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

>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.

Agreed.

>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>).

See my previous response to Graeme

>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
>:-/

Actually that should be (Avg Damage)(Arc Area)/(Mass)

Schoon