RE: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)

Sorry. I read the wrong chart. You did have the correct figures for
normal
MT missiles:
So in comparison to the normal MTMs with the table
#PDS: 1 SM    3 MTM    2 MTM	1 MTM
     0	   12.25     21.00     14.00	   7.00
     1	    9.75      17.50	10.50	    3.50
     2	    7.62      14.00	 7.00	     1.75
     3	    5.85      10.50	 5.25	     0.88
     4	    4.39      8.75	 3.50	      0.44
     5	    3.24      7.00	 2.63	      0.22
     6	    2.36      5.25	 1.75	      0.11

-----
Brian Bell
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor) [SMTP:Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:38 AM
> To:	'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'
> Subject:	RE: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)
> 
> Beth,
> 
> How do you get an average damage of 15.75 from a single MT missile vs
no
> PDS?
> They only get 2 dice of damage, so the MAXIMUM would be 12. Average
the
> average should be about 7.5 and the mean 7.
> 
> -----
> Brian Bell
> -----
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Derek Fulton [SMTP:derekfulton@bigpond.com]
> > Sent:	Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:57 PM
> > To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> > Subject:	Re: FT-Number crunching required (HELP)
> > 
> > G'day
> > 
> > Me stealing Derek's email here to correct myself!!
> > 
> > I forgot to actually multiple my final results by the size of the
K-gun
> > (so 
> > did the if less then class double damage adjustment, but not the
actual 
> > class value stuff.... ugh!)
> > 
> > The table for an MTM-K3 SHOULD look more like....
> > 
> > #PDS: 1 SM	  3 MTM    2 MTM    1 MTM
> >	 0     12.25	 47.25	   31.50       15.75
> >	 1	9.75	  39.38     23.63	7.88
> >	 2	7.62	  31.50     15.75	3.94
> >	 3	5.85	  23.63      11.81	1.98
> >	 4	4.39	  19.69      7.88	 0.99
> >	 5	3.24	  15.75      5.92	 0.50
> >	 6	2.36	  11.81      3.94	 0.25
> > 
> > And the K2 version....
> > 
> > #PDS: 1 SM	  3 MTM    2 MTM    1 MTM
> >	 0     12.25	 28.00	   18.67       9.33
> >	 1	9.75	  23.33     14.00	4.67
> >	 2	7.62	  18.67     9.33	 2.33
> >	 3	5.85	  14.00     7.00	 1.17
> >	 4	4.39	  11.67     4.67	 0.59
> >	 5	3.24	  9.33	     3.51	  0.29
> >	 6	2.36	  7.00	     2.33	  0.15
> > 
> > So in comparison to the normal MTMs with the table
> > #PDS: 1 SM	  3 MTM    2 MTM    1 MTM
> >	 0     12.25	 21.00	   14.00       7.00
> >	 1	9.75	  17.50     10.50	3.50
> >	 2	7.62	  14.00      7.00	 1.75
> >	 3	5.85	  10.50      5.25	 0.88
> >	 4	4.39	  8.75	     3.50	  0.44
> >	 5	3.24	  7.00	     2.63	  0.22
> >	 6	2.36	  5.25	     1.75	  0.11
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > OK hopefully I go closer this time!! Sheesh!
> > 
> > Beth
> > 
> > Derek Fulton
> > 12 Balaka st.
> > Rosny, Hobart.
> > Tasmania,  7018.
> > Australia
> > 
> > Phone; (03) 62459123
> > Mobile; 0438459123
> > Email; derekfulton@bigpond.com
> > URL; http://www.users.bigpond.com/derekfulton/