Re: Kinetic Shields

David Griffin wrote:

> > If all ships always had level-*2*
> > screens, then beams would indeed be useless...
>
>The word "useless" to me implies that they do no
>damage.

In that case you read something else into the word than I do. To me, 
"useless" in this context means "consistently and massively outperformed
by 
the same cost of other weapons". Being able to dish out *some* damage is
a 
small consolation when your enemy can give twice as much right back at
you.

 > It was possible to balance screens against beams and
> > P-torps because they
> > were designed at the same time. It was possible to
> > fit the K-guns into the
> > scheme because they are very similar to the P-torps,
> > and Pulsers because
> > they are essentially beams.
>
>I would like to point out that K guns have very
>different behavior than ptorps.

No, they don't. They have the identical same to-hit mechanic, the same 
range, and very nearly the same damage/mass... the only real differences

are the improved armour penetration for the K3s and bigger (K2s have a 
somewhat better armour penetration than P-torps, but very rarely enough
to 
matter; K1s have marginally better armour penetration than *beams*) and
the 
K-guns' greater cost.

>They do damage
>differently, can double (where ptorps can't) and
>punch through armor a lot more effectively than
>ptorps do.

The "can double" only means that they do about as much damage per mass
on 
average (or less, for all but K2s and K3s) than P-torps.

>  I for one would rather take an average
>of 3.5 points, half to armor than a K5 hit that
>doubles 1 point to armor and 9 points to hull.

But you won't take "an average of 3.5 points, half to armour" instead of
"a 
K5 hit that doubles 1 point to armour and 9 points to hull". For the
cost 
of that one K5, you'll take *three* P-torp hits with an average of 3.5 
points, plus a beam die or two thrown in for good measure... which is 
better: ~12 points, roughly 6 each to armour and hull, or 10 points of 
which 9 goes to hull?

>Ask the Phalon players if they think pulse torpedoes
>are equivalent to kguns. Maybe you can make a
>mathematical argument that the expected damage from
>k guns is the same as pulse torpedoes, I don't know,

It is very easy to show that the total damages per mass are similar:

Expected damage per mass for a hit from...
1-arc P-torp: 0.875
1-arc K2: 0.889
K3: 0.9
K4 and K5: 0.833

If you look at total average damage per cost instead, the P-torp wins
hands 
down.

>but I know they feel very different in play.

That was intentional, yes. The difference which makes them feel
different - 
the armour penetration - is why they're differently priced... and your 
suggested shield would go a very long way towards *removing* that very 
difference. (Hm... is that what you want - turn the K-guns into an 
overpriced version of the P-torps?)

Regards,

Oerjan

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry