Re: [FT] Heavy Beams - scattered comments to the debate

Schoon wrote:

>BPS Pricing: the log scale doesn't work. Since range is the same
>regardless of the class of BPS, it is a linear system. In other words,
a >Class 3 is 3 times better than a Class 1, not 8 times better.

A C3-5 beams is more than 8 times better than a C1-6, which is why the
C1 has its point defence capability in addition to the anti-ship
firepower.

However, depending on what power generation system you use you can't
even be certain that a bigger BPS is better than a smaller one - eg, in
Beth's original HBW rule Size 3 or 4 capacitors were better overall
than a Size 6 since they all reloaded just as fast :-/

>BE Pricing: same story. Three BEs are only 3 times as effective as 1
(by
>the increase in arc area). 

IMO 3 arcs aren't even 3 times as effective as 1 arc. Again I think the
FB1 C3 is a good example - increasing the number of arcs from 1 to 3
increases the Mass of the weapon by only 50%. The Mass of the entire
weapon, 

>However, a BE attached to a Class 3 is also 3 times as deadly as a BE
>attached to a Class 1, so this NEEDS to be factored in.

It needs to be factored into the Mass of the entire weapon, not the
mass of the individual emitter. Sure, you won't get exact balance
between all combinations of BPS and BE, but you don't have exact
balance between all variants of normal beam weapons either (which is
why you see so many C2-3s and almost no C3-6s out there). Make sure
that the *best* BPS/BE combination is balanced, and the rest will take
care of themselves.

Noam wrote:

>HBW's are Heavy Weapons - minimally equivalent to class
>3's, P-torps and SML's. Fixing emitter price at say 2mass/6pts may be
>inefficient for those that buy generators with 2 capacity, but then,
IMO, it
>should be. Restrict the emitters to a single arc. With really big
>generators, you might be getting "over efficient" but balance that
against
>the base cost of the large generator and the double-system
vulnerability >to thresholds. Oerjan could weigh in on that.

The really big generators have just the same chance to go down to
thresholds as the smaller ones. However, they can be reasonably
balanced by setting the generator Mass appropriately. Don't limit
yourself to a linear relationship between Class and Mass, is all.

> As for Rerolls - No. 17% more damage (I think) 

No, 20% more damage. 17% of the total after you've added the re-roll
:-)

Dean wrote:

>One point on this that has not been made is that weapons that ignore
>screens do not get re-rolls.

Sub-Munition Packs get re-rolls, but they ignore screens.

Noam and Tom:

>>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?
>
>[1] Oerjan :)

If it was only the threshold part of the SM(L+M) you wanted analysed,
it is quite easy to do :-) Even easier than calculating the average
damage inflicted against a fixed number of PDSs; I did both of those
last spring <g> A total analysis of the SMs, though - ie, including the
hit probability etc... that's beyond me :-(

>>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?

If the weapon is big enough in comparison to the damage it inflicts, it
isn't particularly unbalanced IMO.

>>Average [SM damage] is 12.25 minus 2.6 per PDS.

That's a bit too high - 2.5 for the 1st PDS, 2.1 for the 2nd against
the same salvo, 1.8 for the 3rd, etc.

>> 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
:(.

<G>

Graeme and Schoon:

>>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.
>
>I think that this argument is not viable. When I plugged in all the
numbers
>for my final Damage*ArcArea/Mass ratings, I factored in the average
>damage per turn in balancing.

Graeme's argument is very viable indeed. If I have a weapon which can
inflict 20 points on yours on turn 1 but then can't fire on turn 2
while you have a weapon which will inflict 10 points each turn, I have
a better chance to knock your weapon out on turn 1 than you have to
knock out mine. If I do knock your weapon out on turn 1, there's a good
chance that you don't get to fire on turn 2 - and then the average
damage I inflicted is twice yours, in spite of both weapons having the
*same* theoretical average damage. Damage now is better than damage
next turn, as long as it is applied to a relevant target (eg, not BJs
<G>).

Noam:

>(and less than half as efficient per die from 18-30"). 

I don't understand why Noam keeps harping about "efficiency per die"
instead of efficiency per MASS - the former is says absolutely nothing,
the latter virtually everything... a C3-1 battery throws more dice than
a P-torp, so it too has a lower efficency per die than the P-torp
except at range 30+, but the damage/mass ratios are similar. Sure, the
P-torp and the C3 use very different mechanics to determine the damage,
but the difference between the P-torp and the HBW is fairly big as well
:-/

Kr'rt:

>I always cringe a little (a lot) when people talk about weapon
>efficiencies as compared with other weapons in a given wargame.
>FLAVOR and STYLE are much, much more important than whether the >HBW
is .626% +/-  less efficient than a P-torp.  Why not have only Basic
>Beam

Yeah, sure. Matildas and Shermans are much more stylish than King
Tigers, so why not represent them all with identical stats in a WWII
tactical game?

Best wishes,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry