[FT] Weapons comparison

>From the Alarishi Naval Architects, a quick analysis:

Comparing weapons, we take 60 Mass worth of each weapon, all bought with
3
arcs:

  5@Class 4=16/16/12/12/8/8/4/4
10@Class 3=24/24/16/16/8/8
30@Class 2=48/48/24/24
60@Class 1=48/48
60@Submun=144/96/48
10@P Torps=29/23/17.5/12/6

The numbers are the damage anticipated for the given number of weapons
in
each 6" range increment.  Thus 60 Class 1 Beams would be expected to do
48
points of damage at range 6 and 12", and none after that.

Factors not considered in the above:
1) screens reduce the effect of beams
2) armor affects incoming damage differently depending on the weapon
3) class 1's have PDS ability and 6 arcs available
4) fewer (larger) weapons mean that, when you lose one to a threshold
roll,
you lose a comparatively large percentage of your firepower  On the
other
hand, more (smaller) weapons mean you're more likely to lose at least
some
of them, and you will have more things to have to split your DCP's
among.
My feeling (ie I haven't done the math) is that you're actually better
off
with a few large systems than a lot of small systems, if they produce
the
same damage at the range you wish to maintain.
5) SMR's are subject to too many variables to subject to this sort of
analysis.

The lesson from this chart (or rather, the lesson that I picked up) is
that
the ability to maintain the range you want is likely the most important
factor in victory (other than hot dice).  If you have a battlecruiser
with a
couple of Class 4 beams, you can plink away at the enemy and win, as
long as
you can stay out of his range.	On the other hand, if you have Class 2's
and
he has Class 3's, then you want to get to knife-fighting range and stay
there.	This in turn implies that perhaps the most important factor
about a
ship is its speed, and the captain's ability to use it.

Argument?