Prev: Re: I give up Next: Re: 3-row hull costs

Re: 3-row hull costs

From: <bail9672@b...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:27:07 -0400
Subject: Re: 3-row hull costs

> Dean Gundberg
> As you can see, current costs have the ships in the same order and
> 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
> Steve3 and that is the point we are trying to get across.  Yes there
> be an increase in cost for going from 4 rows to 3 rows, but that
> should not make the 3 row ship more expensive than a 4 row ship with
> extra hull the 3 row ship doesn't have.

Ah, the point that I didn't see because it wasn't said explicitly.
Okay, +2 per hull box is too much.

I'll just design 3-row "war" ships from now on.  It does make the game
go faster as there is one less threshold check to make per ship.


> From: Oerjan Ohlson >
> The problem with your suggested hull costs is that they make the
3x18 ship
> cost MORE than the 4x18 one - ie. MORE than this known upper cost

Said explicitly again.	Sorry I didn't catch it with all the numbers
previous posts.

> >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
> How can they be "the exact same design" if the hull configuration is
> Steve's 3-row ships are NEW designs. While they're *similar* to his
> 4-row designs, they are NOT "the exact same".

Same configuration except for hull.  Close enough to be the same to

> Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships -
or at
> least you haven't looked closely enough at the 4-row ships you have

Excuse me.

> >I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
> Sorry for asking this, but could one of the reasons for your
> defeats be that Steve is a more skilled *tactician* than you are (in
> addition to having better luck with his dice than you do)?

 Thanks for the insult.   I run rings around Steve when it comes to
movement. But movement doesn't out do firepower.
Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve
does.  It it just more costly for me to make a movement mistake
since Steve's ships have better arcs.  Also, pulse torpedo and
rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while class-3 beams and
long-range pulsers have a maximum range of 36.	It's amazing
how often I'm in the 30-36 range band so I'm getting hits, lots
of hits as Steve rolls so well, while I hit nothing.  Steve's
superior "tactics" in this case is in ship design, not movement.
Part of the problem is the small table space we play on.
I'm going to amend that this Monday by putting 3 tables together
instead of 2; even if I have to throw out some card-playing kiddies
who aren't buying anything (it is MY store we're playing in, after all
and we're being used as free baby-sitting by some cheap adults :( ).

> OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
> screen-skipping ones, and neither of them had any screens... so the
> Glen spent on screen-skipping ability for his weapons were wasted.

Steve used to have single screens on his capital ships.  But with my
use of rail guns and pulse torpedoes has caused him to remove the
His designs were new to me.  Time to go back to mixed PT and beam
designs (which most of my Star Trek-designs have anyway).
Or fighters.  Lots of fighters.  Buckets of fighters.  :)

Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
carriers even cheaper?	Not that they have much hull anyway, but
it is still a reduction in cost.

> Glen wrote:
> >I didn't fire the class-1 rail guns at Steve's  BB as it was
> >shots.  The class-6s would pretty much ignore his ship's massive
armor belt
> Um... according to your previous posts, that "massive armour belt"
> the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
> prior to the salvo we're discussing here. If the escort had 3 armour
> left, you've made it sound very much as if the BB would've had no
more than
> this to less than to stop the K1s with...

I messed up the design I gave (the numbers are correct, the systems
are wrong).
His capital ships have a lot more armor than 6.
I could ping all day with class-1 rail guns and barely get past the
Believe me, I've tried with a all class-1 rail gun designed ship; but
it becomes a shooting roll-lots-of-dice game and I lose that
automatically to Steve.
I should have gotten the correct information of his designs the last
time we
played, but didn't.


Prev: Re: I give up Next: Re: 3-row hull costs