Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)

----- Original Message -----
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)

> Beth wrote:
> :
> > >What I`m asking, is that is there a number
> > >cruncher out there that can compair the
> > >chances/dammage potential of these two
> > >missiles against PDS?
> >
> >Oerjan is probably enjoying a well earned summer holiday so I'll TRY
and
> >help out Bif.....
>
> Summer playtest period, which some consider to be a "holiday", began
> yesterday :-/ Frantic RL workload in the previous weeks and old
friends
> suddenly dropping in for the night has caused a log-jam in my mailbox
> though :-(
>
> >Recently Oerjan worked out this table comparing the average damages
of
SMs
> >and standard MTMs against upto 6 PDS (where we're looking at total
PDS
> >involved, not PDS per MTM or SM). As Oerjan eloquently explained when
we
> >were discussing the topic, you must consider the case where theres
more
> >than one PDS/MTM to get a true feel for their potential power
(through
the
> >stauration of PDS). <I hope I'm doing justice to your explanation
Oerjan.>
>
> You do indeed :-) The updated tables (sent from Derek's account) were
> correct too so I won't copy them here; suffice to repeat that the
average
> damage of the Mk-3 is 2.25x that of the normal MTM and the Mk-2 is
1.33x
of
> the normal MTM.
>
> However:
>
> >You get the Mk-3 version at 2.25x as expensive and the Mk-2 version
at
> >1.33x as expensive. Thus the k-3 version costs would be best modelled
by
> >something like Mass 3, Cost of massx4.5, which is a bit difficult
under
> >current FB integer costing system - so k-2 version is probably
simpler to
> >go with at mass 2, cost of massx4.
>
> Um, well. You have to look at the *total* cost of the weapon - ie.,
weapon
> cost plus basic hull structure and engines (refer back to the thread
on
> weapon design systems). If you multiply the *mass* of the weapon by
the
> above factors without changing the cost/mass ratio you automatically
get
> the total cost right (because the engine and hull costs change in
> proportion to the weapon Mass), but if you change the mass/cost ratio
you
> need to calculate the total cost.
>
> The standard "total cost" (thrust-4 standard engines and FTL) for a
Mass 2
> MTM is 10.6, so the Mk-3 should have a total cost of just under 24 and
the
> Mk-2 should have a total cost of just over 14. This gives an Mk-3 at
Mass
> 2, cost 9-10xMass or Mass 3, cost 5-6xMass while the Mk-2 becomes Mass
2,
> cost 5xMass.
>
> However... these masses and costs assume that the standard MTM is
itself
> balanced against the SMR. At the moment there's, um, quite a few
different
> opinions on how true that assumption is <g>
>
> Later,
>
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
>
If I may be so humble, there is definately a inbalance between SM`s and
MT
missiles. Ignoring the dammage potential differences of the 2 missile
systems (which, the laser head equalises), there is the point of the PDS
required for intercept of the 2 systems, which work against the MT
missile
better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint <G>) than SM missiles. The
question this raises is that does the greater range of the MT missile
ofset
this disadvantage, and you would have to compair the chance of your MT
missile to actually follow the target over 3 turns, especially as it
moves
to aviod your incoming MT missile.

The above is probably not clear enough, but I hope you understand what
I`m
trying to say <G>.

BIF
 "Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
 strong in arms, thick in head"