Re: Points balance on K-guns vs Beams, part 2

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> In those Vector-playing groups whose designs I've
> seen and who haven't 
> consciously or unconsciously enforced an adherence
> to the FB1 wide-arced 
> design style the way you have with your NRE, the

I started checking and found the following mass could
be freed up by dropping arcs:

Under CE: 0--no multiarc Class 3s or 360 Class 2s.
CA: 2
CB: 5
BB: 7
DN: 6
DNK: 2
DNL: 6
DNLK: 6

Dunno about you, but that looks fairly trivial to me
for the benefits gained.  Maybe I'm a moron, but I
occasionally have targets out of the forward arc.  Of
course, I don't run computer programs to determine all
possible locations of enemy vessels during a game. 
Maybe on the BB I might want to add another battery,
though.  But at max, I could squeeze another torpedo
and a secondary battery on the Dreadnought and I'm not
sure it's worth it.  

> most common design style 
> by far is similar to your "KV hunters" - ie.,
> low-to-moderate thrust 
> ratings and armed with very heavy single-arc,
> long-range batteries (usually 
> a mix of B4s, B3s and P-torps) and only a few
> secondary wide-arc weapons 
> for use when the enemy finally manages to get close.

My main difference between the KV Hunters and the base
ships they are derived from is stripping off the
shields, armor, and secondary armament.  They are
extremely vulnerable to Human beam weapons, but are
intended to survive hits from rail guns.  The 'low
thrust' is an artifact of them being capital ships,
and even then they have more thrust than some nation's
capitals.

> with the result that pretty much everyone who
> designs their own ships for 
> Vector *uses* single-arc weapons - but only the KV
> have to pay extra for 
> the Advanced drives.

So. . . in vector eliminate or reduce the KV cost for
advanced drives?
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com