Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noam Izenberg" <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: FB designs & fighters (& strawmen)

> From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>

> > What fact is in dispute here?  If you've got 30 fighter groups and
I've
> > got
> > 20 PDS, my verbal response to discovering this is going to be "Oh
holy
> > @#$@#$!%!"... if you've got 30 fighter groups and I've got 100
> > scatterguns,
> > my response is going to be "Pull!"

> If you've got net 100 mass of weapons (as 100 scatterguns implies) 
with
> 20 PDS you've got 80 mass of other weapons to balance non-fighter
> opponents. If you've got 100 scatterguns you've got little else.
Apples
> and Oranges. Generalized vs. specialized.

Okay.  So let me see if I'm understanding your interpretation of what
I'm
saying here correctly.	You're assuming that, even though my _enemy_ has
to
be sporting _270_ mass of fighter bays (in addition to any other weapons
he's carrying) in order to throw 30 fighter groups at me, _I'm_ going to
be
coming at him with _no_more_ than 100 mass of weapons, all of it
dedicated
to scatterguns?

This, from the guy who hasn't yet let a specific example I've given in
this
thread go by without calling it a "straw man"?

No offense, but this comment is drivel.

> > In stating my general principle of what's wrong with FB1 ships, I
made
no
> > allusions to exactly how you should disperse the mass you devote to
things
> > other than weapons -- I only stated that the total percentage
shouldn't
be
> > as high as 67-75%, as is the case with every FB1 capital ship.

> You did eventually say this, though not as plainly as just now. I have
> no problem with this opinion, even if I don't agree with it. In your
> percentage, you give drives short shrift for their combat benefits.
They
> are not offensive systems, but they significantly effect combat
> capabilities. Others will opine that Hull/Armor/Screens are less a
> detractor than you hold.

Hull, armor, and screens are useful to a point.  But let me illustrate
what
I'm talking about here.

Take the ship that was present in the example Brendan gave me.... it had
an
average hull, thrust-6, and level-2 screens.  That left only 20% of its
hull
devoted to weapons.  Sure, with thrust-6 and that much resilience
together,
it looks like a tough nut to crack.  But look at the _ratios_ that
creates
just by trimming a little off.	12.5% of the non-weapons systems taken
off
gives you a 50% net increase in firepower.  25% of them doubles it.

Total firepower isn't everything, but it's a factor you can't ignore. 
It
isn't _always_ a factor with high-thrust ships... but high thrust ships
with
only short range weapons?  Fit all-arc mounts on all your beams and you
can
outgun that at any arc without even trying hard.

> >> [The mass/cost adjustment]  compensates for the known problem in
> >> costing large vs. small
> >> ships for one-off duels.

> > And also invalidates your argument entirely.  I'm sorry, but giving
the
> > FB1
> > fleets a 60% hardware advantage is _not_ a convincing argument that
they
> > don't suck -- if they _need_ one, then they do.  QED.

> Feh.
> The Mass/Cost imbalance applies everywhere. Even _within_ FB1 taking
> SDNs vs. equivalent points of Frigates. It is a problemm with the
entire
> costing system: Between FB1 vs. custom,  between custom vs. custom ,
> and  FB1 vs. FB1. It's broken everywhere you take large ships vs.
small
> ships in the one-off duel setting.

Everywhere... except for against mass 12 soap bubble carriers,
submunition
bombs as two clearly demonstrated examples, and, I'm sure, against many
other tactics that would suddenly get a lot nastier when they're allowed
to
cheat and bring twice the hardware in the name of "balance".

> >  After all, a carrier platform isn't really intended to
> > face a head-on fighter anyway,

> Tha is a universal maxim? I don't think so.

It is for a dedicated carrier platform that is either unarmed or very
lightly armed.

> >  In fact, just about any ship whose tactical role doesn't involve a
very
> > high need for survivability --  under this
> > system, just to maximize the weapons they're bringing to the field.

> Only if the correction goes too far, in which case it's broken the
other
> way. From what I've heard regarding tests of this fix, this has not
been
> the case.

So even though I've given you two unambiguous examples where exploiting
the
small-mass rules breaks the idea into little bloody pieces due to the
fact
that it lets a smaller vessel class bring between 25 and 100% as much
extra
hardware depending on the size of what they're up against (up to 400
mass),
you're discounting it because this hasn't been the case in some
unspecified
tests?

What, are the testers just not trying very hard to break it?

> > And I _really_ disagree with your assessment that there's no mass-12
> > ships
> > that could beat a mass 400 dreadnought when they outnumber it
(sorry, my
> > initial math was off) 50 to 1.  Take the following :

> [Snip next strawman]
> My 5 second analysis may have been wrong, granted.

These two lines are mutually exclusive.  Doesn't say much for your
powers of
logic.	Neither does your attitude that every specific example that
blows an
absolute statement you're trying to make clean out of the water is a
"straw
man".

> 'Course a 400 mass
> behemoth with a bunch of Long range Pulsers & plasma bolts would be
> interesting to take against the swarm.

Plasma bolts are not a serious option for a mass 400 ship against the
swarm
design that I gave.  Even if you went with fragile hull, thrust-1, and
devoted your entire available mass to plasma, you'd be able to mount a
total
of 59 dice plus the fire control to use it.  The swarm is carrying 136
scatterguns, which (on average) is sufficient to cleanly stop a
concentrated
plasma barrage half again that large.  Then the swarm gets a free turn
to
take bets on how many of them will have to actually fire to kill you for
fun.  (The smart money will be on not much more than 4.)

The longer range pulser option is possibly workable, but installing 60
seperate fire controls and enough pulsers that you'll be able to hit
that
many individual ships coming in on suicide charges before they get
within
reach is probably not going to happen in real terms.

> As for the fixed table, maybe your group has trained itself to fly and
> fight constrained in a box. Good for you all. Maybe you can try a
> space-sim next. ;-)

I'm sorry, but I simply do not subscribe to the reasoning that only an
open
table can simulate a space battle.  I play as an extension of my
imagination
in visualizing space battles in ways similar to how they're done in
various
forms of entertainment.  An open table is not necessary to that end, and
the
only major tactic an open table gives over a closed one -- endless
runaway -- is neither a common theme in any form of science fiction that
I
enjoy nor is particularly fun to play as a game.

For that matter, I don't accept that this would be a particularly viable
tactic, given the extreme slowness of its effect.  A sufficiently
ruthless
admiral, once he realizes that his enemy's entire doctrine of warfare is
to
hurl insults at him from beyond scanning range, would simply ignore that
and
take whatever miniscule damage the enemy in question wishes to inflict
on
him while he flies past them and drops a "Shiva Option" on the enemy's
homeworlds.  They're either going to have to change their doctrine to
something with faster stopping power or see their entire civilization
reduced to its component atoms.

E