Re: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)

Schoon wrote in reply to Brian:

>>But that was exactly what you were arguing (quicker threshold
>>checks) when you stated that the vertical damage weapons woud do
>>more to larger ships. You can't argue one and ignore the other. The
>>actual damage (hull) would be the same for large and small ships
>>because the extra damage (beyond the bottom hull box) is not
>>applied.
> 
>Not really. Perhaps I didn't explain it adequately.
>
>Small ships reach their thresholds quickly - and tend to have fewer
>systems to check against - as a result of their size. These two
factors >balance.
> 
>Large ships reach thresholds slowly - and tend to have more systems
>to check against - again as a result of their size. These two factors
>balance as well.

Actually they don't.

While it is true that a multitude of smaller will ships only lose a
small proportion of their combined weapons in each individual threshold
check, they *start* taking threshold checks much earlier than the big
ship.

Consider this *very* simplified example:

Four DDs (Mass 32, 8 hull boxes each) fight a single BB (Mass 128, 32
hull boxes). The combined weapons of the DDs exactly match the BB's
armament; none of the ships have any armour or screens or DCPs, but
they do have an infinite supply of FCSs. The BB concentrates its fire
at one DD at a time, destroying it, before it switches its fire.

Damage inflicted:	Weapons left - BB:	Weapons left - DDs:
0			100%			100%
2			100%			96%
4			100%			89%
6			100%			82%
8			83%			75% (DD1 destroyed)
10			83%			71%
12			83%			64%
14			83%			57%
16			56%			50% (DD2 destroyed)
18			56%			46%
20			56%			39%
22			56%			32%
24			28%			25% (DD3 destroyed)
26			28%			21%
28			28%			14%
30			28%			7%
32			Destroyed		DD4 destroyed

At each level of damage, the DDs have lost *more* weapons than the BB,
simply because they take many small threshold checks often instead of a
few big ones occasionally. Since the DDs lose their weapons faster than
the BB does, they won't inflict as much damage as the BB can either -
which means that the DDs fall still further behind. In a slug-out with
no maneuvers but with simultaneous fire, the last DD will usually die
before the BB takes its 3rd threshold check.

But it doesn't end here. I've made several simplifications in this
example, and most of them penalize the BB. They are:

1) Loss of FCSs was ignored. Small ships tend to have fewer FCSs than
large ships, so are more likely to become unable to fire due to lack of
fire controls even if all their weapons are working.

2) Fire was assumed to be simultaneous. In a fight between one large
ship and several small ships, the large ship gets to fire earlier than
the majority of the small ships even if it loses the initiative. This
means that *on top* of the DDs having lost more weapons at each given
damage level (which hurts them even if fire is simultaneous), the BB is
most likely able to destroy DD weapons before they get a chance to fire
at all.

3) Damage Control was ignored. The BB is likely to be able to repair
several of its downed systems since it can "pool" all its DCPs; the DDs
aren't able to do this since most of their DCPs aren't on the ship that
just lost systems.

4) Maneuvering was ignored. Depending on the players' skill levels,
this can benefit either side :-/

...I *know* there's one more favouring the BB, but I can't remember
which it is. Ah well.

>If a large ship took many threshold checks, it would be at a
>disadvantage. You would now force it to check "quickly" on its "more
>systems."

This is true, yes; and if the "new" checks come too often or are made
at too dangerous a level they'll outweigh the disadvantages the small
ships currently suffer. Getting the balance right will be tricky :-/

Regards,

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