Re: [GZG] Screens versus Advanced Screens in Cross Dimensions?

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: [GZG] Screens versus Advanced Screens in Cross
Dimensions?
> To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
> Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 7:16 PM

<snip>
 
> The advanced screens aren't just
> energy screens that are more expensive, they're also half
> again the mass.  My design experimentations have
> generally found that arming a particularly effective capital
> ship with level 2 advanced screens, any kind of armor at
> all, and not gutting either its armament or its hull
> integrity in the process is very, very expensive.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear.	I'll try again.

I am NOT talking about the cost of the screen.	I am talking about the
relative value of K-guns (and P-torps, etc.) vs. basic beam batteries. 
The FB stats (range, damage, MASS, and PV/MASS) for K-guns, P-Torps,
etc. are balanced vs basic beam batteries on the assumption that there
is no defense against the screen-skippers other than hull and/or
ablative armor.

If you add a new defensive system that reduces the effectiveness of
screen skippers, then they are no longer balanced.  In other words 20
MASS of k-guns at 80PV (or 20 MASS of PTLs at 60PV) are less effective
than 20 MASS of Beam Batteries at 60PV.

> Cross Dimensions defines the advanced screen effect as its
> basic property to reduce these weapons' damage by one point
> per hit per level of the screen.  ...  plus the fact that K-1s and
> K-2s would be rendered completely harmless on their
> face.

If the reduction is per HIT, then that implies after doubling, not
before, which means that a doubled K1 will still do 1 damage to defense
1, and a doubled k2 will do 2 damage a defense 2.

> Against most everything else, there's not much need for further
> adjustment.
> 
> MKP would lose 1 or 2 points from each 4-point hit, no
> complexities there.  Scatterguns and K-gun armed
> fighters would have their damage reduced just as if they'd
> been beams against regular screens.  Salvo missiles and
> pulse torpedoes are part of the Cross Dimension rules and
> would just have their damage reduced.
> 

Again, this changes the relative effectiveness of these weapons compared
to Beam Batteries.  It makes a given mass of Beam Batteries MORE
effective than the SAME mass of PTs, SM's, MKPs, etc..

> Subtract from the target number, and the initial damage
> (or, if you wish, the total damage, it's the same
> thing).

No it isn't the same thing.  There is a big difference between (K-D)x2
and Kx2)-D where K is weapon class and D is defense level.  Plug in some
numbers and see for yourself.

> I'm not privy to what the decision making process was, but
> I would assume that level 3 screens were removed at least
> partly because they were just too good

I wasn't privy to the process as it happened, but after the fact I asked
on this list and was told that screen 3 reduced the effectiveness of
beam dice too much (1-5= no dam, 6=1 pt+re-roll).  However, some of the
new beta-test rules have floated adding modifiers to beam dice, called
DRM (Die Roll Modifier).  DRM-1 has the same effect as screen 2, DRM-2
has the same effect as screen 3, and DRM-3 is even more effective (1-6
no dam, re-roll on 6).	If DRM-2 is acceptable, then it follows that
screen 3 should also be acceptable, though it might need to be more
expensive than 15% TMF and 3 PV/MASS

> I like the armor system in the fleet books much
> better.  There's more cost to it than simply making the
> hull more expensive, and it accounts for the idea that armor
> actually gets destroyed to a point of no longer being
> effective when it's hit often enough.

I said it was "based on", not exactly the same.  The concept is that of
belt armor, the game mechanics are 5% TMF per level (min 4 MASS/level)
and 5 pts/MASS.  it was drawn from, but not exactly the same in effect
as, the beta FB KV.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/kravak/kv-fb-design.html

And its use requires modifying cost, range, and/or damage potential of
all the screen-skippers that it effects.  If you want the full effects,
I can post them.

> 
> >As far as small K-guns being ineffective against
> heavily armored ships, I don't mind that at all. 
> Historically, a lot of battleships were immune to the fire
> of 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-inch guns (and in some cases even
> 8-inchers).
> 
> Well, if you had a ship with a level 2 advanced screen and
> four layers of armor, you'd need to get extra damage from a
> K-6 just to penetrate to the hull at all before you'd
> pounded the armor into uselessness or destroyed one of the
> screens.

But you do cause 4 points of damage to the target, whether it has
shells, carapace, ablative armor, or not.  The only question is where
that damage is absorbed.  However, a K-2 does NO damage against KD2 (no
chance to double and 2-2=0 dam/hit)

> On the other hand, you're probably investing
> 40% of your ship mass to defense to get anything effective
> like that, so if you're willing to actually do that, you
> probably deserve it.  ;)

Historically, a lot of big-gun battleships did have armor (belt,
citadel, turrets, armored decks, and barbettes) which accounted for 40%
of their total mass, exclusive of the steel use for unarmored structure.

> 
> I've been experimenting myself in my test games with ships
> with level 2 advanced screens and two layers of armor thus
> far.  It's powerful, but very expensive -- a capital
> ship that wants worthwhile armor as such without gutting a
> capital ship scale armament pretty much has to go over 300
> mass to do it, which makes the total cost of the defenses
> rather vast, indeed.

It GZG-universe scale that ain't that big.  Historically capital ships
have been 30-50 times the mass of contemporary destroyers of the same
nation.  FB scale places destroyers as 25-35 TMF.  Call it average 30
TMF.  that means that the largest capital ships should be 900-1500 TMF
going by the historic ratio.  By real-world comparison, the American
space shuttle is about TMF 1.5, most modern strategic bombers are TMF
2-3, modern Spruance, Kid, and Arliegh Burke Class DD/DDGs are TMF
80-90, the first all big-gun battleship HMS Dreadnought was about TMF
220 in 1905, the last class of BBs built by the US in WW2 were around
TMF 650, WW2 fleet carriers were TMF 200-300, and modern US CVNs are
almost TMF 1000.  Modern ULCCs are TMF 3000-5500.

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