Re: (FT) beta variable hull rows

> > >How can you say this?  The 3-row hull ship will have the same
> number
> > >of hull boxes as the 4-row hull ship
> >
> > No, it will not. As Dean already explained, if each HULL ROW on both
> ships
> > has the same number of boxes then the ship with 4 hull rows will by
> > definition have *more* hull boxes than the ship with 3 hull rows -
> > one-third more, to be exact.
> >
>
> Hmm, trying to weed out the point I want to argue but instead I'll
> summarize.  Essentially, others have said that a ship with 4x 18-hull
> boxes per row is better than a 3x 18-hull boxes per row.  Well,
> duh.	That's not what I'm getting at.  You're really comparing
> two different ships, that just happen to have the same weapons
> and drives platform.
>
> What Steve has done is take his ships that had 4 rows of hull
> boxes and converts them to the exact same design with only
> 3 rows of hull boxes so that the 4th row's hull boxes are now
> spread among among rows 1, 2, and 3, thus improving upon the
> ship's capability to withstand the critical threshold check damage.
> They did not become easier to kill, in fact, much harder.

What we are trying to say is that you can't just look at the increase in
cost going from a 4-row hull to a 3-row hull on the same ship by itself.
You have to compare other situations to balance the costs or someone
else
will find the hole.

Lets start with a few points we can agree on:

1) BB Steve3 (3 rows, 18/18/18) is more powerful than BB Steve4 (4 rows,
14/14/13/13)
2) BB SmartSteve (4 rows 18/18/18/18) is more powerful than BB Steve3 (3
rows, 18/18/18)
3) BB SmartSteve (4 rows 18/18/18/18) is more powerful than BB Steve4 (4
rows, 14/14/13/13)

Based on those points, relative power of ships SHOULD go in the
following
order, lowest to highest:
BB Steve4 (4 rows, 14/14/13/13)
BB Steve4 (3 rows, 18/18/18)
BB SmartSteve (4 rows 18/18/18/18)

Any questions?

Now lets add the points in, current 3 rows at 3 points listed first then
Glen's proposal of 4 points per hull

683  683  BB Steve4 (4 rows, 14/14/13/13)
737  792  BB Steve3 (3 rows, 18/18/18)
758  758  BB SmartSteve (4 rows 18/18/18/18)

As you can see, current costs have the ships in the same order and the
Steve3 is closer to Smartsteve than it is to Steve4.
By increasing the cost of a 3 row hull to 4 per box, Steve3 now has a
higher
point total than SmartSteve.

If you agree to points #1-#3 above, than SmartSteve should cost more
than
Steve3 and that is the point we are trying to get across.  Yes there
should
be an increase in cost for going from 4 rows to 3 rows, but that
increase
should not make the 3 row ship more expensive than a 4 row ship with the
extra hull the 3 row ship doesn't have.

> All my new designs, at whatever size and load out, will now have
> 3 rows of hull boxes instead of 4.  If I want more hull boxes,
> supposedly in that 4th row that you seem so fond of, I'll put
> them in the first 3 rows instead.  Those ships will not die any
> sooner than in a 4 row configuration; they have the same amount
> of hull.

But with your proposal, you can make a 4 row ship with more hull and
thus is
more survivable but it will cost less.

> We are not removing hull by reducing the rows from 4 to 3;
> we're moving the hull that would be in the 4th row to rows 1, 2,
> and 3.
>
> And for the cost increase of +1 per hull box for any particular
> design to go from 4 rows to 3 rows is way too cheap for what
> you get.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  I want it to be
> more expensive for a ship to have 3 hull rows vs 4 hull rows.
> Enough to give a designer pause.  The current cost increase
> does not, at least for two of us here.

BUT, if you agree that Steve4 and SmartSteve are pointed correctly, then
Steve3 has to cost less than SmartSteve.

Dean Gundberg

Starship Combat News
The latest information on Space Games and Miniatures
http://www.star-ranger.com
dean@star-ranger.com