Re: (FT) beta variable hull rows

First, someone replied with "Superior sensors?".  This is an option in
More Thrust for a sensor system that we use.  A ship without any
special sensor system has Basic sensors, then you can buy either
Enhanced Sensors (1d6) or Superior Sensors (1d6+2).  Enhanced
Sensors are almost not worth bothering with.
The rule is somewhat crude, but it works well and simple enough;
except that Basic Sensors do practically nothing.
We've tried more elaborate sensor rules but they slowed the game down.

Second, we always play with cinematic movement.  I cannot get
the others to try vector (where my restrictive-arc weaponry would
shine over Steve's nearly-all-around-arc weaponry, except he still
rolls much better than I :( ).

>
> Glen Bailey wrote:

> >How can you say this?  The 3-row hull ship will have the same
number
> >of hull boxes as the 4-row hull ship
>
> No, it will not. As Dean already explained, if each HULL ROW on both
ships
> has the same number of boxes then the ship with 4 hull rows will by
> definition have *more* hull boxes than the ship with 3 hull rows -
> one-third more, to be exact.
>

Hmm, trying to weed out the point I want to argue but instead I'll
summarize.  Essentially, others have said that a ship with 4x 18-hull
boxes per row is better than a 3x 18-hull boxes per row.  Well,
duh.  That's not what I'm getting at.  You're really comparing
two different ships, that just happen to have the same weapons
and drives platform.

What Steve has done is take his ships that had 4 rows of hull
boxes and converts them to the exact same design with only
3 rows of hull boxes so that the 4th row's hull boxes are now
spread among among rows 1, 2, and 3, thus improving upon the
ship's capability to withstand the critical threshold check damage.
They did not become easier to kill, in fact, much harder.

All my new designs, at whatever size and load out, will now have
3 rows of hull boxes instead of 4.  If I want more hull boxes,
supposedly in that 4th row that you seem so fond of, I'll put
them in the first 3 rows instead.  Those ships will not die any
sooner than in a 4 row configuration; they have the same amount
of hull.

We are not removing hull by reducing the rows from 4 to 3;
we're moving the hull that would be in the 4th row to rows 1, 2,
and 3.

And for the cost increase of +1 per hull box for any particular
design to go from 4 rows to 3 rows is way too cheap for what
you get.  That's the point I'm trying to make.	I want it to be
more expensive for a ship to have 3 hull rows vs 4 hull rows.
Enough to give a designer pause.  The current cost increase
does not, at least for two of us here.

I've tried the cheap ship approach, especially after Steve has
converted his previously beam-equipped ship to the more
expensive "alien" techs.  I built human-tech ships, only put
a Superior Sensor on one ship of the fleet (it takes up 2 spaces
and costs 30, so it's a large chunk of change), stayed with
normal instead of advanced drives; and all for nought.	That
slight increase of more tonnage for my fleets vs. a more expensive
per given tonnage enemy fleet still does not compare well enough.
In other words, with the current Full Thrust costs, quantity is not
the way to go (strikeboats may be an exception, but I wouldn't
want to make an entire fleet of strikeboats and they are not
the flavor of the game).  Pulse Torpedoes are still my favored
weapon, at least they're still one of the "cheap" weapons.

> >BB Steve
> >mass: 154, cost: (4-row) 683, (3-row) 737
>
> Should be "mass: 154, cost: (4-row) 684, (3-row) 738"
>
> >hull: 54, armor:  6, FTL, MD 2 (advanced)
> >Superior sensor, 4 FC, 1 ADFC
> >14 6-arc pulsers
>

So where am I a point off?
mass 154: 154
54 hull (4-row): 108
FTL (15 mass): 30
MD 2 (advanced, 15 mass): 45
6 armor: 12
Superior sensor (2): 30
4 FC: 16
1 ADFC: 8
14 pulser batterys, 6-arc: 280
total: 683

Ah, I bet you rounded the MD 2 cost; it masses 15.4 so you probably
multipled the cost before dropping the fraction.
That's not how it's done as I read it.

>
> In its 3-row configuration, this ship has 18 hull boxes per hull row
and
> costs 738 (not 737) pts. Your proposed hull costs will increase its
points
> value to 792 pts.
>
> However, there is another way to build a ship with exactly these
weapons,
> sensors and thrust ratings which *also* gives you 18 hull boxes per
row:
>
> BB Smart Steve
> mass: 178, cost: (4-row) 758
> hull: 72, armor:  6, FTL, MD 2 (advanced)
> Superior sensor, 4 FC, 1 ADFC
> 14 6-arc pulsers
>
> Let's compare the hull configurations and costs for these two ships:
>
> Ship: 	  BB Steve (3-row)	  BB Smart Steve (4-row)
> Row 1 	  18 boxes		  18 boxes
> Row 2 	  18 boxes		  18 boxes
> Row 3 	  18 boxes		  18 boxes
> Row 4 	  DESTROYED		  18 boxes

They are NOT the same ship.  Instead of adding the 18 hull to a 4th
row,
add 6 hull to each of the first 3 rows.  It will have the same
survivability,
and less chance of thresholds.

> Cost (current)  738			  758
> Cost (Glen)	  792			  758

> These two ships have THE SAME hull configuration for the first three
rows -
> ie., 18 hull boxes in each of hull rows 1, 2 and 3 - but whereas BB
Steve
> is destroyed after losing its third hull row (ie. 54 dmg), BB Smart
Steve
> still has one hull row of 18 boxes left after losing the first three
rows
> (once again 54 dmg).
>
> With the current costs, Steve can choose whether or not he wants to
pay an
> extra 20 pts to
> add one more row of 18 boxes to his ship. They won't help very much
since
> they're in the 4th row, but what do you expect for a mere 20 pts?

It costs a lot more than 20:
154 mass, 3 row hull: 683 (54 hull)
178 mass, 4 row hull: 758 (72 hull)
178 mass, 3 row hull: 830 (72 hull)

That's a cost increase of 75 for the same firepower.

That extra 18 hull split among the 3 rows is 6 per row; it requires at
least
two more average weapons hits to get a threshold check (based on beam
and pulse torpedo damage).

Maybe the cost increase of 2 per hull box for 3 rows is too much?
>From play results, I doubt it.

Glen