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

>The only way they'll have empty BPSs at the start of a battle is if
>they've taken threshold damage to the BPS before they get to fire their
>first salvo. Yes, that can happen, but the risk for that is about as
>big for P-torp-armed ships.

The chance of having initial fire disrupted is actually twice that of
P-Torps because of the dual nature of the system. either the BPS or BEs
could be knocked out by an initial threshold. Having the BPS taken down
also affects all the BEs on a ship, unlike P-Torps.

>Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first turn, A
>is more effective. It has had a chance to take out at least some enemy
>weapons on turn 1; B hasn't had that chance.

I was assuming that B was holding fire for a closer range shot. My
example
was meant to have A & B in identicle circumstances, not simply as
abstract
individuals.

>IME you are very likely to have a worthwhile target to shoot at during
>your initial attack run (when your HBWs are almost guaranteed to have
>fully loaded BPSs).

Depends on if you gamble for the closer range shot.

>IOW, the situation you describe above is most likely to occur in the
>*middle* of a battle - but by that time, the HBW force has already
>fired their heavy first blow and their opponents have some serious
>catching up to do :-/

True.

>The BPSs are fully loaded the start of each battle, so you'll never get
>this "heavy first blow" effect completely averaged out. I strongly
>suspect you won't even get close to averaging it out.

Actually, given our present discussion, I'd say that BPSs would start
the
game empty (PSB - they can't hold a charge over extended periods of
time).

>When you call the what-ifs, you need to bring in empirical or
>experimental data into your evaluation - eg, as I did in the section on
>fire arcs below. What you can't do (and still get a reasonably accurate
>result) is to just ignore them.

Also true, but we need to have a rules basis set so we CAN get down to
the
playtesting phase. The we'll discover if the statistical data is flawed
or
not.

Look at MT, someone thought that the 1st incarnation of the Kra'Vak were
balanced (which playtesting obviously disproved), or the Sa'Vasku
playtested against the Kra'Vak at GenCon two years ago (which served to
prove they'd been overbalanced from their previous incarnation - the K'V
got severely spanked).

>IOW you consider all variable-arc FB1 weapons to pay too little for
>their extra arcs.

No. They actually hold up very well to statistical and playtest results.

>How often do you use 3-arc C2 or C3 batteries, compared to how often
>you use 5- or 6-arced ones?

5 arc C3s are indeed, quite rare. However 6 arc C2s are relatively
common.
Part of the reason for this is that Beam batteries are specifically
designed to loose efficiency as their class increases, so it's not cost
efficient to buy a 5 or 6 arc C3. How many times do you see C4s in
regular
play, much less one with multiple arcs: they aren't cost efficient.

Schoon