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

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh Fisher wrote:

>A Full Thrust battle isn't a series of independent
>statistical events. If one side inflicts above average
>damage in a turn, the other sides may have thresholds
>or destroyed ships which reduce their average damage
>from then on, which makes it harder for them to catch
>back up. It's the compound advantage effect, and like
>compound interest it builds up faster as the gap
>between the two sides increases.

This was described mathematically by F.W. Lanchester in 1916, and is the 
basis for all accurate points systems. It doesn't just apply within a 
single game turn, BTW: if one side inflicts damage in an earlier game turn 
while the other side does not, the side which inflicted damage earlier also 
starts building up a compound advantage. In most cases it is the side with 
the longer-ranged weapons which does this.

The compound advantage effect also works *against* the G1, since its short 
range often allows enemies with longer-ranged weapons to start building 
their own compound advantage before the G1 can return fire - and when this 
happens, the G1 needs a lucky hit just to catch up. FWIW this is why 
weapons grow bigger faster than their range increases, ie. to compensate 
for the compound advantage they can gain by being able to open fire 
earlier. To continue your "fast G1-armed DD" example, six fast DDs with a 
pair of 3-arc G1s each are very dangerous if they can get close enough to 
fire... but against most opponents I would expect one or two of them to be 
crippled by long-range fire before they ever get into G1 range and another 
couple or so knocked out after getting into G1 range but before they can 
fire their own weapons.

However, if you are consistently able to close the range before the enemy's 
long-ranged weapons have built up any significant advantage then you will 
find the shorter-ranged weapons correspondingly more powerful since they 
have little or no catching-up to do. Some FT gaming groups, eg. the 
Canberra group, appear to be better at closing the range quickly than 
others are - even other groups which play with the same or very similar 
table sizes and initial velocities. Exactly how you do this I don't know, 
which is why I keep asking you guys for detailed AARs :-/

Anyway:

If you find the Graser too unpredictable, remove its rerolls and reduce its 
points cost to 3xMass to compensate; this curbs the most extreme results 
but doesn't change the lower end of the performance range much. OK, one of 
your White Star cruisers could still vapourize an enemy battleship with a 
single salvo if it rolled 4 "6"s followed by 8 "5"s or "6"s, but without 
the rerolls that's a ~1/8,000,000 chance or less rather than ~1:100.

Increasing the G1's Mass (or cost) without changing its damage mechanics is 
essentially the same as saying that you *must* score mega-hits to have a 
chance to win the battle. Yes, the G1's average destructive potential is 
similar to that of a P-torp as long as the target is unscreened and the G1 
is in range to fire - but the P-torp has a longer maximum range, better hit 
probability at range 12 and less, and ignores any screens the target might 
have (which gives it a better hit probability than the G1 at range 12-18 as 
well if the target is screened). Similarly G1s that miss are no worse off 
than B2s that miss - but at most ranges the G1s miss far more often than 
the same points value of B2s do simply because the G1s fire fewer to-hit dice.

John Tailby's variant, reducing the damage to 1D3 per hit and halving the 
weapon Mass, reduces the unpredictability a bit but *increases* the average 
damage per weapon Mass by 14%.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx

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

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