Re: 4th Heavy Beams

On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Izenberg, Noam wrote:

> >> The better
> >> comparison is the SML+ Magazine, and that's so subject to random
factors
> as
> >> to be hard to compare with confidence.
> 
> >really? does anyone [1] think the SM(L+M) combination can be
analysed?
> 
> As you note, Oerjan may, but me as a mere mortal who dislikes SM's to
begin
> with....

it seems he'd rather not (a wise man does not attempt the impossible).
i'm
writing as a mere mortal who likes HBs, but would like to be sure we're
not creating a power weapon. for the record, i don't like SMs much,
either
:).

> > in any case, you haven't answered the question: you say two hits is
> > appropriate for the HB but not the SM, and then say you can't
explain why
> > because the SM is too random.
> 
> Back of the napkin:
> Max damage of the SM is 36 at all ranges (minimum mass=6 for ER mag).
> Average is 12.25 minus 2.6 per PDS. Subtract some for placement, add
some
> for experience.
> Max dam of HB2 with emitter 3 at 0-6" is 18 (minimum mass=9). Average
is
> 10.5 minus screens (at shortest range only).

okay; under your conditions (no screens, shortest range), HBs do 0.86
times the damage of SMs. thus, they break even if SMs hit in 86% of
cases
or better - i would say that hit rates amongst mere mortals with SMs are
substantially lower than that myself. factor in screens and longer
ranges,
and the break-even ratio gets lower, to the region where it becomes
reasonable. this shows that HBs aren't overpowered at all ranges - but
that's not my complaint. i take issue with the auto-hit and the two-step
knockout.

> MyOp:
> SM's don't deserve the break, HB's do (plus I like the PSB that makes
them
> both behave the way they do.)

if they need a break, i say do it with mass or range (i'd like to see
HBs
have a better useful range, leaving PTs to handle close-in stuff). as
for
PSB - i'm sure we could cook up some delicious explanations for why it's
a
single-hit knockout.

> > if there's extra vulnerability, make it
> > lighter and cheaper to balance it, don't mess about with the basic
> > patterns of the game.
> 
> Why not? The SM does just that.  ;-). In fact, so does each unique
weapon
> system (Beams, torps, missiles, fighters...)

<lol/> yes, that's true, of course. i hadn't really looked at it like
that!

> >> >iow, guaranteed damage at ranges under 6 MU.
>  
> >> You Betcha.  Anyone careless enough to get in that close and inside
the
> >> single arc deserves what they get.
> 
> >uh? so it's okay for rules to be unbalanced, because if people fall
foul
> >of them, its their own fault for being so stupid? 
> 
> No. My argument is that they are not unbalanced.

i think it's this i disagree with, then. i don't believe in auto-hits.

> And (but this is obvious)
> that you should be aware of your opponent's strong and weak points.

naturally.

> > besides, with multiple
> >emitters, it's not single-arc, is it? 
> 
> Multiple emitters is more expensive in mass and cost. Balances in my
book,
> but I'll defer to Oerjan.
> 
> > and, as Kr'rt said, 6 mu is not that hard to do (for some people,
anyway).
> 
> Bloody KV can turn on a half-pence, kiss your sister and be home
before you
> can say "Hey!" As usual it depends on your style and group. 

another end-user variable, like SM placing. curses.

> > you still have to account for the fact that there is *no* other
weapon
> > system which does guaranteed damage and which doesn't require
movement
> > guessing (i'm thinking of the the nova cannon and the SM) (correct
me if
> > i'm wrong - certainly no major weapon systems).
> 
> I think it's still a guessing game. you've got a single arc out to 6"
- a
> small piece of game real estate. if you've got more arcs you've paid 
for
> them. And if the opponent has screens, "guaranteed damage" goes away,

well, screens are less common with FB; it still leaves small fry (up to
CL
in some cases) at the mercy of the beam.

> >> >... perhaps the range increment
> >> > could be made 8 mu to compensate; max range goes from 36 to 40.
>  
> >> Still don't like it.  Still weaker and more expensive than Ptorps
in
> almost
> >> all ranges P-torps can fire in. Is 0.167 points of damage per die
average
> at
> >> range 32-40 compensation? I don't think so.
> 
> >i'm not claiming to have number-crunched any of this; i'm just saying
that
> >two details of the HB proposal make unprecedented changes to the
game.
> 
> Not for EFSB veterans.

true, but i'd like this to be a system for generic players too.

> And I'll hazard to say FBII will make the mods of the
> HB look like a spit in the rain.

really? i'll bet it will be mostly a tidying-up and filling-out of
FT2.5.
of course, i am generally completely wrong about this sort of thing :(.

> >now, that may or may not matter, but i'd like to see a convincing
argument
> >as to why the coherence of FT needs to be broken.
> 
> I don't see how this "breaks" the system any more than KV (or SV or
god
> knows Phalon) weapons do. It creates a new dynamic and new weapon
metric to
> test and balance. Gives a different feel for a different system.
That's not
> breaking, that's adding variety and color. Even in a KISS system,
variety is
> both available and desirable.

agreed. i'm just not convinced there *needs* to be a difference here. if
HBs could be made distinctive without auto-hit and two-hit knockout, why
shouldn't we do that?

anyway, i get the feeling i'm arguing over two exceedingly trivial
points
with people who are keen to see as much of the EFSB flavour of HBs
preserved as possible, and thus, charging up a cul-de-sac. i think i
shall
stop!

tom