RE: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Allan Goodall
> Sent: 05 February 2003 14:49
> Subject: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]
> 
> Oerjan is still working at getting his home computer put
> together, so he asked me to forward this on to the list.

Thanks for acting as relay on this one, Allan. 

OO>> (Side note: although the re-rolls are described as an
>>>> "recommended optional rule" rather than a compulsory
>>>> one in FB1, the various weapon costs are determined
>>>> assuming that it is in use - so if you don't use it,
>>>> you'll probably find beams to be a fair bit under-
>>>> powered / overpriced compared to P-torps and K-guns)

CS Renegade wrote:

>>> No, but then I wouldn't permit designs armed exlusively
>>> with PTs, 

>> ...presumably because the absence of beam rerolls make
>> them overpowered :-/

Before that point, objections would be raised about the
cheese factor. If the design was swallowed nonetheless,
there would then be a general lack of bright ideas as to
how to deal with the monster, which would then go on the
rampage.

>>> and I've never fought modern KV. Are there any figures
>>> to suggest what the increase in the price of PTs should
>>> be? 

>> About 1 pt/Mass (so 4xMass for P-torps, 5xMass for K-guns).

Thanks for that. I'll implement those figures in my design
tools.

>>>> On PDS vs SMs:

NG>>> .. when rolling for the number of missiles in each salvo
>>>>> that strike, deduct the ship's PDS rating. If that makes
>>>>> PDS too weak, try adding 1 to the PDS rating if the
>>>>> target is under thrust.

>>>> If it makes PDS too *weak*? I'd say that they make PDSs
>>>> much too *strong* instead...

>>> ...each PDS currently shoots down 0.66 of a salvo missile.

>> Er... not exactly; you've not taken the probability of
>> overkilling the missile salvoes into account here, so you
>> overestimate the PDS kills a bit even before the "not all
>> PDSs get to fire" bit. If only one PDS fired at each SM
>> salvo *and* every SM salvo rolled a '2' or higher for the
>> number of missiles on target, *then* each PDS would shoot
>> down on average 0.666 missiles - but that's not a very
>> realistic scenario :-/

Yes, I'd grabbed at the average 3.5 missiles per salvo versus
the basic 0.66 kills per PDS and neglected all the special
permutations.

>> If (which is the normal case) the SM salvo rolls a normal
>> D6 (ie., roughly 1 salvo in 6 only gets 1 missile on target)
>> then the average PDS missile kills per salvo become:

(Oerjan's table in plain text sans tabs, if I got them all)

>> #PDS:  No PDS    With PDS   PDS gives -1
	 re-roll:   re-roll:   to SM roll:

>>   1	   0.64       0.71	 1.00
>>   2	   0.60       0.66	 0.92
>>   3	   0.56       0.61	 0.83

So the re-roll rule increases the effectiveness of PDS by 10%?
It's a shame there's no easy way to ease that into the points
too. Defence subcontractor special offer: order 9, get 1 free.

I'm a bit uncertain about the use of overkill here. A simple
average is no longer a good enough measure unless you turn
the problem on its head and say "for these defences, what is
the chance of a weapon getting through" which is something a
real-world architect might worry about. To measure PDS
effectiveness by including the relative availability of
targets seems strange.

>> As you can see, your "PDS gives -1 to SM roll" variant
>> allows each PDS to shoot down some 35-40% more missiles
>> *per shot* than the current rule with rerolls, and around
>> 50% more missiles *per shot* than the current rule without
>> rerolls. That's quite a lot.

It's slightly less than the figure I had in mind.

>>> The rating proposal has each PDS bagging 1 missile with
>>> no chance of failure, and repeating the performance for
>>> every separate salvo that attacks. However, there are
>>> far fewer PDS under this system than there currrently are. 

>> There are fewer *PDSs* with a 2%-of-TMF mass cost, but
>> since each of these enlarged PDSs can fire at an infinite
>> number of attacking missile salvoes (and fighter groups)
>> each turn instead of at just a single one, the number of
>> PDS *shots* is unlikely to be any lower - and when in
>> addition each PDS shot has its firepower increased by
>> 35-50%, the end result is a significant increase in PDS
>> firepower vs salvo missiles.

I wouldn't object to a corresponding drop in the price of SM 
systems. It looks as if the thread could gravitate toward
"this weapon is too powerful / the proposal upsets the
 existing balance" argument, so rather than turn it into a
salvo missile victim support clinic I'll go back to Roger's
archives and see what I can dig up.

NG>>> Even when a very large vessel is under attack, how
>>>>> much do B1s add to the defence?
>>>>
OO>> It is for the SMALL ships, up to about DD size, that
>>>> the B1s' PD capabilities have their largest impact.
>>>
>>> Statistically that is very true. But also irrelevant.

>> This extra PD firepower is very relevant indeed when a 
>> small ship comes under fighter attack since the fighter
>> casualties add up from turn to turn,

I'll certainly accept that for most fighters.

>> and also when it is hit by a single salvo missile salvo
>> where the pair of B1s significantly increase the
>> probability of the ship getting away with no damage at
>> all.

Also true. But if just one missile gets home, a typical
two-column frigate is almost certainly taking its first
threshold check and possibly its second at the same time.

Another gross simplification coming up: each B1 shoots
down 0.33 missiles. Our plucky frigate has 1 PDS and 2 B1
against a single salvo. With the chance of a re-roll on
the PDS, it should on average knock down 1.37 salvo
missiles. The salvo has on average 3.5 missiles on target.
Yes, I know it's a travesty to say from that that two
missiles should hit, but the p(Ouch) remains high.

I may have made a complete shambles of that. Somebody
wake me up if the aggregate knockdown climbs much above
1.5!

Nathan "hasn't stopped digging his hole yet" Girdler