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

----------
> Från: Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net>
> Till: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Ämne: Re: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)
> Datum:  den 3 augusti 2000 22:10
> 
> At 20:37 2000-08-03 +0200, you wrote:
> >[snip]
> >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. [snip]
>>
>>2) Fire was assumed to be simultaneous. [snip]
>>
>>3) Damage Control was ignored. [snip]
>>
>>4) Maneuvering was ignored. [snip]
>>
>>...I *know* there's one more favouring the BB, but I can't remember
>>which it is. Ah well.
>
>5) Range. .

Make that "two more favouring the BB" :-/ The extra range is somewhat
balanced by the shorter-ranged weapons' ability to dish out more damage
once they do get close, but that ability depends a lot on maneuvering.

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