RE: Kinetic Shields

Brian Bell wrote:

>The same way you make armor cost more when it is hit by
"screen-skippers"
>than it does when it is hit by beams. Unless you can explain how this
was
>done, you must also state that armor is out-of-balance and should be
fixed.

Beams and screen-skippers are not balanced against one another unless 
screens are used - if there are no screens, the beams win hands down. In

other words, if we removed screens from the game, we'd either need to 
increase the cost of all beams (including Pulsers) or reduce the cost of

all screen-skipping weapons.

Removing the screens so armour is the only passive defence available is 
effectively the same thing as introducing a shield which stops all types
of 
damage equally well.

>And if K-Guns are balanced with P-Torps, how do you make armor cost
more
>aginst P-Torps than against K-Guns (an "armor skipping" weapon)?

K-guns cost more per Mass than P-torps, so armour is automatically more 
expensive when compared to P-torps than it is when compared to K-guns. A

defence which removes the K-guns' armour penetration (eg. a shield) make

them pretty much identical to P-torps, but more expensive... sounds like
a 
good game balance, don't you think?

>Armor is the precident in FT for equal protection from damage. The only
>difference (and I admit it is large) is that shields would renew each
turn.

That large difference causes quite a bit of trouble all on its own, but
it 
isn't the main problem.

>Thus you have to make the protection to mass/cost of the shields less
that
>that of armor (or make it have less covererage - i.e. directional). I
think
>that it would balance somewhere in the range of 2-3 mass per point of
>protection.

>I am unsure that your statement of P-Torp/K-Gun equality holds true at
>higher classes of K-Guns (especially against an armored opponent). I
would
>love to see the numbers. Intuition would indicate that in a comparison
of 1
>Class-4 K-Guns vs 2 P-Torps (both 8 mass),

<sigh> When weapons have different Cost/Mass ratios (as is the case
here), 
you need to look at the same *cost*, not the same *mass*. The K4 costs 8

pts more than 2 P-torps; 8 pts is ~0.4 more P-torps on human ships. In 
other words, you're looking at a single K4 against roughly *2.4*
P-torps, 
not 2.

>the 2 P-Torps would have a slightly better chance to hit, but the K-Gun

>would provide consistatly greater damage per hit.

The 2.4 P-torps have a better chance of getting some hits each turn,
yes. 
However, the to-hit mechanics are identical for all weapons involved so
you 
can look at the average damages per hit directly:

1 K4 hit inflicts on average 6.67 pts (1 to armour, 5.67 to hull)
2.4 P-torp hits inflict on average 8.4 pts (4.8 to armour, 3.6 to hull)

While the target still has armour left the K4 inflicts some 60% more
hull 
damage than the P-torps. Armour evaporates quite fast when hit by
P-torps 
though, so against most ships the K4 will only have this advantage for
one 
or two hits after which the tables are turned - the P-torps do all their

damage to the hull while the K4 still has to penetrate the armour with
each 
hit.

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