Re: SV: Pulse Torpedoes vs. Submunition Packs

2 things...

1) Isn't this getting a little bit like Star Fleet Battles...?

2) Oerjan...What exactly are you trying to get out of the sewers any
way!!!??

All in good fun....hehe
Scylla

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> ----------
> > Från: Jonathan Davis <davis@albany.net>
> > Till: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> > Ämne: FT:	Pulse Torpedoes vs. Submunition Packs
> > Datum:  den 31 oktober 1997 02:29
> >
> > The list has been too quiet.
> >
> > I've given some thought to the 'useless' Pulse torpedo.  Mark
> > Kochte isn't the only one who seems to have trouble making
> > the to-hit rolls for the things.  I too have never been
> > enamoured with them.
> >
> >
> > A pulse torpedo will generate the following average points
> > of damage:
> >
> >			0-6"	6-12"	12-18"	18-24"
> > Pulse Torpedo	2.31	1.75	 1.16	 0.58
> >
> > By comparison a single submunition pack will do the following:
> >
> > Submunition Pack	2.00	1.33	 0.66	 0.00
> >
> > If you compare the two weapons by a comparable mass basis,
> > where a Mass 5 PT has the same mass as 5 sub packs, the
> > single turn damage potential for five sub packs is:
> >
> > 5 x SubPacks       10.00	6.66	 3.33	 0.00
> >
> > Given that both weapons have the same one-arc restriction,
> > the torpedo destroyer is not as good of a purchase than a
> > close assault destroyer mounting 5 subpacks, and either
> > a C Battery and a PDAF, or two PDAFs.
>
> This analysis forgets that the SubPack is one-shot while the PT isn't;
> this
> always indicates the SubPack as a much more powerful weapon than it
> is.
> Compare 2 SubPacks with a single-arc B battery (vs no shields), for
> instance:
>
>			      0-6"    6-12"   12-18"  18-24"
> 2*SubPack	      4.00    2.67     1.33    0.00
> B battery:		 1.33	 1.33	  0.66	  0.66
>
> The B battery costs 5 points, the SubPacks cost 2. "Clearly", the
> SubPack
> is much stronger than the B, no? Why then bother with beams at all?
> Especially since they aren't affected by shields :-) OK, in the FT2
> design
> rules the B battery can have up to 3 arcs, but it seems likely that
> multi-arc batteries will pay a mass penalty in FT3 (and I've played
> with
> such penalties for a long time now).
>
> Of course, a DD isn't always that likely to survive to shoot more than
>
> once. On bigger ships (strike cruisers :-), the PT is more likely to
> shoot
> multiple times, which increases the value.
>
> Still, it _is_ weak even when compared to beams. The damage per mass
> point
> caused by it (and B batteries, which have the same range) are:
>
>				     0-6"    6-12"   12-18"  18-24"
> B batt. vs no shield	    0.66    0.66      0.33    0.33
> B batt. vs 1 shield	     0.50    0.50      0.25    0.25
> B batt. vs 2 shields	    0.33    0.33      0.17    0.17
> B batt. vs 3 shields	    0.17    0.17      0.08    0.08
> Pulse Torp (mass 5)	  0.46	  0.35	    0.23    0.12
> Pulse Torp (mass 4)	  0.58	  0.43	    0.29    0.14
>
> The original (mass 5) pulse torp is less effective than two single-arc
> B
> batteries against any target with a single or no shields, and a little
> bit
> more effective against heavily shielded targets - much more, in the
> case of
> shield level 3. By reducing the mass to 4, the PT gets better against
> most
> shielded targets (except shield level 1 at ranges 6-12" and 18-24"),
> but it
> is still worse than the B batteries against unshielded targets - and,
> of
> course, it can only be mounted to fire forward. As with the A
> batteries, I
> think a mass 4 weapon is better balanced.
>
> Later,
>
> Oerjan Ohlson
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
> What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> - Hen3ry