Re: [FT] graser-1 slightly overpowered?

Hugh Fisher 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.

15mu/turn still sounds rather fast for the head-on case, at least if
they 
want to keep each other in the (F) arcs rather than the (A) arc...

> >Excellent. Do you have the data in electronic format, BTW?
>
>I could type it up.

If you have time, please do so. I'd be very interested in seing it.

> >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?

0-12 and 18-24. When you take the first threshold after 2-3 pts, even 2 
dice are dangerous... and four enemy ships firing 2 dice each can easily

cost you a ship :-/

>The beam ship has to survive to get that close,

Just like the graser ship and its weapons have to survive to get to
range 
18 :-/ (The weapons are in more danger of dying than the ship is, of
course.)

>I suspect the *perception* that the graser-1 is a
>better weapon because of the occasional megahit will
>be much harder to dispel,

No doubt about it. In that way the Graser is no different from the
previous 
new Fleet Book weapons (Salvo Missiles, K-guns etc.) :-/

> >>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,

You haven't fought strikeboats much, then?

>and that escorts are much better off trying to dodge missiles than
shoot 
>them down.

In Cinematic close-range ships like the Lake IV can dodge missiles *or* 
attempt to close the range, but they can very rarely do both at the same

time. An interesting tactical choice, really - do you dodge the missiles

and risk getting hammered by the enemy's longer-ranged weapons while 
getting back into an attack position again, or do you close the range as

fast as you can and take the missiles on the chin? :-)

>(And usually doomed if fighters take a serious interest in them.)

The more of the fighters your escorts can take with them before dying,
the 
fewer fighters there'll be left to kill your capitals afterwards.

>The Lake is fast enough that outflanking it will be tricky,

Not really. Overflying it is quite easy to do in Cinematic (particularly
in 
head-on charges!), and for a wider-arced enemies that gives the same
effect 
as outflanking.

>and it can rapidly close the range if necessary.

Unless it has to dodge missiles, or gets overflown and ends up facing
the 
wrong way, or...  :-)

> >>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.

No, you were perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you :-/

While the armament you propose has the "same coverage" in the sense that
it 
allows some firepower to bear into the AP/AS arcs (though not into the
(A) 
arc, if you use that optional rule), it brings *less* of the ship's 
firepower to bear into those arcs than the current armament does - IOW,
it 
makes those arcs weaker than they are now while making the FP/F/FS arcs 
stronger. Let's take a look at how large a fraction of the secondary 
armament the Mountain Mk I and Mk II can bring to bear into their AP/AS 
arcs (I'm leaving the P-torp "main battery" out of it since it is the
same 
on both designs and would only clutter the tables up without really
adding 
anything):

Mountain Mk I secondary armament, range 0-12:
1xB2-6 + 2xB2-3 (AP/FP/F, F/FS/AS) + 2xB1-6: 8 Beam dice (dB) total
F: 8dB = 100%
FP/FS: 6 dB = 75%
AP/AS: 6 dB = 75%
(A: 4 dB = 50%)

Range 12-24:
1xB2-6 + 2xB2-3 (AP/FP/F, F/FS/AS):
F: 3dB = 100%
FP/FS: 2dB = 67%
AP/AS: 2dB = 67%
(A: 0 dG = 0%)

Proposed Mountain Mk II secondary armament:
3xG1 (AP/FP/F, FP/F/FS, F/FS/AS): 3 Graser dice (dG) total
F: 3dG = 100%
FP/FS: 2dG = 67%
AP/AS: 1dG = 33%
(A: 0 dG = 0%)

At range 0-12, the Mk I's 6 dB in the AP/AS arcs is nearly twice as much

firepower as the Mk II's 1 dG in the same arcs. The Mk II has an
advantage 
at range 12-18 even in these arcs, but is again weaker than the Mk I at 
range 18-24.

In compensation the Mk II's FP/FS arcs are slightly stronger than the Mk

I's even at range 0-12, and its (F) arc is noticably stronger - but when

fighting a more manoeuvrable opponent in Cinematic, thrust-4 ships are 
rather likely to end up with enemy ships in their AP/AS arcs.
(Particularly 
if the enemy is Kra'Vak, of course... and in the GZGverse timeline the
Mk 
II would be a Xeno War refit (just like the Lake Mk III, Luna Mk II
etc.). 
However, even thrust-6 human ships can outflank the Mountain.)

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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