Should of added Amount of dice each BE can emit is limited to class x 2. For
damage first point of each dice goes to armour, rest to hull.
> Schoon wrote:
I can't say I care for this mechanic. Why not just simplify to just -1
per
6 MU, or fraction thereof, and -1 per screen level. The auto 1 point on
a six seems superfluous.
> [quoted text omitted]
I added the 6 always causes one point. Since HBW's are the only weapon were
defenses affect not only damage but range as well. At least with this way. a
Level two screen doesn't drop the uppper range to 24"
> Schoon also wrote:
I think that this argument is not viable. When I plugged in all the numbers
for my final Damage*ArcArea/Mass ratings, I factored in the average
damage per turn in balancing.
> [quoted text omitted]
They are two different styles of weapons. Both have adv/disadv.
ie. you have your standard torpedo/hbw boats, with 6 mass of
weapons/defense.
(1 p-torp; class 1 BE and class 1 BPS)
(assuming the fight is 12" all the time)
Every single turn the p-torp can fire and average 2.33 damage.
Every single turn the HBW fires it averages 2.50 damage.
Now there is bound to be turns when the boats can't fire at each other. The
next time they fire upon each other ptorp does 2.33 damage. HBW does 5 damage.
So the HBW doesn't have the option to add extra arcs to the BE. You can always
add a small BE in the side arcs just in case.
eg. ship A has two p-torps with 2 xtra arcs each. these take up 12 mass
and costs 36 points.
Ship B has has a class 2 BPS a CLass 2 BE and 2x Class 1 BE. This takes up 10
mass and costs 30 points. (class 2 BPS mass 6) (Class 2 BE mass 2) (Class 1 BE
mass 1)
Ship A can fire 2 dice worth of damage in the front 180.
Ship B can pump out 2 dice worth of damage if the target is in the front 180.
It can also fire 4 dice in the front arc if it had a previous turn of no
firing.
Admittedly the HBW becomes more effective the more mass available in the ship.
ie. 4x3arc p-torp = 24 mass
equal HBW system 20 mass.
On 9-Feb-00 at 13:09, Graeme Bradbury (graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com)
wrote:
> Should of added
> For damage first point of each dice goes to armour, rest to hull.
<RANT>
Now for this I will howl munchkin. It is the ONLY WEAPON IN THE GAME THAT
IGNORES ALMOST ALL OF THE ARMOUR.
This one advantage means we need to up the poing cost to about 8xMASS or maybe
even 10x.
I thought most of the comments I saw went 1/2 1/2 just like a P-Torp.
I'd rather have re-rolls than this. Why ask the list if you had
already decided to run it the other way?
</RANT>
> Roger Books wrote:
> > For damage first point of each dice goes to armour, rest to hull.
<chuckle> Apart from the needle beams and EMP missiles, of course :-)
OK, the EMP missiles inflict some of their damage on the hull and armour as
well, but their main effect are the extra threshold rolls.
> This one advantage means we need to up the poing cost to about >8xMASS
Not if it is has roughly the same damage/Mass ratios as the P-torp;
4xMass would be enough in this case :-) If the HBW is reduced by
screens (haven't had time to go through the entire debate yet, but it was
discussed early on at least), 3xMass should be just fine.
OK, the "weak hulls with massive armour" style of designs will drop back into
the line if this type of damage distribution is adopted (they'll only be about
as effective as the other hull types instead of a lot better) and the NSL
won't like it that much if they run into a fleet armed with nothing but HBWs,
but apart from that it's not a
balance problem. Quite the opposite - it *solves* a current balance
problem.
Kind regards,
> (assuming the fight is 12" all the time)
I believe that this is an incorrect assumption. If we assume that the fight
always occurs at 18 or 24 MU, then the PT outperforms the HB. You must take
all ranges into consideration.
> Now there is bound to be turns when the boats can't fire at each other.
You cannot accurately factor this into the statistics; thus I kept with
averages over time. All other things being equal, the damage per turn will
approach these numbers. You can't add "bad piloting" into the equation.
> So the HBW doesn't have the option to add extra arcs to the BE. You can
Exactly. That gives the pair of systems a flavor all their own.
[snipped example]
> Admittedly the HBW becomes more effective the more mass available in
This I must admit is true, and is a problem I've seen, which is why I tries
initially to link Class with a log scale. Unfortunately the list nixed that
idea. One possible solution would be to limit the number of BEs to any given
BPS.
In fact, that's a very good idea...
The difference really begins to show at 4 BEs per BPS, so we could limit it
to 3 [?]
> I thought most of the comments I saw went 1/2 1/2 just like a P-Torp.
Easy Roger - that'll do bad things to your blood pressure ;-)
The Poll decided on the 50/50 method. We're just currently discussing
Graeme's alternative suggestions.