RE: [FT] Keeping "Old" RGs

K'rt wrote:

>
>Howdy Tim,
>
>The problem that I am having is that all of the "This Weapon is More
>Powerful Than That Weapon" issues can all be addressed by 
>tweaking point costs.	

To some extent this is true. Latest analysis shows that RG 
point cost is now about right.

>If a given weapon is the best at long range, the best 
>at short range
>and also the best in the middle range, then it should have a 
>higher point
>cost. I believe we all agree there.  

Nod.

<I don't think of this as an issue as eventually, there WILL 
>be non-KV ships mounting RGs.	It is even suggested in the books...  
>This can and should be point-regulated and not mechanics-regulated.>
>

I agree the proposal should be the former not the latter.

>> Plus scatterguns are very bad news close in too.
>> 
><Ummm, not really a valid argument as SMLs are bad news, 
>Capital Missiles are bad news and PTs are bad news.  

I was basing the observation on John A's latest play test report 
where they felt this was the case and wanted to tone them down. 

>The 1-shot nature of the SGs makes a
>prolonged fighter/missile engagement turn towards the Hu'man 
>side after 3-4 turns.

As you found out in Adler Tag.

>Isn't it better to say in the AAR that
>there was one destroyer that got a stinking beam shot through on that
>carrier and that it triggered a crucial threshold check with its great
>damage reroll?
>

Some players really hate this sort of thing, I'm just
reminded of proximity torps and SFB being outlawed in
tournaments as it was thought unskillful.

Though not exactly the same, you could still get lucky:

The probability of a class 3 railgun at extreme range (30) 
cascading a captial with 6 damage points is 1/6 * 4/6 or 
1 in 8.

The probability of a class 3 beam shot doing say 6 damage
at range 30 is 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 or 1 in 216.  

So the railguns are more likely to produce the effects
you want. Would you (the gamer) really want to make then even 
more likely to produce even more damage?

-= tim jones =-