Re: [FT] Weapon of the Week - AM-SM

In message <200102081950.UAA23602@d1o903.telia.com>
	  "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Charles Taylor wrote:
> 
> >Seems reasonable to me, want to think about the damage though,
>hmm...
> 
> > 
> >Example (very contrived & rough):
> > 
> >A ship with, oh (leafs through FB1), say 4 PDS, escorted by a CE with
> >3 PDS is attacked by two salvos -
> > 
> > All PDS are used (4 vs. 1, 3 vs. other), killing an average of 5.6
> > missiles, (3.2 on first, 2.4 on second).
> 
> In order to kill an average of 5.6 missiles the PDSs need an
> "effectively infinite" number of target missiles - in reality 12 or so
> missiles is enough. However, the target salvo doesn't *have* 12
> missiles; it only has 1d6 missiles; therefore the average number of
> missiles shot down per PDS gets lower the more PDSs you throw at the
> salvo.

Darn it! I knew I was being too simplistic with that calculation! Should
have got spreadsheet out I think!
> 
> The real average damage from 1 SM salvo opposed by 4 PDSs + 1 SM salvo
> opposed by 3 PDSs is 4.39 + 3.24 = 7.63 points of damage.
> 
> >Same ships are attacked by PBL-2, (same as your AM-SM)
> >All PDS fire, removing an average of 1.67 (approx) d6s, so only 0.33
> >d6 reach the target - but both ships are hit - oh, make it .67 d6.
> 
> C'mon Charles, you're not usually this careless! :-) If all PDS fire
> they'll remove on average 7/6 = 1.167 d6, so on average only 0.833d56
> gets through to each ( = 2.92 pts each, 5.83 in total).	     ^^
								      |
Well, at least I'm being consistently careless :-( I think it was late|
when I did this, and it was a rush job. OTOH, where _did_ that d56 come
from? :-)
> 
> >So, _in_this_example_ your AM-SM is about as effective as ONE
> >standard range SM.
> 
> The AM-SM in this example inflicts on average as much damage as
> 5.83/(7.63/2) = about 1.5 normal SMs, though the AM-SM damage is
spread
> over two targets rather than concentrated at a single one.
>  
> >Not that I am _not_ taking into account a lot of things - extra ships
> in
> >the area would both increase (more targets to damage) and reduce
> >(more PDS systems) the effectiveness of the AM-SM, also, some >Alien
> PDS equivalents are more effective. Finally, I did not account for
> >screens (which reduce the AM-SMs effectiveness - if we treat them
> >_exactly_ like PBLs)
> > 
> >On the whole, your version looks good, but I'd either reduce the MASS
> >per salvo to 2 (which would allow for extended range AM-SMs), or
> >increase the yield to 3 plasma dice.
> 
> That's only because you underestimated the damage inflicted by the
> AM-SMs by some 60% :-/ You could have extended-range AM-SMs if you
> like, but they'll be Mass 4 or 5 per salvo.

Ok, so it looks like we go back to 1 AM-SM is MASS 3, and is equal to 1
shot of a PBL-2. In which case I propose that, for simplicity, there are
_no_ extended range versions.
> 
> 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
> 
Ok, thanks, I figured if I missed anything (and I did), you'd spot it!