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

Schoon wrote:

> >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

>You cannot accurately factor this into the statistics; thus I kept
with
>averages over time. All other things being equal, the damage per turn
will
>approach these numbers. 

Eventually, yes (assuming that the "some damage each turn" isn't
crippled by the opening salvoes of the "heavy damage some turns"
force). However, in my experience this "eventually" tends to be longer
than an average FB battle lasts.

You can't *accurately* factor this into the statistics, but you mustn't
ignore it either - which you seem to have done. You need to be aware of
it, and of the fact that it makes the "heavy damage some turns" weapons
more powerful in a average-length battle than the raw statistics
indicate.

>You can't add "bad piloting" into the equation.

OTOH, you seem to assume "completely random piloting" into the equation
(see below) :-/

>>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)
 
I assume "that" refers to what Noam calls efficiency per die, or
something? Makes it quite a bit clearer, yes. If it had been defined
somewhere in the debate, I missed it - sorry about that.

This is one way to weigh in different ranges and arcs. I'd say that
this overvalues long-range weapons somewhat - the difference between
the 1:4:9  progression for 1:2:3 range bands this formula gives isn't
very far from the empirical QnD 1:3:6 one I use, but even the QnD
formula is a bit hard on the longer-ranged weapons.

However, my main problem with this formula is that it assumes
completely random maneuvers (or, more accurately, completely random
target locations) when computing the value of wide fire arcs. If you
assume that the players are attempting to point their weapons at the
enemy, 2-arc weapons aren't worth twice as much as 1-arc weapons, and
6-arc weapons definitely aren't worth 6 times as much, yet the formula
seems to suggest that they are.

IME, 6-arc weapons are worth roughly twice as much of the 1-arc one (in
Cinematic, less in Vector). Maybe as much as three times more in the
hands of players unused to single-arc weapons, but that'd leave the
narrow-arc weapons too good in the hands of an experienced player.

Later,

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