Re: HBW debate

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Graeme Bradbury wrote:

> Well just to add my bit of input to this.
> 
> I did the number crunching on average damage for the beams (can post
> the numbers if you want) The beams do lower damage than p-torps in the
> 12-30 range (though the difference is <1) higher damage in the 0-12
> range (difference <1 for small beams >1 for larger beams compared with
> large numbers of p-torps) And naturally more damage at the 30-36
> range.
> 
> The main thing I noticed is that two approaches yield different
> results. If you use two BE and BPS systems so as to alternate firing
> from turn to turn, then mass required is the same as for p-torps. If
> on the other hand you use one large BPS and enough class 1 BE's to
> fire the half the BPS's capacity each turn you get a lighter mass
> requirement.
> 
> e.g.. 8 p-torps take up 32 space. A HBW system that can fire 8 dice
> (2x Class 4 BPS 4x Class 1 BE's) every turn requires 28 mass.
> 
> This means that approach one weighs and costs the same as the same
> p-torp system with the added benefit of a double damage alpha strike
> at the expense of a one turn charge up.

and if you start the game with capacitors full (and i can't think why
you
wouldn't), you don't even need to charge.

> And approach two which acts
> like the p-torp system, but with no alpha strike like approach one but
> leaves extra space for other systems.
> 
> So all in all i think HBW's need to cost just a smigen more. (The only
> problem is i can't think of how much)

well, they do have the disadvantage of having two systems, the loss of
either being critical (with a set of PTs, you can lose one and still
fire), but the advantage (under the proposed and criticised (by me :) )
rules) of being able to take two threshold hits before being lost.
perhaps
dropping the latter would leave them with enough of a disadvantage to
balance out?

> (Or we could just convice Jon to convert FT over to FMA system ;-p )

i mentioned that once ... i'll show you the scars at some point :).

tom