My reply to Laserlight: Defeat in detail would not have happened. The KV
players weren't dumb, and the NAC feel they'd have even been more destroyed if
the KV main battle line had split into them.... given that it would run
through them with scatterguns flushing.... it'd have went through them like a
hot knife through butter. The NAC players figure the KV were not aggressive
enough (though it was, I might add, their first time running this variant of
the KV so they didn't really know what a huge advantage they
had).
To Oerjan: I like your thoughts. Increase the costs. That might just do the
trick. I'll try some of your figures. Though I have to ask how on a per mass
basis you can equate RG to beams... given that a beam 1 or beam 2 has a range
of 12 or 24 MU and a class 1 and 2 RG have a 30" range. That means that your
small ships are ineffective for a turn or more while the KV are "in the zone".
I believe this summarizes the average damage:
Beam RB1 RB2 RB3
1 0.8 -- --
2 1.6 0.8 --
3 2.4 1.6 0.8
Whereas RG (to compare, I've average groups of 2 6" RB to produce a composite
result)
RG RB1 RB2 RB3
1 1.0 0.55 0.1
2 2.25 1.27 0.24
3 3.71 2.12 0.39
I think we can see clearly that at any range, RG are better. But more
particularly, they are PRONOUNCEDLY better at RB2 and RB3 where all but class
3 beams are very ineffective. RG of class 2 or 3 are still very effective in
RB2, and can be quite effective out in RB 3.
We can't compare maximum damage, because of beam rerolls, but a class 3
railgun (if it rolls a 6 at 30") then a 3 on the dice, will do six points. Not
that hard to do. For a class 3 beam to do that kind of damage, it needs to
roll either three sixes to start with or at least one six and some other good
numbers followed by some other good numbers. It just doesn't happen that
often. So it seems likely that with some luck, a class 6 RG is significantly
more dangerous than an equivalent beam (fewer die rolls, regresses less to
mean results).
So I'm not sure how you can say whether the RG costs are good or ill.
I wonder what the impact of removing size class as a modifier for the doubled
damage. It slightls the big guns a bit, but it would certainly prevent someone
building a class 5 railgun which would always do 10 points when it hit...
that's a scary mechanic that does not scale well.
Your comments on the armour and hull appear quite valid. I think the general
observation is either the ships need toned down or they need cost increased.
Your comment on reducing scattergun effectiveness against other ships I find
appealing also. Then they are still a nasty but temporary fighter defence, but
they'll deter scouts from whacking destroyers and the like. 12" of lethality
versus ships is just nasty. If we dropped the result by
1 per full 2" (-1 at 2" to -6 at 12"), then we'd have a weapon still
nasty against fighters, and nasty against ships the KV are good enough or
lucky enough to get beside, but not so lethal against anything in a 24"
diameter sphere!
To Schoon:
Hey bud, don't get me wrong: You did something (with Dean) that needs
doing. Old style KV won't do - they aren't FB compliant. Though a group
I know uses new FB ships vs old KV ships and finds the balance not too bad.
But I don't like that answer. I like the idea of getting the costs right.
As for what to do in cinematic? I think if we got the costs right, the other
issues go away. Your designs are fine. I don't believe the KV are so stupid as
to design ships with no good side armaments and since RG have limited arcs,
you need some side mounts. It helps in vector too in any sort of larger
engagement. So I have no issue with the designs, only the cost of same. I have
a wee issue with scattergun effectiveness (it works great against fighters AND
allows scouts to easily kill
destroyers). I have a wee issue with the mega-armour/mega-hull combo -
for those of us that use core systems and thresholds, that's a huge
distinction. And I have mentioned my concern about how we compare a RG to a
beam.
Basically, we've created a KV who has lethal close in FP (RG are deadly
and hit often - if they are class 2+, they do good damage most of the
time and one can flush a terror of scatterguns thus hitting really really
hard...) and they are dangerous further out (their RG of all classes fire 30"
and with one good and one moderate die, they can do double damage.... unlike
beams that have to roll lots of good dice for this effect). And they are
superfast, can turn on a dime, can out push and outthrust most humans, and
take a beating till the cows come home. All in all, this is the UBER ET we
hope never to meet. I don't mind them having that flavour... if the point
costs let us have a fun battle.
Thanks for the commentary everyone, and I'm glad to see Y2K has been the
fizzle everyone has been working to make it. I'm sure that the media will say
"Oh, what a scam." The truth is, a lot of folk worked very hard and I think
they should get a pat on the back. It seems they've mostly
done the work to make it a non-event. (Thought it'd be wise to be just
as serious or perhaps moreso about the lesser attended feb/march
turnover date). Kudos to all involved!
Now back to your regularly scheduled diatribes.
We can't compare maximum damage, because of beam rerolls, but a class 3
railgun (if it rolls a 6 at 30") then a 3 on the dice, will do six points. Not
that hard to do. For a class 3 beam to do that kind of damage, it needs to
roll either three sixes to start with or at least one six and some other good
numbers followed by some other good numbers. It just doesn't happen that
often. So it seems likely that with some luck, a class 6 RG is significantly
more dangerous than an equivalent beam (fewer die rolls, regresses less to
mean results).
Actually you can. The expected value of a beam die (D6 with
rerolls for 6s is 4/5). If you need me to explain how to solve for this
I can. Compare the expected damage of weapons at certain ranges and you'll
have something to work with.
> My reply to Laserlight:
If you're fighting them all at once, that's not "in detail."
You'd need to find them separated by something like 300+ MU so you
could pound on one squadron for a few turns without the other squadron being
able to get there and support.
> To Oerjan:
range. That means that your small ships are ineffective for a turn or more
while the KV are "in the zone".
I can answer that on Oerjan's behalf: "Fly faster." Although I
grant you that KV scatter guns are ugly in close--when fighting KV,
I'd want a few salvo missiles or fighter squadrons to force him to expend the
scatter charges. I like the idea of degrading them by range.
> Laserlight wrote:
Denny Graver is currently running an E-mail game, and it
is quite a large effort. I will let you know the outcome
when available.
Caution, opinion crossing!!!
I do not think the KV are really overpriced at this time. The advent of the
larger hulls, destructive ability of the SML, and the reduced firepower of the
KV (I.E. same firepower spread
over 6 areas vs 4), has changed the dynamics of the game. These
changes have not been fully tested and therefor the 'pricing' should not be
'adjusted' on the basis on a couple of losses.
Comments on the Scenario: 1) The NAC forces were inadequate for the assigned
mission. (It looks as if the NAC combat ships were outnumbered
(in points) by about 1.3 to 1. A very difficult
situation at the best of times.) (The inclusion of the 10 transport ships in
the NAC order of battle assured the defeat.) 2) The NAC commander failed to
respond to the KV refusal of his right flank. 3) The Kra"Vak commander did the
right thing by overloading the NAC left and rolling up the line. 4) The
Kra'Vak commander protected his smaller ships initally and used them to great
effect later in the battle. 5) The comments about the 'thrust, pivot, push'
are problems with the vector movement system, not with the Kra'Vak.
Thus ends the tactical comments for the benefit of the prey!
Wa'Con-D'rk commander of the 17th Sq of the Hunt of the D'rk
Bye for now,
Thomas Barclay wrote in a heavily formatted post which showed up as 14
kB of blank space until I had replied, saved the reply and re-opened
it:
> To Oerjan:
6 mu isn't a very long distance if the initial vectors were in opposite
directions. IME it is only important if the KV manages to stay in that
6mu range band for several turns - which is possible given their high
maneuverability, but not very easy.
> That means
Which *per Mass*, which is the only valid comparision (if your weapon is twice
as big as mine, I'm able to bring two of my weapons to the fight against your
single one), turns out to be
Beam Arc RB1 RB2 RB3
1 6 0.8 -- --
2 3 0.8 0.4 --
3 1 0.6 0.4 0.2 3 3 0.4 0.27 0.13
against unscreened targets. Multiply by 0.792 vs level-1 screens/KV
armour and by 0.583 vs level-2 screens/KV armour.
> Whereas RG (to compare, I've average groups of 2 6" RB to produce a
The average damage *per Mass*, averaged in the same way, is
RG RB1 RB2 RB3 1 0.5 0.27 0.06 2 0.75 0.42 0.08 3 0.75 0.42 0.08
> I think we can see clearly that at any range, RG are better.
Only if you can "clearly see" that 0.8 < 0.75. I can't see that, I'm afraid.
As you can see, the C1 and C2 beams inflict *more* damage per mass
against unscreened/armoured targets in RB1, and C2s (and single-arc
C3s) are very close in RB2. Single-arc C3 batteries actually outgun
railguns in RB3, again on a per-Mass comparision - even against level-2
armour.
Had it not been for the fact that KV railguns ignore screens, they would
actually have been *overpriced* at 4*Mass.
> But more particularly, they are PRONOUNCEDLY better at RB2
4% higher average damage against unscreened/armoured targets... that's
not a significant difference. The initiative rolls have a bigger effect on the
outcome of the battle than a 4% higher average damage per Mass.
It becomes significant when the KV armour is factored in, but the KV armour
isn't part of the railguns and should therefore be evaluated (and paid for)
separately.
> and RB3 where all but class 3 beams are very ineffective.
In RB3, narrow-arc C3 beams (such as the one on the Furious) hold their
own fairly well - on average 0.2 damage per Mass vs unscreened targets,
0.16 vs level-1 screen/armour (compared to 0.17 for the larger RGs to
range 30, or 0.08 for the entire RB), and 0.13 vs level-2
screens/armour.
> RG of class 2 or 3 are still very effective in RB2, and can be quite
On a per-mass reading, well... OK, they're some 30% better than the
RG1, but that doesn't say too much :-/ 0.08 damage per Mass
> We can't compare maximum damage, because of beam rerolls,
Of course not. That's why we compare average damages.
> but a class 3
You'll do it on average one time out of nine, or 11% of the time. Another 5.6%
of the time you'll inflict only three points, and the remaining 83.3% of the
time the RG3 doesn't inflict any damage at all.
> For a class 3 beam to do that kind of damage, it needs to roll either
On the other hand, it will inflict *some* damage at least 33% of the
time even against level-2 armour/screens (50% of the time against
unscreened targets) - ie, it is much less dependent on your rolling a
"6" on that critical first roll. It needs it to inflict lots of damage, but it
isn't totally ineffective if you don't get that "6".
> So it seems likely that with some
At short ranges, the RGs regresses less. At long ranges (where you need to
roll high on the first die to inflict any damage at all), it regresses more
than the beams instead.
> So I'm not sure how you can say whether the RG costs are good or ill.
You look at the average die rolls, and when you've done that you can look at
the standard deviations if you're still not sure of what you see.
It is as simple as that - no different from comparing pulse torps to
beams, and considerably easier than comparing SMs or MTMs to beams (missile
hit probabilities are purely a function of player skill, and
that's not very easy at all to quantify statistically :-/ ).
> I wonder what the impact of removing size class as a modifier for the
It does scale well provided that you set its Mass properly (should be Mass 10
to balance vs the smaller RGs). The real problem is what you do
with Class-6 and bigger RGs - do they inflict 3x damage if they roll 12
or better? <g>
If you remove the size class modifier for doubled damage, you adjust their
Masses accordingly. As simple as that.
> Your comments on the armour and hull appear quite valid. I think the
The end result is the same. Less bang for the bucks :-/
> Your comment on reducing scattergun effectiveness against other ships
I don't think I've posted that one for... must be four years or so -
last time was in one of the "how to fix the MT Kra'Vak" debates back when Adam
was list admin.
> Then they are still a nasty but temporary fighter
Yep. In MT, I used -1 per full 2mu vs starships and -1 per full 1mu vs
fighters, but that was before the ADFC. -1 per 2mu vs anything is
simpler, of course <g>
Regards,
> To Oerjan: I like your thoughts. Increase the costs. That might just
[snipped charts]
RGs do indeed give better damage in general, but have much more restricted
arcs. Using the vector system, this can be unbalancing.
I used cinematic for a K'V gae run at GenCon, and the K'V were nicely
balanced - In fact, they took a sound drubbing.