Re: New weapons from Beta Test fleets

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 
> >I was going by "value increases by SQRT(X)".  <shrug>
> 
> Doesn't work that way, sorry. The "value increases by sqrt(X)" only
> works if the unit has both firepower and hit boxes of its own - ie.,
> it applies to the entire *ship*, not to an individual weapon aboard
> that ship.

So two ships, each with the same amount each of hull, armor, FCS, and
thrust, but ship A has 2x PTL and Ship B has 4x PTL as their only
weapons, then Ship A costs X points and Ship B costs (SQRT(2))*X
points?

> 
> Consider this: re-arm a ship by replacing its single-damage weapons
> with half the number of double-damage weapons, but keep the ship's
> armour, hull integrity, thrust rating etc. constant.

As I understand from all you have said, the only established weapons
that would qualify as directly scaled without other modifiers such as
range included in the value of the weapons would be K-Guns 5+ and PBLs.

> Half the number of weapons but twice the firepower per weapon means 
> that the ship's total firepower is the same after the refit as it was
> before, so the ship's points value should be the same as it was
> before; and since the only things which were changed are the weapons,
> and the ship now has half the number of weapons it used to, it 
> follows that each of the new double-damage weapons must cost twice as
> much as the previous single-damage weapons.
> 
> > From our own emperical results with multi-dice damage PTLs in B5
> > and ST settings, I would accept a flat +50%, +66%, or +75%, but I
> > believe +100% is too much per die.
> 
> That is effectively the same as saying that you believe that 2
> P-torps should cost only 50% to 75% more than 1 P-torp, since 2
> P-torps inflict twice as much damage as 1 P-torp does <shrug>
> 

No.  I mean that 1x 2d6-PTL is 75% to 88% of 2x 1d6-PTL, because the 2x
PTL1 has more chance to do *some* damage while the PTL2 is
all-or-nothing, though more on the "all".

> > >>2)  Variable Hull Rows

<snip "if both sides are unhappy, it's probably right"> :)

> To check how much the 3-row hulls really cost, compare the points
> value of a ship with a 3-row hull with that of a 4-row ship with
> exactly the same armament, screens and armour and with the first 3
> hull rows the same length as those on the 3-row ship (so it has
> roughly 30% more hull boxes total than the 3-row ship). You might be
> surprised by how little you actually pay for that 4th hull row :-/

I have been considering only "X in 4 rows vs X in 3 rows".  I will have
to give this new viewpoint some added thought.

> 
> > >>3)  New missiles
> > >>Really don't like the AM Missiles.
> > >
> > >What part of it is it you don't like? (I know what *I* don't like
> > >with it -	the E-mine damage mechanic - but since that's the only
> > >thing you've retained in your SM-AM variant you must have some
> > >other gripe with it.)
> >
> >First it's another weapon with the same placed mechanic as the RAW
> SMs,
> 
> Not exactly true, since the AMT makes a 6mu secondary move after the
> ships have moved but before the AMT detonates - since the area of
> effect is measured from the location *after* the 6mu secondary move,
> this is a bit different from the standard 6mu attack radius of  SMs.
> 

Not enough of a difference to make it no longer an "area denial
artillery round in space" IMO.	<shrug>

 
> >We haven't used the Beta fighter rules with SMs, so I didn't
> >remember the -3 DRM.  However, there is no point in having a DRM
> >over -3 against beam die weapons.  So maybe -2 vs PD and no AS fire
> >allowed?
> 
> AS-mode fire can hit Plasma Bolts. Why would it be unable to hit
> AMTs?
> 

The point is "harder to hit than Standard Warhead SMs".  If you want
Nova SMs to be the same as PBs, then SW-SMs should be easier than that
standard IMO, but I have no opinion on whether a Nova SM should be
harder, easier or equal to a PB.  One could PSB any of those cases
equally well.

J