' PD capabilities just like you did for the Grazoriani 2
below, 
but if the Beamster had carried more B2s and fewer B1s you wouldn't have

needed this either.

 >"Beamster"
 >Mass: 99; NPV: 342; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
 >FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3; Armament:
 >8x B1, 8x B2 (3-arc), 4x B2 (6-arc).
 >
 >"Grazoriani"
 >Mass: 86; NPV: 321; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
 >FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3; Armament:
 >5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).

The Grazoriani's average damage at range 0-18 is 22.4 pts in its best
fire 
arc; the Beamster's average damage in its best arc is 25.6 pts at range 
0-12 and 9.6 at range 12-24. IOW the Beamster outguns the Grazoriani at 
ranges 0-12 (where both ships could potentially destroy the other with a

single salvo, though the Beamster is more likely to kill the Grazoriani
in 
this way than the other way around) and 18-24 (where the Beamster can
shave 
off a bit over one Grazoriani hull row per salvo but the Grazoriani
can't 
reply at all); the only range where the Grazoriani has a firepower 
advantage is range 12-18. All in all I wouldn't consider the 
Grazoriani's 
firepower to be as good as the Beamster's.

However, in this comparison both ships spend 153 pts on its hull
integrity 
and non-weapon systems - but while the Grazoriani spends 168 pts on its 
weapons (and their supporting engines etc.), the Beamster spends 189 pts
on 
its weapons (incl. supporting engines etc.). 168 =|= 189, so it isn't
very 
surprising if the Grazoriani is a bit outgunned overall! If you add an 
extra Graser to the Grazoriani (a 3-arc brings its NPV up to 339, a
4-arc 
to 344) you bring the total weapon costs for both ships up to about the 
same level (189 for the Beamster vs 186 or 191 for the Grazoriani).

This change brings the Grazoriani's best-arc average damage up to 25.2
pts, 
ie. effectively matching the Beamster's best-arc 25.6 pts at range 0-12
and 
increasing its superiority at range 12-18; but of course it doesn't make
it 
any more able to return fire at range 18-24 or improve its PD
capability.

 >"Grazoriani 2"
 >Mass: 90; NPV: 336; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
 >FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 6; Armament:
 >5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
 >
 >"Grazoriani" is 21 NPV cheaper than "Beamster".

And it is outgunned by the Beamster at range 0-12 and 18-24, in addition
to 
having weaker point defences.

 >"Grazoriani 2" is 6 NPV cheaper than "Beamster".

And it is outgunned by the Beamster at range 0-12 and 18-24 :-/

 >So, in conclusion, the Graser is cheaper than
 >the Beam with the same damage potential.

Depends on how you define "same damage potential", I suppose. As already

noted above, I'd rate both of your Grazoriani designs as having slightly

less firepower than your Beamster design.

[...]

 >Right now I do not see an incentive to use a 3-arc
 >class-1 Graser.  For 1 more mass, (I'm sorry,
 >for a 33% increase in mass one gets 50%
 >increase in arc), you have a powerful weapon
 >system that can fire in any direction.

I'm not particularly worried about this. Phalon Pulsers use exactly the 
same Mass progression as the G1s do, and in our recorded playtest
battles 
to date the 3- and 6-arc Pulsers have inflicted about as much damage per

cost - for the Pulser-C (12mu range) the 6-arc version is marginally
better 
than the 3-arc one, but increasing the Mass of the 6-arc version to 5
would 
make it distinctly inferior instead; for the -M and -L tunings (24mu and

36mu range respectively) they're almost exactly equal, so again
increasing 
the Mass of the 6-arc Pulser would make it distinctly inferior to the
3-arc 
one. While there aren't nearly as many recorded Graser battles yet as 
Pulser ones, so far at least the G1s have followed the same pattern as
the 
Pulsers.

Of course, these playtests all used the Fleet Book "no (A) arc fire" and

"no (A) arc fire if the main drive was used" rules, while IIRC your
group 
allows unrestricted fire through the (A) arc (at least you used to do
this; 
not sure if you still do?); this probably is why your group finds 6-arc 
weapons so much more attractive than other groups do.

(There's little doubt that your group finds 6-arc weapons more
attractive 
than other groups do, because between the three of you Steve, you (Glen)

and Andrew Apter have provided about 5% of the warships designs in my 
design archive (78 of ~1500 - the exact count depends on where you draw
the 
line between "warship" and "heavily armed auxiliary" :-/ ), yet you've 
provided nearly half of all B3s with more than 3 arcs and nearly
one-third 
of all B2-6s.)

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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