Re: [GZG] [FT] Graser-1s again

Oerjan wrote:

>The compound advantage effect also works *against* the G1, since its 
>short range often allows enemies with longer-ranged weapons to start 
>building their own compound advantage before the G1 can return fire 
>- and when this happens, the G1 needs a lucky hit just to catch up. 
>FWIW this is why weapons grow bigger faster than their range 
>increases, ie. to compensate for the compound advantage they can 
>gain by being able to open fire earlier. To continue your "fast 
>G1-armed DD" example, six fast DDs with a pair of 3-arc G1s each are 
>very dangerous if they can get close enough to fire... but against 
>most opponents I would expect one or two of them to be crippled by 
>long-range fire before they ever get into G1 range and another 
>couple or so knocked out after getting into G1 range but before they 
>can fire their own weapons.
>
>However, if you are consistently able to close the range before the 
>enemy's long-ranged weapons have built up any significant advantage 
>then you will find the shorter-ranged weapons correspondingly more 
>powerful since they have little or no catching-up to do.

Which I believe is what graser armed escorts and lighter
cruisers can consistently do. It's my experience that
most opponents can't cripple the graser ships before they
get within range. Other escorts or light cruisers carry
beam-1s or beam-2s, and 6 MU is not enough to work with.
Those light ships with a beam-3 or P-torp generally can't
afford the mass for more than one firing arc, so dodging
around trying to hold the range open is counterproductive
because you can't shoot while doing so.

The chance of thresholding or destroying just with beams
or P-torps is too low to build up a significant compound
advantage of your own before they get in range. Not
impossible, just very difficult IMHO.

This may be exaggerated by the size of the battles being
fought in my examples. Perhaps at 10,000 pts a side it
evens out, but small battles are more common around here.

>Some FT gaming groups, eg. the Canberra group, appear to be better 
>at closing the range quickly than others are - even other groups 
>which play with the same or very similar table sizes and initial 
>velocities. Exactly how you do this I don't know, which is why I 
>keep asking you guys for detailed AARs :-/

Yeah, I'm sorry, but it was a public participation game and I
didn't want to give potential new players the impression that
they had to write down everything that happened. Pity I don't
have a video camera.

>Increasing the G1's Mass (or cost) without changing its damage 
>mechanics is essentially the same as saying that you *must* score 
>mega-hits to have a chance to win the battle. Yes, the G1's average 
>destructive potential is similar to that of a P-torp as long as the 
>target is unscreened and the G1 is in range to fire - but the P-torp 
>has a longer maximum range, better hit probability at range 12 and 
>less, and ignores any screens the target might have (which gives it 
>a better hit probability than the G1 at range 12-18 as well if the 
>target is screened). Similarly G1s that miss are no worse off than 
>B2s that miss - but at most ranges the G1s miss far more often than 
>the same points value of B2s do simply because the G1s fire fewer 
>to-hit dice.

No I am not saying that. My impression from the earlier
responses was that the graser-1 mass and points cost had
been calculated solely on average damage, and therefore
it was under-priced because the potential for megahits
had not been taken into account.

OK, now we appear to be disagreeing about what the extra
cost of a graser-1 should be to reflect the increased
probability of destroying the enemy. Maybe I am over
reacting a little to extreme events, but I've seen these
events in all six of the battles involving grasers. (Four
this year, two similar ones last year.)

I still think 1 more mass point is needed. If you compare
a G1 to a P-torp on *average* damage, yes it's less, but
not on *maximum* damage. To repeat a comment I made last
year, anyone with NAC Vandenburg/T heavy cruisers would
sell his or her soul to get double hits on 6 and a reroll.

And there's still the reality that human beings are very
bad at statistics and perceive extreme events as being
more likely to occur than they really are. The airline
industry can quote safety statistics until they're blue
in the face, but it doesn't work. G1s might have to be
increased by another mass 1 up to 4, just to satisfy the
people who are unhappy about being beaten solely by die
rolls.

	cheers,
	Hugh

(Hey, ECC organisers: could you find someone willing to
play their standard human fleet but re-equipped all with
the same mass of grasers for your big battle? Maybe not
a full AAR, but get their impression as to whether the
extra cost was worth it or not.)

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