[GZG] [FT] Graser-1s again

At last years Cancon I ran a Full Thrust: Babylon 5 scenario on one
day which proved quite popular. This year I ran it again over two
days, ending up with four full scale three way battles and some
shorter and smaller two way skirmishes.

  A number of ships carried grasers, especially graser-1s, as per the
beta rules for UNSC ships. In a repeat of last years results, every
so often such ships would vaporise undamaged and considerably larger
opponents in a single volley.

A couple of weeks ago John Atkinson was writing about how in modern
navies ship killers like torpedoes and SSMs have made big surface
ships other than carriers obsolete. The graser-1 as currently
specified is likely to do the same thing to Full Thrust.

I realise my argument is weakened by not having proper After Action
Reports to present here. These were public participation games, so I
couldn't take the time to write down every single roll and outcome.

First, the fleet compositions. Exact details are at
<http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/fullthrust/B5>

Earth Force: 2 battleship/carriers, 2 escort cruisers. (Omega, Nova,
2 x Hyperion)
NPV = 1295, CPV = 1277
These are standard human tech designs, fighters and beams for
weaponry, average hulls and engines, no screens and light armour.

Shadows: 4 destroyers, 2 heavy cruisers. (Thorns, Avalanches)
NPV = 1192, CPV = 1072
These have UN hulls, 2 graser-1s on the destroyers, 2 graser-2s on
the cruisers. Only 1 graser-1 per ship can fire all round, the others
are fore arc only.

Alliance: 4 heavy cruisers (White Stars)
NPV = 1300, CPV = 1256
These are fast heavy cruisers with 4 fore arc graser-1s each.

The other force in the game was a Narn battleship, but only one of
the games had the fourth player and he had to leave early anyway, so
had no effect.

In the four full scale battles, the Earth Force fleet got thumped
every time, and there were four memorable events:
* A Shadow destroyer fired a single opening graser-1 shot at an
escort cruiser and vaporised it.
* Twice, a heavy cruiser vaporised an enemy heavy cruiser with the
opening volley.
* And a White Star heavy cruiser vaporised a battleship with the
opening volley.
All these were achieved against undamaged opponents at 12-18 MU range.

No other weapon in Full Thrust can generate such destructive outcomes
with such frequency, and this unbalances the game too strongly in
favour of the graser-1s.

The destroyer vaporised the cruiser with rolls of 6,6,4 and 18 points
of damage. That's average damage from a 1 in 72 chance, a bit over
1%. Such a shot will destroy every escort or light cruiser in Fleet
Book 1, and force double or triple threshold checks on the heavier
cruisers. (How many of your custom escort or cruiser designs have a
level 2 screen?)

Odds of 1/72 don't sound too bad at first, but there are a LOT of
shots fired in a Full Thrust battle. A fast destroyer can comfortably
fit a pair of 3 arc graser-1s. Six such ships on your side, and your
chances of scoring such a megahit sooner or later are very good
indeed.

The cruiser fired four graser-1s at the battleship, with three 6s.
The re-rolls all hit and one was another 6.  I calculate the chance
of scoring those 10 hits as 1 in 324. The damage was 42 points, a bit
above average but not hugely so.

OK, 1 in 324, or 0.3%, odds of a cruiser vaporising a battleship with
a megahit is unlikely. But the point is that in a game (or real life)
"unlikely" is very different from "never happens."

Under the older rules, a cruiser allocating the same mass would have
two pulse torps or beam 3s, or four beam-2s. Allocating points
instead, ignoring mass increases elsewhere in the ship and rounding
fractions off, gives three pulse torps or three beam-3s or five
beam-2s. It would be impossible for the pulse torpedo armed cruiser
to destroy a battleship or force more than one threshold check with
the same die rolls, and the beam cruiser with similar good rolls
might get a double threshold check. In theory the beam cruiser could
destroy the battleship, but the odds against it are so astronomical
that it would be more likely for the roof to collapse and crush both
players.

I'm sure someone at this point is asking "what about salvo missiles?"
Yes, a heavy cruiser with the same mass or points spent on SMRs could
destroy a battleship in one volley. Missiles, though, have two
important differences.

First is obvious, a missile salvo can only be fired once while a
graser can be used for the entire game. Second is that missiles can
be dodged by the target ship, countering good die rolls with skill.
Even though a slow ship may have little or no actual chance of
dodging, the player can console him/herself with the thought "if I'd
moved thataway instead, I'd have survived."

In battles with beams and torpedoes, a burst of lucky rolls will
certainly give one player an advantage, such as a battleship being
double thresholded by a cruiser. This is a setback though, and still
has to be exploited properly. The other player knows this, and that
they can still continue to fight or even turn the tables. Salvo
missiles give one player a few chances to gain a decisive advantage,
but the other player knows that if they are skilful and avoid the
missiles, the advantage then swings their way.

It's possible for a battle to be decided by nothing but luck, or for
a cruiser to vaporise a battleship. But this happens sufficiently
rarely for players to accept that the planets were in alignment, the
deities were in agreement, and the battleship captain had kicked a
black cat through a mirror.

Graser-1s are too destructive, too often, for the losing players to
just accept it. A vaporised battleship is a disaster, not a setback.
You can't dodge, or do anything to reduce the risk except never come
within range. If the player with grasers rolls well, you're toast. If
they roll badly, they're no worse off than you are. It's not
perceived as even.

And yes I know that the megahits really don't occur that often. But
it is human nature to remember bad luck and exaggerate it's
frequency, and to pay more attention to spectacular but low
probability happenings. It's also human nature to really dislike
taking risks we have no apparent control over. People worry more
about plane crashes than car crashes, despite all the statistics
showing otherwise. I believe graser-1s are already a little too
cost-effective, and they're going to be perceived as even more
powerful than they really are.

So what should be done? I can think of three possible solutions.

First is to accept that Full Thrust now has tech levels, with the
Xeno War as dividing line. Expecting Fleet Book 1 ships to fight
against their graser armed descendants is no more reasonable than
fighting a 1939 carrier group against the 1945 version.

Second, and my preferred solution, is to increase the base mass of
the graser-1 to 3 or 4, and each extra arc should cost 1 mass. This
weapon is closer to a pulse torpedo in destructive power than a
beam-2, and small enough for mass to be the limiting factor on number
carried rather than points.

Third, grasers are better than beams on good rolls, but no worse on
bad rolls. Introduce a critical failure: on a natural 1, the graser
burns out and can't be repaired within the game.

If none of these are acceptable then somebody had better find
another, because from informal conversations at Cancon there is a
fourth solution already being used: don't play Full Thrust against
anyone with grasers.

	cheers,
	Hugh
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l