RE: Kinetic Shields

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Oerjan
Ohlson
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:03 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: 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.

[Bri] So the game is out of balance every time a ship without screens
are used?

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?

[Bri] No. It is the situation with Beams vs P-Torps with or without
screens.

>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*. 

[Bri] I disagree. Full Thrust has a 2 axis balance system. Mass and
Cost. I would agree that you would have to look how the systems
compare on BOTH axis, however. In your example below, you are not
accounting for how the reduced mass of the K-Gun makes every system
based on hull mass (engines, FTL, base ship cost) more cost effective
because you can mount the same cost in weapons on a smaller ship.

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. 

[Bri] About 125% more on a mass to mass basis.

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

My comments above marked by [Bri]

I think that you are being too hard on the idea. Yes, there will be
cases where it will not be balanced. But there are already such cases
(Beams vs ships without screens [as you pointed out], large vs small
ships matched by either points or mass).

The trick to making it balanced as a whole it to cost/mass it at such
a value that it MUST be taken to have an effective fleet. Such a
system MUST cost and/or mass more than screens for protection against
beam type weapons. It MUST cost and/or mass more than armor for
protection against screen-skipping weapons. If it degrades Screen and
armor skipping weapons, it must pay a penalty in mass/cost. You try
to balance it against weapons it protects against. It does not make
one or the other weapon worth more than the other in all situations,
just where the system is used. And then if it would become a MUST
system, you apply a penalty (mass and/or cost) to make it less
desirable (even if balanced) to keep from having to redesign the
Fleet Book fleets.

Again, with respect,

- ---
Brian Bell
bbell1@insight.rr.com
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOyGGidOVrCdNYgyBEQIP4ACgmzU+rbpqYjCDRt/sETkUnJiqUL4AnjPR
MLmwsE7qqfDwzc2ryCIghh/a
=+JH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----