Re: Bigger--not always better

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:

> Am I the only one who doesn't have a hatred of A batteries?

Nope. Any self-respecting battleship man likes big guns.
IMHO, the problem is quite the opposite: Current system makes it 
beneficial to stick A batteries in the smallest dinghy that can take 
them. 

If you want to look for "bugs", check the class limits. A 36 mass
supercruiser (or CB if you will) will come out on top compared to a BC 
practically every time -- and it's over 100 points cheaper too.
Likewise with mass 18 superdestroyers and light cruisers, though the 
difference isn't quite as big.

Big, slow ships are already prime missile targets. Three DDGs 
slinging 9 missiles in your direction will spoil the day for any 
superdreddie, and they cost a fraction of the points.

> The entire point of beam weapons (in FT),

IMHO, their point is to be the basic weapon. You shouldn't NEED anything

else, which is not true fighting Screen-3 ships.

The "vanilla" designs are IMHO pretty well balanced, but the design
rules 
leave too much room for optimization.

Current facts:
A -batteries are always better. You should always have them. Get rid of 
all lighter batteries.
AA's are too handicapped. I can't see anyone mounting them.
Fire arcs are too cheap. I mean, it's completely braindead to limit the 
arcs on the standard superdreddie. For a few more points it gets max 
arcs. 
Mass is far more important than points. Once you get going, it's 
relatively easy to pay points only, since the startup costs for hull and

drives are so high. E.g. 25 more points will buy you lot's of nice
things 
for an existing ship, but only a pitiful scout for a new ship.
Drives don't have mass. Buy the biggest set you can afford. Optimize 
maneuverability by getting and odd number for thrust.

Let's face reality for a while: Historical experience suggests that the 
biggest guns in best possible mountings IS the best way to go. But only 
the biggest ships can do it.

We might restrict arcs for A-batts. Say, caps can only mount them on two

arcs, and smaller ships only on one.

We might add mass for arcs. A's get 1 mass per each arc, B's 1 each
after 
first and C's get two "free" arcs.

That would give the following numbers:

Pts/mass
Batt Arcs
     1	    2	  3
A    7/4    10/5  13/6
B    5/2    7/3   9/4
C    3/1    4/1   5/2

Same per firepower at close range:

     1		2	   3
A    2.33/1.33	3.33/1.66  4.33/2
B    2.5/1	3.5/1.5    4.5/2
C    3/1	4/1	   5/2

Still no good... let's make that no extra mass for C's, 0.5 per arc for
B's. 

     1		2	   3
A    2.33/1.33	3.33/1.66  4.33/2
B    2.5/1.25	3.5/1.5    4.5/1.75
C    3/1	4/1	   5/1

Much better... ofcourse, this means you have to redo ALL your ship 
designs :-(

Points too low? Add +1/arc for B's and +2/arc for A's

     1		2	  3
A    3/1.33	4.66/1.66 6.66/2
B    3/1.25	4.5/1.5   6/1.75
C    3/1	4/1	  5/1

Now, that's more like it. A's your choice for narrow arc long-range
firepower, C's good for flexible mounts and B falls in between.

There's a downside to everything, though:
- You have to redo nearly all designs
- It uses fractional units
- It screws up the balance wrt other weapons
- It screws up the balance, period. (Since you can now mount typically 
less weapons, fights last longer)
- Do you really want to draw 41 little C's on an optimised mass 
100 superdreddie?

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |