Re: Classed Weapons

Jared Hilal wrote:

[snip K-gun discussion]

>>This is a deliberate feature of the K-guns, and it works to restrict 
>>K-gun use to size classes 1, 2, 3 and 5; there are occasional uses of 
>>size classes 4 and 6 as well, but class-7 and larger are very rare
indeed.
>
>Really?

Really.

>I always felt that K1s were overpriced (in terms of mass),

Their big charm is 6 arcs and a limited PD capability. (Interesting that

you find them overpriced, BTW - I know at least two quite vocal
small-table 
players who consider them *under*priced instead, and claim that they're
by 
far the most effective of all K-guns... something to do with how
difficult 
it is to aim the single-arc guns properly IIRC.)

>I never liked the FB2 KV ships with numbers of K1s, I always felt that 
>scatterguns make better dual-purpose secondaries, and replace all the
K1s 
>with SGs if my opponent will allow (assuming we're using pre-designed
ships).

That's nice. On a large table and using Cinematic movement, I'd *love*
to 
engage such a fleet with, say, a thrust-6 beam-armed cruiser squadron...

allows me to stay out of your (F) arc most of the time, and you won't
get 
to use your scatterguns until it is way too late <G>

More seriously though, for a dual-purpose weapon the 6 mu range of the 
scattergun is rather limited - even on a small table.

>>In other words, "it" IS done with the open-ended K-gun sizes - not
quite 
>>as blatantly as with the beam batteries, but it is done nevertheless.
>
>But it is done with the mechanics of how the weapon operates, not with
the 
>more artificial mass / class formula,

Nope. It is done by the interaction between the weapon's game mechanics
and 
its Mass/class formula; in that respect the K-guns are no different from

the beam batteries.

>>The PBL *itself* increases linearly... but unlike virtually every
other 
>>weapon type, you need one active FCS for *each* PBL you fire.
>
>Really?  I just re-read the Phalon section of FB2 and this is not 
>mentioned in either the PBL section or the FCS section.

Yes, really. It is very easy to miss and should've been expressed much 
clearer (and *will* be expressed much clearer whenever the next edition
of 
Full Thrust comes out - Any Decade Now), but it is there:

"Note that an operational fire-control system is required in order for a

Phalon ship to launch A PLASMA BOLT, ..." [emphasis added].

If a single FCS had been sufficient to launch multiple plasma bolts in a

single turn it would've said "...to launch plasma BOLTS, ..." instead.

>>>>Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick
those 
>>>>B2-armed ships apart from outside their range? If you did, you might

>>>>revise your opinion about the relative value of B2s and B4s :-/
>>>
>>>4' x 6' scrolling with cinematic movement and 1 MU = 1".
>>
>>48 x 72 mu is a small table regardless of whether or not you scroll
it, 
>>since even moderately-ranged weapons like B2s can cover a very large 
>>percentage of it (particularly if they're close to the middle of the 
>>table). No wonder if you haven't found long-ranged weapons
particularly useful.
>>
>>As a comparison my old gaming table (prior to moving house half a year

>>ago) was 80 x 120 mu; when I finally build a new one it'll probably be

>>100 x 200 mu or thereabouts.
>
>Then there probably should have been a note made of this in FB1, that
is 
>that the design system has a break point that depends on the size of
the 
>playing area.

<chuckle> If we were to include notes about how different gaming styles 
affects the game balance, we'd need a 50-page book to cover all
variations.

Two observations here:

* Large-table tactics seem to work reasonably OK even on fairly small 
tables (though 4x6 is border-line) as long as you know what you're
doing, 
but so far I've never met any small-table players who has developed such

tactics. OTOH small-table tactics are often disastrous on larger tables,

since they tend not to account for the enemy's wider manoeuvre
envelopes.

* In another post you said that your SDNs are usually much larger than 
those in the Fleet Books. The Fleet Book ship design system has a bug
which 
makes large ships inherently more powerful than their own Mass in small 
ships (with similar total armaments, hull integrities etc.) no matter
what 
size your table is and which movement system you're using, which means
that 
whether or not you're aware of it, your use of large SDNs means that
you're 
exploiting this bug.
I must say that I find it rather amusing that you're complaining about a

feature which limits the use of certain weapons under certain conditions

(long-ranged beams on small tables in Cinematic movement), while you're 
exploiting another bug which consistently underprices large ships
compared 
to small ones :-7

>This is fairly significant.  Especially if design balances are being
made 
>based on a small sampling that does not reflect the majority of
players.

And "the majority of players" is defined by... who? <g>

(That's another interesting thing, BTW - why is it that small-table
players 
are so certain that their table size is the "standard"? Over the years
I've 
'talked' (both IRL and over the 'net) more players who say that they
play 
on large tables than players who claim to use small tables, yet the 
small-table players are far more vocal that theirs is "the standard" way
of 
playing...)

>>>Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
>>>exit opposite table edge to bombard planet or escape system
>>>ambush and destroy enemy fleet
>>>destroy enemy flagship/carrier/convoy
>>>By "exit" I mean "a full table-length from nearest pursuing enemy"
with 
>>>a scrolling table.
>>
>>It is in pursuit battles like this the long-range beams really excel -

>>*if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. Sure,
it 
>>takes them a long time to whittle the enemy down... but if he can't 
>>reply, they usually have all the time they need.
>
>Six feet,

72 mu, if you measure in inches. Even a B2 can cover two-thirds of that 
unless it sits right on the table edge... 'course, if you set the ships
up 
in a way which reflects the most likely pre-battle manoeuvres which 
would've taken place on a larger table a long-ranged ship would be able
to 
use its long-range weapons quite effectively.

>and none of our designs have less than T3.

Side note: You are aware that a T3 (standard engine) ship can only make 
1-point turns, aren't you? (Not all players are aware that FB1 changed
this 
- T3 used to allow 2-pt turns in FT2 - which is why I'm asking.)

>>>  you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10 ? ) table that:
>>>1x 3-arc B4 = 2x 3-arc B3 = 6x 3-arc B2?
>>
>>Yes. Depends a bit on how you use them, of course - eg., I've never
found 
>>putting 2-arc B4s on a thrust-2 ship (the ESU Komarov) to be
particularly 
>>effective in Cinematic - but in the Cinematic battles on my 80 x 120
mu 
>>gaming table
>
>Is this in 1 MU = 1" or 1 MU = 1 cm?  The minis we use are to large for
1 
>MU = 1 cm.

1 mu = 1 cm. I've used that scale even with my SpaceFleet Wars 
"super-galactic dreadnoughts" though (they're around 8" long and 3-4"
wide, 
mounted on high enough stands that most of my other models can move
under 
them), so I can't really say that I have very much sympathy with your 
complaints about miniature sizes <g>

>Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or
equal 
>Thrust and B3-B5 and the pursued force has a mix of all-B2 ships and 
>all-B3 ships (no SML, PBL) on a 4x6 scrolling table.  In this case you 
>will find that the * pursuee * gets to dictate the pace of battle.

In this case you'd probably set the B2/B3 force up at one short end of
the 
table, facing towards the table edge, and the B5 force at the other
short 
end of the table facing the enemy.

However, a more realistic situation has the B5 force move up *beside*
the 
B2/B3 force (ie. set the forces up at the opposite short edges, but make

both of them face the same *long* table edge so they fly parallell to
each 
other)... try this one and see what happens <g> Keep in mind that if
either 
force leaves the table, it won't take very long before the B5 ship 
re-engages under the same conditions as before (ie. flying parallell to
the 
B2/B3 force).

As Laserlight said, it gives a rather boring battle (or series of 
battles)... though "depressing" might be a better word than "boring" for

the B2/B3 player :-/

>>>>The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
>>>>neither does the expected damage or the range.  A battlecruiser
with,
>>>>say, B5 and thrust 8 will kill or drive off any KV ship and never
get
>>>>scratched.
>>>
>>>In Cinematic or vector?
>>
>>Doesn't matter.
>
>Your previous posts about Cinematic vs. Vector made it clear that in
your 
>opinion it would matter quite a bit.

When you have twice the enemy's weapon range and a higher thrust rating
to 
boot, you can pick him apart from outside his range regardless of which 
movement system you use. While the exact tactical manoeuvres used will
vary 
between the two movement systems, the end result in this case is the
same. 
In other words, "it doesn't matter".

>>>A) the only ship in either FB, except the SV, with T8 is the ESU
Scout
>>
>>So? There's no ship armed with a B5 at all in either of the Fleet
Books, 
>>so you're obviously talking about a custom design here.
>
>My point being that T8 is pretty expensive in terms of relative portion
of 
>the hull and is an unusual feature among capital ships, or even large
escorts.

Your "A) the only ship ..." comment above was a counter-argument to 
Laserlight's claims about what such a ship could do to Kra'Vak ships -
ie., 
you used it to "show" that the T8 B5-armed ship could not do what 
Laserlight claimed it could , that is destroy KV ships.

Since it is completely irrelevant for this ship's capabilities whether
it 
is "unusual" or not, your point rather misses its intended target.

>>>B) the expected damage increases much faster with a K-gun (up to
class 
>>>6, tapers off for +) than with a standard battery.
>>
>>The expected damage per *weapon* is irrelevant; what is important here
is 
>>the ratio between the expected damage per Mass at the range you're 
>>fighting and the expected damage per Mass your enemy can inflict on
you 
>>at that same range. If the enemy can't close the range and your
weapons 
>>outrange his, this ratio is zero to infinity in your favour.
>
>You are assuming that the play area is large enough to allow this 
>continuously.	Doesn't happen on a 4x6 table.

A 4x6 table is a *really* good simulation of open space, isn't it? :-)
And 
your standard set-ups are able to capture the pre-battle manoeuvres
which 
would take place if the gaming area - like open space - was bigger,
don't 
they? :-)

>>On a large enough gaming table and given enough time, this ship can
wipe 
>>out any FB2 Kra'Vak fleet which lacks sufficient fighter cover (more
on 
>>this below).
>
>Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."

Open space has table edges? I didn't know that :-)

>How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?

5'x8' hasn't a problem when I've used it - at 80 x 96 mu it approaches
my 
old table (80 x 120 mu) in size. 4'x6' is borderline; the "large-area" 
tactics still work reasonably well as long as the table scrolls and the 
set-up reflects what would've gone on before the ships reached the
table, 
but you have to be fairly careful about what you're doing.

As mentioned throughout this post it also depends on how you set the
game 
up, since the set-up on a small table essentially replaces the
out-of-range 
manouevring that would've occurred on a larger table. Note that a set-up

which puts the long-range fencer in an impossible situation is
equivalent 
to the fencer having screwed up the initial out-of-range manoeuvres 
completely :-/

> From LL's post, I took this to mean a single ship encounter between a 
> custom built FB BC size human ship and a similar FB2 or custom built
KV 
> ship (but following the KV design philosophy, not a special purpose 
> design) since most of the FB2 KV are sub optimal designs to start
with.

A single-ship encounter would go faster, since the victim has fewer hull

boxes <shrug> I was thinking about a single fencer harrying a
fighter-less 
KV squadron or fleet rather than a single KV ship.

>However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass 60,

>238 points) into your star system to raid your infrastructure (using
the 
>scenario I described in my previous post) against your proposed ship on
a 
>scrolling, cinematic, 4x6 table with 1 MU =1".

How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start (ie.
how 
far can the table scroll before you reach your destination), and what 
happens when you leave the table by moving too far away for the table to

scroll? (In 'real' space, as well as on a larger table, the ships would 
re-engage pretty soon - within a game turn or two - so it's not as if
you 
get away permanently by leaving the table. Particularly not if you leave
in 
some other direction than the infrastructure you want to hit is
located.)

Kind regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry