Re: HBW. My input +

>From Greame:

>I don't think they are balanced with p-torps for this reason:
>If a p-torp is out of arc it cannot fire!
>If a hbw is out of arc it can't fire, but if it is in arc next turn it
fires at 
>twice efectiveness.

By Schoon's method that's not true, since the emitter limits the total
engergy that can be thrown.

> So my solution (for what its worth)

> BE's
> mass = class x 1
> points = mass x 3

I like this - I've always been a fan of a single emitter cost and
rating.
However, it's too cheap to buy extra arcs. Should be 2/6

> BPS's
> mass = class x 3
> points = class x 3
> generates energy per turn = class
> capacity = class x2

Lopsided mass/cost, I think. Make mass= classx2, cost = mass*3

>(ie one ptorp = 4mass 12pts)
>(one hbw class 1 = 4mass 12pts)

By this figuring, HBW class 1 is 4 mass & 12 points also, plus extra
arcs
are more expensive

> Hit/damage.
> One dice roll per energy point allocated. Damage is equal to amount
rolled
minus
>  1 per 6mu and minus 1 per level of shield. A SIX always causes at
least
one point but no rerolls.

That's interesting, but needs to be costed.

>SSD notes
> The BE's and BPS's are both seperate icons on the SSD. If the BE is
hit it
is out of action
> till repaired. If the BPS is hit it is out of action till repaired,
and
all stored energy is lost.

I (still) like the EFSB method, but it (still) depends on total cost
balance

> P-torps are less vulnerable too threshold checks than HBW's. HBW's on
the
other hand have
> the added benefit of allowing a two turn damage strike in one turn, if
they did not fire in an
> earlier turn.

"Double damage" is, I think not an accurate way of putting it. It
depends on
the size of the generator (alone in your case) and the emitter (in
Schoon's
case).

>From Tom:

>> According to the standards that some are complaining about concerning
HBs,
>> regular Beams also have "no roll to hit."

>bzzt. wrong. the roll for beams is a roll to hit. it's also a roll to
>damage of course.

I just love semantics.

> the issue raised is not of the lack of a roll to hit, it's the lack of
the
> possibility of doing no damage to unscreened targets at close range,
> without having to guess placing.

The statistical impact of autohit at 0-6" vs. Hit on 2+ is one damage
point.
You're arguing for an average damage of 2.5 rather than 3.5 at 0-6" vs.
unscreened, and overall reduction of HBW efficiency to below P-torp
levels
(unless you change cost etc...) for a weapon that is already less
efficent
than a p-torp between 12 and 30" (and less than half as efficient per
die
from 18-30"). 

The other caveats also don't make a compelling case to me. The small
piece
of game real estate that allows the autohit means you darn well _do_
have to
not only guess placement your opponent's ship - to better than you do
for an
SM (6" radius vs 1/6 that pie slice), but (also unlike the SM) you have
to
maneuver your _ship_ into that position and face the proper way to be
effective. And it of course puts you both at fingernail scratching
distance,
so neither of you is going to emerge from that encounter unscathed,
regardless. I just can't see how the autohit can be so objectionable
with
the weapon's built-in limitations.

> we've criticised the automatic hit, and suggested fixes - the 'always
miss
> on 1' and 'round up the range band', approaches, both of which have
been
> rejected without much comment, it seems (the best argument i've seen
is
> "that would make HBs too weak, and they're balanced as they are"; a
fix to
> that was even proposed: the extension of the range bands to 8 mu
each).

I recall the proposal, and my answer:
>>... 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.

To that I'll add: You don't average even one one point damage at that
range
until you can throw 6 dice. Compare that to Class 3 beams, of which
which
any _two_ can average 1 point out to 36" vs. even screen 2. Don't forget
that screen 1 erases the furthest range band as currently conceived, and
screen 2 erases the outer _2_ bands.

OTOH I'd be quite willing to consider "1 always misses" (in effect 2+
hits
from 0-12", then one worse each 6" range band) if "6 always scores at
least
1 point". 

> we've criticised the fact that the capacitor takes two hits before
dying,
> and suggested that it should only take one, with the compensation of
> either reduced mass or getting to keep charging even though the
capacitor
> is damaged (so you can use the charge once it's fixed).

I could take reduced mass and cost for this "feature," but why not
_leave_
it (and keep the mass and cost) for the different flavor it gives the
weapon? If my objection can be answered by a lower total cost, why can't
yours be answered by a higher cost? If it can, then all we're really
beating
to death is the game feel of the weapon, With some (i.e. me, etc)
wanting to
stick closer to the EFSB version than others (Tom, etc). That boils down
to
simple Personal Taste (tm).

Noam