Here's a quick poser to help me consider the relative value of ship
components.
Suppose that in my novel ship design system the following three
options can be fitted to a cruiser (6-6-6 damage boxes, 1 screen,
2 firecons, 3 PDAF, FTL, Thrust 4) with no difference in points cost.
- Option one is to have 6 one-arc A-batteries.
- Option two is to have 4 two-arc A-batteries.
- Option three is to have 3 three-arc A-batteries.
(Which arcs are covered is your choice.)
Which would you consider better value?
I'd appreciate it greatly if you spent a moment to send me your
- Option three is to have 3 three-arc A-batteries.
This would seem to be a no-brainer. 6 one arc might have the
potential for more fire power at the cost of flexibility. 4 two arc would be
the best compromise, and probably what the naval engineers would cone up with.
> At 03:20 AM 3/1/97 +0000, you wrote:
Yeah, that's what I would pick as well. I would put two of the four
two-arc bats on the port side, facing port and forward and the other two
facing starboard and forward. That way all four could fire directly ahead and
I could fire two at any body on either side, sacrificing forward fire to do it
obviously. I would however be scared of the six one arc guy; I know the
players in my group would leap at that option instantly (they love
massive single-arc forward firepower on fast, maneuverable ships).
James
In a message dated 97-02-28 16:39:22 EST, you write:
> Here's a quick poser to help me consider the relative value of
I use this system already (A-Batt 1 arc=2mass, 2arc=3mass, 3arc=4mass)
> (Which arcs are covered is your choice.)
In using this system (probably have used it for 10 or more games), I've found
the three to be of approximately equal value. The choice of which set to mount
depends entirely on your fleet design philosophy.
> I'd appreciate it greatly if you spent a moment to send me your
Adding rear arc fire would not make that much difference. Even when it is
allowed, firing opportunities to the rear are not that common, so I'd not
waste many batteries in that direction. One of the real benefits of rear arc
fire is denying the blind spot to fighters, which are nimble enough to get
into the rear and stay there. If the above cruiser had only one FC I'd bring
the contractor up on charges of misuse of government funds:). I've been
playing with the mass of B-batteries for 1/2/3 arcs at masses 1/1.5/2.
This
gives a 2:1 B-battery to A-Battery and seems to give B's a reason to
live. We've seen a number of ships appear sporting large arrays of
B-batteries.
Later
Brian
> On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Graham L. Tasker. M.B.C.S. wrote:
> >Suppose that in my novel ship design system the following three
========================================================================
========
> Responce to the above question -
IMO it is either an attacking ship (5 A batteries in the front arc is about
equal to a wavegun both in size and damage; they are worse against
shields, but much harder to destroy in treshold checks - and they won't
blow up taking the ship with it! Also remember that not everyone allows
waveguns...) or a flagship/general purpose cruiser for operations too
small to warrant the use of capital ships. A reasonable long-range
slogger; strong and long-ranged enough to beat smaller ships, and fast
enough to stay away from too big capitals.
Regards,