Re: New weapons from Beta Test fleets

Some quick comments before going on Easter holidays:

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?

Ship B *should* cost sqrt(2) * X points; but since the Fleet Book system
is 
intended to be useable with pen and paper and thus doesn't use the
square 
root function, it usually doesn't get it exactly right.

(FWIW Starmada's ship design system *does* use the square root function,
so 
in Starmada ship B *does* cost exactly sqrt(2) times as much as ship A.)

> >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.

None of the established systems qualify perfectly. The K5s and larger
see a 
slight increase in armour penetration with increasing gun size which 
disturbs the linear scaling; PBLs fail the test since larger plasma
bolts 
take more damage from scatterguns and similar (and in the beta-test
rules 
also from rerolls).

Weapons which would qualify as linearly scaled are eg. your PT2 or
upgraded 
beam weapons with 12mu range bands which inflict 2 or D3 or D6 damage 
points per hit rolled on the beam dice.

> >>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".

That 2x PT1 has more chance to do *some* damage - ie., hit with one 
launcher where the PT2 would miss completely - is balanced out by the
fact 
that they'll also *miss* with one launcher on occasions where the PT2
hit 
with its full-strength shot. The *average damage* for both sets of
weapons 
is the same; that the *standard deviation* is greater for the PT2
doesn't 
matter for the points cost.

The main balance issue here though stands between two more esotheric 
characteristics: as  Alan Brain pointed out the PT2 doesn't fail as many

threshold checks as the 2x PT1 together do, and when it does become
damaged 
it only takes one successful DCP roll to repair it; but this is balanced
by 
the PT2's inability to engage more than one target at a time while the 
2xPT1 can engage one target each if they need to.

***
The rest will have to wait 'til after Easter :-(

Happy holidays everyone,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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