Re: Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970417220844.5158B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
Kurki-Suonio writes:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> 
> > Let's look at this from a different POV as well. Is a scattergun 
> > an SMP with a secondary anti-fighter capability... or an expendable 
> > PDAF with a secondary anti-ship capability?
> 
> Let's look at it this way: A scattergun, on the average, blows away
> half a squadron of fighters. 

...just to split hairs, an average of 3.5, slightly more than 
half...

> A squadron of fighters costs 20 points,
> so an even trade should cost 10pts. Whether the PDAF is better or
worse 
> is immaterial (or rather, it relates only to whether PDAF is priced
right 
> wrt fighters).

Ah, but a fighter group costs both 20 points and 6 mass. A 1 mass
scattergun priced at half the cost of a fighter group, by your
mass<->points juju would go for 20 points itself... add on the AS 
capability and I'm saying at least 30 points.

I don't, however, think that a PDAF should be priced w.r.t fighter
groups in this manner. When you outfit a fleet, it's unlikely that 
more than one ship will be engaged by fighters, and that one ship 
will cop the lot. Most PDAF's are wasted points/mass. This isn't so 
for scatterguns, because of the dual function.

> > Well, lets be conservative and call it one 4-arc SMP from above
> > (15 pts) and two PDAF. That's three mass and 21 points. Bring it
> > down to 1 mass as per your formula... call it 30 points.
> 
> I'm more in favor of 20-25pts, but I guess we're circling around the 
> correct neighborhood.
> 
> > This rather suggests it needs a little toning down.
> 
> Nah... the KayVees are the ultimate combat monsters of the galaxy. So 
> what if a fair fight pits their destroyer against a human battleship?

It seems odd that such high-tech ships come with so few DP's w.r.t
the outrageous offensive capabilities that they carry. I'm not
saying that this isn't justifiable, but I'll still call it odd. The
minimum human ship to take a PTT carries enough DP to take the
average PTT hit. The minimum Kra'Vak ship to carry an RG-2 cannot
take the least-damaging RG-2 hit. Civil wars must be pretty darn
swift out there in Kra'Vakia. If they play with simultaneous
combat resolution out there, they must often find that they simply
annihilate each other.

> > For a start, I say ditch the 4-arc capability. This would promote
> > some groovy tactical play where fighters try to keep on the right
> > side of a Kra'Vak ship to avoid it's remaining scatterguns.
> > Secondly, drop the damage it does to half-a-die. I could live with
> > it then as a 5 point weapon.
> 
> Hmmm... That's still better than SMP. Even without AF capability.

Is it? More than the 2 point difference? Average damage would be 2 
(if we round the die up). SMP's get the same at 6" range and get a 
longer range if you want it. The AF capability isn't so valuable 
without the all-arc capability. Reducing the AF capability to half-
a-die as well would make it pretty weak. 

Would you swap out a PDAF for a one-shot one-arc weapon that got you 
three dice against fighters?

> > Observation: There is no reduction in scattergun damage for the 
> > thick armour carried by Kra'Vak cruiser and capitals... but there
> > is for heavy fighters. They must be *really* heavy.
> 
> The protection system is indeed in dire need of overhaul...

Only w.r.t. the Kra'Vak technology. That's where an overhaul is
needed.

> > Wouldn't it be so much easier if, say, a damage point was a 1-mass
> > "system"?
> 
> Otherwise nice, but I can just see those Mass 18, 1 Damage Point,
decked 
> out with missiles, disposable launcher ships. 

I think it goes without saying that we need to castrate missiles
anyway. That's a whole other discussion. I would also suppose that
a minimum number of DP's would have to be taken.

-- 
David Brewer