Re: FT: Graser-1 to Beam cost comparisons

When thinking of increasingly futuristic systems one expects more bang
for less mass.	If the points cost balances this out it makes the
battles more playable.	It looks as if Graser-1 arc cost is what needs
to be readdressed. 

On the lighter side I pay with Glen and Steve. They tend to use a
combination of improbability drive and bad news drive so statisics don't
realy count.

Andy A	

> From: <bail9672@bellsouth.net>
> Date: 2004/03/21 Sun PM 04:21:54 EST
> To: "Ground Zero Games mailing list" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: FT: Graser-1 to Beam cost comparisons
> 
> I had written:
> >>The Graser-1, for its mass and within
> >>its range band,
> >>...
> 
> Oerjan had written:
> >This is part of your problem. You're
> >consistently looking at the G1's MASS,
> >when you should be looking at its COST.
> 
> Fair enough, I'll look at it from a cost
> angle.  But, you cannot just look at weapon
> systems alone, especially when it comes to
> cost.  They do not operate in a vacuum.  :)
> The mass matters on how much you can put into
> a given ship's space, which is why the mass
> vs. mass comparisons were done.  Now it's
> time for a cost comparison, but the cost is
> also reflected in the support system:  the
> entire ship.
> 
> I wasn't sure how to do this, except to go
> ahead and design two ships with the same cost
> of Beams and Graser-1s (G1).	The ship armed
> with Beams is designed with a mix of Class-1
> (B1) and Class-2 (B2) Beams.	I tried to keep
> them as similar as possible (i.e., hull
> size).  Total cost of the weapons for each
> ship, not counting PDS, is 108.  Comparing
> the effectiveness of each weapon grouping for
> mass had the two types of weapons being
> nearly equal.
> 
> 
> "Beamster"
> Mass: 99; NPV: 342; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
> FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3; Armament:
> 8x B1, 8x B2 (3-arc), 4x B2 (6-arc).
> 
> "Grazoriani"
> Mass: 86; NPV: 321; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
> FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3; Armament:
> 5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
> 
> 
> To be fair, since "Grazoriani" does not have
> the defensive capability similar to class-1
> Beams, I also made a design with 3 additional
> PDS which is well more than the number of PDS
> on a similar-sized Fleet Book 1 ship.
> 
> 
> "Grazoriani 2"
> Mass: 90; NPV: 336; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
> FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 6; Armament:
> 5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
> 
> 
> "Grazoriani" is 21 NPV cheaper than "Beamster".
> "Grazoriani 2" is 6 NPV cheaper than "Beamster".
> 
> So, in conclusion, the Graser is cheaper than
> the Beam with the same damage potential.
> 
> I also designed a ship with the G1 having
> masses of 3/4/5 and costing 3 per mass.  But
> the cost change also affects the larger class
> of Grasers which is probably not a good thing.  
> This design has 105 cost in Grasers.
> 
> 
> "Grazoriani X"
> Mass: 98; NPV: 338; Hull: 27, 4 rows;
> FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3; Armament:
> 5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
> 
> 
> I think I'd rather stick with the the current
> Graser masses and cost.  But, my main complaint
> is really about the 6-arc G1.  So I made a
> design with the 6-arc G1 having a mass of 5.
> It looks like "Grazoriani" with one less
> 3-arc G1.  Yes, a little less damage
> potential than "Beamster", but also 21 NPV
> cheaper.
> 
> I still would like to see the mass of the
> 6-arc class-1 Graser be increased to 5. Right
> now I do not see an incentive to use a 3-arc
> class-1 Graser.  For 1 more mass, (I'm sorry,
> for a 33% increase in mass one gets 50%
> increase in arc), you have a powerful weapon
> system that can fire in any direction.
> 
> 
> Glen
>