Re: [FT] 3arc B1 and PDS

> 
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <roger@firedrake.org>
> 
> > BTW Alan, did your playtest take into account the benefits paired
3-arc PD
> > weapons gain relative to single 6-arc PD weapons when the ship is
> > attacked from more than one direction, and if so how?
> 
> I only did a few exercises on graphpaper - and with 6 or less PDS on
each ship.
> This way I could compare costs of 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 which I thought were
the
> boundaries of the solution.
> 
> Against fighters, a cost of 3/4 is too much, the advantage is low.
> Against SMs, it all depends on how lucky/skilful the players are,
> it makes it even more of a crap-shoot than before. But I did assume
> all-forward arcs vs SMs rather than splitting them left/right.
> 
> I used a random-number generator (actually some dice and a GW scatter
die)
> to pick the SM target area's difference from the 'optimum' that I'd
picked,
> and in one case, everything went behind (just) the target. Oopsie.
> I didn't bother rolling for damage, as I was only doing a single run.
> 
> As I said, I only did a few playtests to get an approximate solution,
> I certainly wouldn't call it a *proper* playtest. Just to confirm or
> disprove intuition - was 2/3 or 3/4 closer? The results showed that
> extensive playtesting was needed, not just a few bits like I did, and 
> the costs for B1/3 should be higher than PDS/3. Due to practical
concerns,
> I'd say 3/4 for B1/3 and 2/3 for PDS/3 are 'about right' for costs. 
> 

   How would you handle the fractions/rounding?  I'm thinking that the 
 differences are fairly minor, and while using 2/3 mass, cost 2 (round
up any 
 leftover fractions) may result in some slight differences that they
would be
 pretty much indistinguishable on the table.

   grant