Re: [FT] Battle report - Dreadplanet vs KV

> stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> >>The battle featured the Dreadplanet Roberts Mk.1 (ie. with needle
> >>beams - not that it would've mattered much if they had been B1s
> >>instead) for 5000 pts against an FB2 KV fleet consisting of 17
Si'Tek
> >>escort cruisers and 1 Ko'Tek strike cruiser (5001 pts).=20
  
> >> * The KV flew at speed 30-40 throughout most of the battle (except
> >>for the first six turns when they were accellerating!), and had no
> >>problems staying on the fairly small, fixed playing area or indeed
to
> >>end up almost exactly where they wanted.

> >Yeah, my test with my wife involved ships with only thrust 3 rather 
than
> >thrust 6, albeit with far more scatterguns than usual and class 5 K's
> >rather than class 3's.

> Thrust-3A explains why she didn't attempt to maneuver. My main problem
> was that I constantly had to choose between aiming my beams where the
> KV would be if they decided to attack *this* turn, or pointing my PBLs
> where the KV would be if they decided to attack on the *next* turn -
> and thrust-3A ships wouldn't have given me this particular headache.

Would it really make that much difference?  From the way you're
describing
the tactics involved, this basically means that they threw a high speed
wide-range flanking move and cut in to strike from time to time.  I'm
not
sure whether Thrust 6A and Thrust 3A would really make that much
difference
unless they were circling past you and doubling back a lot.

> You earlier wrote that your wife was going to have 90-100 scatterguns
> (IIRC 96; can go back and check if you like).

She had 95.  Close enough not to bother quibbling. :)

> Why did she use K5s, BTW (ie., why did you give her K5s, since IIRC
you
> designed her ships)? K5s have several advantages over K3s: being
easier
> to repair due to being only about half as many for a given mass (and
> thus a given number of DCPs), being better able to hurt ships with
> heavy or multiple-layer armour, and the psychological impact of
ripping
> an entire hull row off a cruiser or light capital with a single hit.
> However, none of these apply against the DPR - the two last ones
> because the isn't heavily armoured and have 90 boxes in each hull row,
> and the first is mostly negated since the KV can take any amount of
> time they like for repairs between their attack runs... all that
> remains is the *K3*'s advantage of a higher damage:Mass ratio <shrug>

The reason I picked the K5 was pretty simple (and, possibly, hasty): 
it's
the best damage:mass ratio gun that needs anything but a 6 to inflict
double
damage.  Perhaps I didn't look at all the math quite right and the K3
actually
winds up doing more damage:mass ratio overall than the K5.

Let me see... K3's are mass 5, right?  So it's 11 K3's to 5 K5's... K5's
are
going to do 45.8333 damage (40.8333 on hull) if they all were to hit on
average, the K3's would do 49.5 (38.5 on hull).  So if you had an
unarmored
ship, the K3 would probably do a bit more damage, whereas if the enemy
was
armored, the K5 would be better.

I'd be more inclined to go with the K5 overall.  There's a lot of
different
equations one can draw up here for mass to damage ratios depending on
whether
the target's armored, not armored, screened, not screened, etc...

			K5		K3		Pulse torps (1
arc)

Mass			11		5		4

Avg. Dmg/Hit		9.1666		4.5		3.5
(per mass)		0.8333		0.9		0.875
(per cost)		0.2083		0.225		0.2916

Avg. Dmg/Hit (Hull)	8.1666		3.5		1.5
(per mass)		0.7424		0.7		0.375
(per cost)		0.1856		0.175		0.125

			SML (3 mag)	SMR		PBL-1

Mass			9		4		5

Avg. Dmg/Hit		10.5		10.5		3.5
(per mass)		1.1666		2.625		0.7 (x #targets)
(per cost)		0.3888		0.875		0.2333 (x
#targets)

Avg. Dmg/Hit (Hull)	4.5		4.5		???
(per mass)		0.5		1.125		???
(per cost)		0.1666		0.375		???

All of this math is just for the stuff that actually pierces screens...
if you
want to assume that we _don't_ have to worry about screens B2's start
looking
halfway good at most ranges that the above weapons cover, too.

(Apologies if your mail reader handles tabs in a way more ugly than
mine)

> >My own tactic probably would've been to put the PBs in greater
> >concentration and take the gamble.  Yes, it probably would've meant
> >that I would've cleanly missed a fair amount but it also would've
meant
> >that one good hit would've decided the battle (by reducing scattergun
> >count to ineffectually low levels).

> This has been tried but found wanting. In our group the standard KV
> response to such a gamble is to wait until the PBLs fire a heavy
> barrage, then attack on the next turn when they know that most of the
> PBLs are recharging... that way they don't have to burn very many
> scatterguns :-/

I've thought of that.  Either all-at-once or half-and-half-continuous,
either
way keeping a fair amount of concentration.  Most likely the latter if
they
had a _lot_ of maneuverability (as in this case).  It wouldn't be a
situation
where you'd necessarily decide the battle on _one_ hit (though 16 dice
of
plasma can still reduce a lot of scatterguns) but you could keep the
heat up
enough that they'd have to dance a lot and, after two hits, you could
probably
attack pretty much at will with your fighters.

> The fact that I took advantage of the fixed table edge (stopping 31mu
> away from it instead of 40-50 mu away as I had planned) would've
> hampered this potential KV tactic, but, well... I didn't actually
> intend to hug the table edge, and my opponents *could* have invoked
> your suggested "fuzzy edge" ruling where ships accused of edge-hugging
> can be declared "off-table" and thus removed :-/

It depends on how much you're hugging it.  If you're a solid 30" away
from
the edge we wouldn't eject you.  :)
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The Stilt Man		      stiltman@teleport.com
   http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>