Re: [FT] graser-1 slightly overpowered?

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

>Hm. This sounds as if you were flying *very* slowly - 9 mu/turn or
less,
>unless the ships were in each others' AP/A/AS arcs for the 6-12 shot
(which
>would've favoured the Tacomas and Waldburgs, since they have more of
their
>total close-range firepower available in those arcs than the UNSC ships
do.)

 Forgot to specify that. Small 48x72 MU table, so yes the
 ships were flying relatively slowly (by your standards,
 not mine!) at no more than 15MU.

>Excellent. Do you have the data in electronic format, BTW?

 I could type it up. Mostly I kept the records so I could
 calculate the average die rolls afterwards.

>Nope. In an escort-vs-escort fight the G1-armed ship is more likely to
>*completely destroy* a beam-armed opponent than vice versa, but except
for
>the 12-18mu range band the beam-armed ship is more likely to *cause
>threshold checks* (thanks both to the G1's higher risk of missing
>completely and to the low number of damage points needed to inflict
>threshold checks on the FB escorts) - and the beams' advantage in
causing
>threshold checks is considerably higher than the G1s' advantage in
complete
>destruction.

 This is at 0-12 MU though? The beam ship has to survive
 to get that close, which is why I found that the NAC (or
 others) usually lost if they let the UNSC get a volley
 off at 12-18.

>I have two problems with this part of your analysis:

 [ long analysis, more thorough than mine, munched ]

 OK, you've convinced me that there really isn't a
 difference - mathematically. On the tactical side
 I need to fight some more battles against real
 people.

 I suspect the *perception* that the graser-1 is a
 better weapon because of the occasional megahit will
 be much harder to dispel, and not just for me. I
 assume you've kept a copy of your message, you're
 probably going to be cutting and pasting bits of
 it for a while :-)

> >Lake Mk IV: replace the beam-2 and beam-1 on a III by a
> >third fore 3 arc graser-1.
>
>This makes the Lake even more sensitive to being outflanked than it
already
>is, reduces its max range by 25% (quite significant when defending a
task
>force against enemy strikeboats) and weakens its point defence by 20%,
in
>return for an increase of the FP/F/FS firepower of ~5% in the 0-12mu
band
>and 31-55% in the 12-18mu band. The refit is worth the extra points as
long
>as the ship never has to fight strikeboats, fighters or missiles,
doesn't
>get outflanked, and is always able to rapidly close the range to 18mu
or
>less; otherwise it is a bit more dubious :-/

 OK, that's one "no" vote. I think that 31-55% increase in
 the 12-18MU band is worth losing the extra 6 MU range from
 the single beam-2, and that escorts are much better off
 trying to dodge missiles than shoot them down. (And usually
 doomed if fighters take a serious interest in them.) The
 Lake is fast enough that outflanking it will be tricky, and
 it can rapidly close the range if necessary.

 Anyone else?

> >Mountain Mk II: replace beam-2s and 1s by three 3 arc
> >graser-1s, port, starboard, and fore.
>
>Works fine as long as the enemy stays in front of the ship, but cuts
the
>firepower in the rear 180 degrees roughly in half... and since the
Mountain
>is only thrust-4, it can't rely on Cinematic-moving enemies staying in
>front of it (and can have problems getting into range of nimbler
opponents,
>too).

 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant 3 arc graser-1s with the
 centre being port, starboard, and fore. More precisely,
 the grasers cover 7 o'clock to 1, 9 to 3, and 11 to 5.
 Same wide angle coverage for the bigger ships.

	Hugh