Re: [GZG] [FT] Graser-1s again

Now, mind you... this is said without having playtested grasers so much 
myself.

However, the general pattern in Full Thrust as a whole tends to be that
no 
matter how powerful a given weapon is, it's rarely good enough that it
won't 
be even better on a larger ship that doesn't take thresholds nearly as
often 
as smaller ships carrying similar armaments.  Also, it would appear that

grasers have their effectiveness cut roughly in half if you bring a
level 2 
screen.  If grasers got too gross for people (and plasma bolts are
already 
pretty annoying and worth bringing screens for) then you'd just see a
lot 
more level 2 screens around, to say nothing of the grasers being
deployed in 
more numerous and possibly even heavier mounts.

Out of curiosity, what is the verdict on the different sizes of graser 
mounts?  I would find myself thinking that graser-2s and 3s wouldn't be 
worth it at such a steep mass increase when a graser-1 would work fine
at a 
lot of engagement ranges.  Does anyone really think 24 mass for a
graser-3 
is worth it?

E

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hugh Fisher" <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
To: <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: [GZG] [FT] Graser-1s again

> At last years Cancon I ran a Full Thrust: Babylon 5 scenario on one
> day which proved quite popular. This year I ran it again over two
> days, ending up with four full scale three way battles and some
> shorter and smaller two way skirmishes.
>
>  A number of ships carried grasers, especially graser-1s, as per the
> beta rules for UNSC ships. In a repeat of last years results, every
> so often such ships would vaporise undamaged and considerably larger
> opponents in a single volley.
>
> A couple of weeks ago John Atkinson was writing about how in modern
> navies ship killers like torpedoes and SSMs have made big surface
> ships other than carriers obsolete. The graser-1 as currently
> specified is likely to do the same thing to Full Thrust.
>
> I realise my argument is weakened by not having proper After Action
> Reports to present here. These were public participation games, so I
> couldn't take the time to write down every single roll and outcome.
>
> First, the fleet compositions. Exact details are at
> <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/fullthrust/B5>
>
> Earth Force: 2 battleship/carriers, 2 escort cruisers. (Omega, Nova,
> 2 x Hyperion)
> NPV = 1295, CPV = 1277
> These are standard human tech designs, fighters and beams for
> weaponry, average hulls and engines, no screens and light armour.
>
> Shadows: 4 destroyers, 2 heavy cruisers. (Thorns, Avalanches)
> NPV = 1192, CPV = 1072
> These have UN hulls, 2 graser-1s on the destroyers, 2 graser-2s on
> the cruisers. Only 1 graser-1 per ship can fire all round, the others
> are fore arc only.
>
> Alliance: 4 heavy cruisers (White Stars)
> NPV = 1300, CPV = 1256
> These are fast heavy cruisers with 4 fore arc graser-1s each.
>
> The other force in the game was a Narn battleship, but only one of
> the games had the fourth player and he had to leave early anyway, so
> had no effect.
>
> In the four full scale battles, the Earth Force fleet got thumped
> every time, and there were four memorable events:
> * A Shadow destroyer fired a single opening graser-1 shot at an
> escort cruiser and vaporised it.
> * Twice, a heavy cruiser vaporised an enemy heavy cruiser with the
> opening volley.
> * And a White Star heavy cruiser vaporised a battleship with the
> opening volley.
> All these were achieved against undamaged opponents at 12-18 MU range.
>
> No other weapon in Full Thrust can generate such destructive outcomes
> with such frequency, and this unbalances the game too strongly in
> favour of the graser-1s.
>
> The destroyer vaporised the cruiser with rolls of 6,6,4 and 18 points
> of damage. That's average damage from a 1 in 72 chance, a bit over
> 1%. Such a shot will destroy every escort or light cruiser in Fleet
> Book 1, and force double or triple threshold checks on the heavier
> cruisers. (How many of your custom escort or cruiser designs have a
> level 2 screen?)
>
> Odds of 1/72 don't sound too bad at first, but there are a LOT of
> shots fired in a Full Thrust battle. A fast destroyer can comfortably
> fit a pair of 3 arc graser-1s. Six such ships on your side, and your
> chances of scoring such a megahit sooner or later are very good
> indeed.
>
> The cruiser fired four graser-1s at the battleship, with three 6s.
> The re-rolls all hit and one was another 6.  I calculate the chance
> of scoring those 10 hits as 1 in 324. The damage was 42 points, a bit
> above average but not hugely so.
>
> OK, 1 in 324, or 0.3%, odds of a cruiser vaporising a battleship with
> a megahit is unlikely. But the point is that in a game (or real life)
> "unlikely" is very different from "never happens."
>
> Under the older rules, a cruiser allocating the same mass would have
> two pulse torps or beam 3s, or four beam-2s. Allocating points
> instead, ignoring mass increases elsewhere in the ship and rounding
> fractions off, gives three pulse torps or three beam-3s or five
> beam-2s. It would be impossible for the pulse torpedo armed cruiser
> to destroy a battleship or force more than one threshold check with
> the same die rolls, and the beam cruiser with similar good rolls
> might get a double threshold check. In theory the beam cruiser could
> destroy the battleship, but the odds against it are so astronomical
> that it would be more likely for the roof to collapse and crush both
> players.
>
> I'm sure someone at this point is asking "what about salvo missiles?"
> Yes, a heavy cruiser with the same mass or points spent on SMRs could
> destroy a battleship in one volley. Missiles, though, have two
> important differences.
>
> First is obvious, a missile salvo can only be fired once while a
> graser can be used for the entire game. Second is that missiles can
> be dodged by the target ship, countering good die rolls with skill.
> Even though a slow ship may have little or no actual chance of
> dodging, the player can console him/herself with the thought "if I'd
> moved thataway instead, I'd have survived."
>
> In battles with beams and torpedoes, a burst of lucky rolls will
> certainly give one player an advantage, such as a battleship being
> double thresholded by a cruiser. This is a setback though, and still
> has to be exploited properly. The other player knows this, and that
> they can still continue to fight or even turn the tables. Salvo
> missiles give one player a few chances to gain a decisive advantage,
> but the other player knows that if they are skilful and avoid the
> missiles, the advantage then swings their way.
>
> It's possible for a battle to be decided by nothing but luck, or for
> a cruiser to vaporise a battleship. But this happens sufficiently
> rarely for players to accept that the planets were in alignment, the
> deities were in agreement, and the battleship captain had kicked a
> black cat through a mirror.
>
> Graser-1s are too destructive, too often, for the losing players to
> just accept it. A vaporised battleship is a disaster, not a setback.
> You can't dodge, or do anything to reduce the risk except never come
> within range. If the player with grasers rolls well, you're toast. If
> they roll badly, they're no worse off than you are. It's not
> perceived as even.
>
> And yes I know that the megahits really don't occur that often. But
> it is human nature to remember bad luck and exaggerate it's
> frequency, and to pay more attention to spectacular but low
> probability happenings. It's also human nature to really dislike
> taking risks we have no apparent control over. People worry more
> about plane crashes than car crashes, despite all the statistics
> showing otherwise. I believe graser-1s are already a little too
> cost-effective, and they're going to be perceived as even more
> powerful than they really are.
>
> So what should be done? I can think of three possible solutions.
>
> First is to accept that Full Thrust now has tech levels, with the
> Xeno War as dividing line. Expecting Fleet Book 1 ships to fight
> against their graser armed descendants is no more reasonable than
> fighting a 1939 carrier group against the 1945 version.
>
> Second, and my preferred solution, is to increase the base mass of
> the graser-1 to 3 or 4, and each extra arc should cost 1 mass. This
> weapon is closer to a pulse torpedo in destructive power than a
> beam-2, and small enough for mass to be the limiting factor on number
> carried rather than points.
>
> Third, grasers are better than beams on good rolls, but no worse on
> bad rolls. Introduce a critical failure: on a natural 1, the graser
> burns out and can't be repaired within the game.
>
> If none of these are acceptable then somebody had better find
> another, because from informal conversations at Cancon there is a
> fourth solution already being used: don't play Full Thrust against
> anyone with grasers.
>
> cheers,
> Hugh
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l