Re: [GZG] Screens versus Advanced Screens in Cross Dimensions?

J L Hilal wrote:
>I am NOT talking about the cost of the screen.  I am talking about 
>the relative value of K-guns (and P-torps, etc.) vs. basic beam 
>batteries.  The FB stats (range, damage, MASS, and PV/MASS) for 
>K-guns, P-Torps, etc. are balanced vs basic beam batteries on the 
>assumption that there is no defense against the screen-skippers 
>other than hull and/or ablative armor.

My understanding is that P-torps are slightly under-valued by the
existing rules. I'll leave a full analysis to Oerjan, but being
able to do occasional big hits at long range makes them more
effective than the equal mass/cost beam-3.

Missiles may also be undervalued: my experience is that NAC and
ESU players like to field the few missile armed ships in those
fleets rather more often than the background suggests.

K-guns are IMNSHO severely under-valued: not only massive hits
at long range, but punching through armour as well.

>Again, this changes the relative effectiveness of these weapons 
>compared to Beam Batteries.  It makes a given mass of Beam Batteries 
>MORE effective than the SAME mass of PTs, SM's, MKPs, etc..

Good. IMNSHO, beams represent the primary armament of scifi ships:
anything that on film/TV leaves a glowing beam of light across
the screen ought to be a beam. I'd like to see more beams, not
more torpedoes/grasers/AMTs/K-guns/missiles.

[ munch stuff about your new armour scheme because that deserves
a separate answer ]

>It GZG-universe scale that ain't that big.  Historically capital 
>ships have been 30-50 times the mass of contemporary destroyers of 
>the same nation.  FB scale places destroyers as 25-35 TMF.  Call it 
>average 30 TMF.  that means that the largest capital ships should be 
>900-1500 TMF going by the historic ratio.  By real-world comparison, 
>the American space shuttle is about TMF 1.5, most modern strategic 
>bombers are TMF 2-3, modern Spruance, Kid, and Arliegh Burke Class 
>DD/DDGs are TMF 80-90, the first all big-gun battleship HMS 
>Dreadnought was about TMF 220 in 1905, the last class of BBs built 
>by the US in WW2 were around TMF 650, WW2 fleet carriers were TMF 
>200-300, and modern US CVNs are almost TMF 1000.  Modern ULCCs are 
>TMF 3000-5500.

You are assuming that FT mass = tonnes/volume. There's a bit about
non-linear scaling in Cross Dimensions, but here's more:

Large ships in FT are more effective than the equivalent mass of
smaller ships - that's why we now have CPV calculations. Doubling
the mass is more than double the combat power, more like three
times or more. Using your warship examples, a Dreadnought BB would
be about mass 100 in FT terms, while an Iowa would be maybe 200.
The Iowa will be much more than twice as good. And you'll need
more than seven FT mass 30 DDs to take on the mass 200 Iowa.

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