I've been running solo escort vs escort test battles with the new UNSC beta
test ships and analysing the results. I've
come to the conclusion that the graser-1 is slightly too
effective for the current mass requirement, and this gives graser armed
escorts a perceptible advantage over those without. I could be wrong of
course, so here is my analysis for you all to pick apart, and a suggestion for
further playtesting.
I'm not saying that grasers are an uber-weapon. Beam armed
escorts can defeat grasers, but they need to do everything right. If the
tactics don't favour the beam side, or give only a slight advantage, the
grasers will nearly always win.
And my analysis is only for the graser-1 and only tested for
escort vs escort battles. I'd expect similar results for light cruisers, but
not for bigger ships and bigger grasers.
Methodology: my solo battles were two to four beam armed escorts against a
similar number of UNSC Hunters or Lakes.
Mostly I used modified NAC designs, Tacoma/C heavy frigates
(mass 28, hull 7, main drive 6, grade 2 armour, 2 beam-2, 2
beam-1) and Mosquito heavy destroyers (mass 40, hull 12,
main drive 6, screen-1, 3 beam-2) as these are very close in
NPV/CPV to the UNSC Hunter and Lake respectively. The Lakes
were a modified 'Mk IV' design with the beams of a Mk III
replaced by a third forward firing 3 arc graser-1.
Tactics were very simple since I was controlling both sides, mostly head on
encounters with either the NAC opening fire
at 18-24 and then closing to 6-12, or both opening fire at
12-18 and then closing to 6-12. I also tried 3 NSL Waldburgs
against 2 Lakes in the same scenario, and a circling battle between Tacomas
and Lakes. Each scenario I played four times with the same moves. The dice
themselves were a boxed set of 12, used one after the other by both sides in
random order. I recorded range bands, hit and damage rolls, and threshhold
failures. The NAC won if they avoided the 12-18 MU band and
closed, otherwise lost. (And note that I'm favouring the NAC, as the UN ships
are quite zippy themselves and should do better at keeping the range open.)
Now that the science report stuff is out of the way :-), on
to the conclusion.
The graser-1 may not have the maximum range or accuracy at
short range of a pulse torpedo, but it's still impressive. It's accurate
enough (escorts hardly ever have screens), armour piercing, and has the
wonderful two die damage on a 6
that any Vandenburg/T captain would sell his or her soul
for.
The average damage of a graser-1 and equivalent beams are
theoretically balanced, but the low threshhold levels in escorts gives the
advantage to the graser. The average
damage from a weapon is not just the to hit and/or damage
rolls, but P(survival) x average damage where P(survival) is the probability
(0 to 1) that the weapon has not yet failed a threshhold check or the ship
itself been destroyed. If the enemy can't shoot back, P is 1. If they can, P
gets lower over time.
In an escort vs escort fight the heavier damage inflicted by grasers is more
likely to cause a threshhold check or completely destroy a beam armed
opponent, degrading their chance of survival at a much faster rate. (This is
also why a number of small ships fighting one big ship with equal firepower
and NPV usually lose.) My statistics isn't good enough to know how to model
this properly, but I think the effect is a random walk problem where the steps
in one direction become lower probability but of greater magnitude.
Less formally, the guy with grasers only needs to roll one six and you're
toast.
It's easy to exaggerate this because of the human tendency to overrate the
chance of unlikely events. A Lake destroyer handing out 35 points of damage
sticks in my memory much more than a Mosquito doing 9, even though the die
rolls to hit were the same: 46666. So I repeat that I don't consider
graser-1s to be seriously overpowered, just slightly.
None the less, a graser-1 really will inflict heavier hits
more often than the beams. I worked out the probability of
doing ten or more points of damage in one turn from a 3-arc
graser-1 and the equivalent mass beam-2 and beam-1 (or three
beam-1) at 0-12 MU range against an unscreened target. (Mass
is more the limiting factor on weapon load for escorts than points cost.) Ten
points is enough to cause at least a double threshhold check on every escort
in Fleet Books 1 and 2, and some light cruisers.
For the beams, factoring in up to 5 rerolls after an initial 6, I make the
chance of doing at least ten points damage to
be 31/7776, or 1 in 250. For the graser-1, only factoring in
the first reroll after a 6, the chance is 573/7776, or 1 in
14.
The probability of survival doesn't depend on damage alone but also on
tactics, protection, and initiative. But an order of magnitude difference in
the chance of getting incapacitated or destroyed is hard to counter.
Another way of looking at it is that the graser-1 is a great
weapon for gamblers and frustrating for tacticians. In an escort vs escort
battle against grasers you have fewer offensive options such as missiles or
fighters than with
larger ships. It's harder to dodge because 3 arc graser-1s
are cheap enough to be carried by most ships. And simply by
having a lot more graser-1s to fire than would be the case
with graser-2s or -3s, those low probability megahits start
to occur unpleasantly often. Only a small fluctuation in die rolls is enough
to defeat good tactics by the beam escorts.
It's not a big difference, but IMHO still a problem. One
option would be to increase the mass cost to +1 per extra
arc, so a single arc stays at mass 2, two arc is 3, three arc 4, and a six arc
6. The other would be to increase the base mass by 1, so the single, three,
and six arc mass 3, 4, and 5 respectively. I think either of these would be
sufficient.
My second suggestion is for those playtesting the UNSC ship designs to try
replacing beams with grasers and see if this makes the ships more effective.
For instance:
Lake Mk IV: replace the beam-2 and beam-1 on a III by a
third fore 3 arc graser-1.
Mountain Mk II: replace beam-2s and 1s by three 3 arc
graser-1s, port, starboard, and fore.
It might also be interesting to do the same experiment with the River heavy
cruiser or larger UNSC ships.
Cheers,
From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
> I've been running solo escort vs escort test battles with
Thanks for such a thorough treatment. It was interesting looking at you
results. I have a couple comments, though I do not have the various statistics
at my command.
First, is that comparing Mass of Grasers to beams is not sufficient. Grasers
cost more per mass than beams and this must be factored in, because the cost
is there specifically to account for some of the
Mass/Power imbalance.
Second, I agree that Grasers power is maximized in escort battles. Some of
this advantage will evaporate when escorts accompany larger
(especially screened) ships that can take a 2-hit graser shot without
thresholding. I think escort battles are the showcase for Graser's maximum
effect. Next you should try cruiser groups (both cruisers alone and cruiser
escort mixes). My bet is things will be a bit different.
Third, Head-on passes against grasers are not the best way to survive.
As you mention, if the NAC could keep out of 12-18MU range, they stood
a much better chance. This may not be easy, but I wonder if a two player game
would see the maneuver component evolve rapidly as this point was driven home.
The role of maneuver is very hard to playtest
solo (or even with small numbers of two+ player games).
There's probably more, but these are the my thoughts. The first is easy
to think about - and may be enough in and of itse;f, the second is easy
enough to playtest, the third will take a large number of nearly identical
tests were different maneuver strategies are attempted and countered.
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
[Snip sound-looking methodology]
Thanks for the report!
> Tactics were very simple since I was controlling both sides,
Hm. This sounds as if you were flying *very* slowly - 9 mu/turn or less,
unless the ships were in each others' AP/A/AS arcs for the 6-12 shot
(which would've favoured the Tacomas and Waldburgs, since they have more of
their
total close-range firepower available in those arcs than the UNSC ships
do.)
> [...] I recorded range bands, hit and damage rolls, and threshhold
Excellent. Do you have the data in electronic format, BTW?
> The NAC won if they avoided the 12-18 MU band and
I don't think that you're favouring the NAC significantly, because if the UNSC
escorts open the range just a smidgeon too *much* (say to 18.2 mu instead of
18.0) they play straight into the NAC's hands.
> The average damage of a graser-1 and equivalent beams are
Not exactly, no :-/
> In an escort vs escort fight the heavier damage inflicted by
Nope. In an escort-vs-escort fight the G1-armed ship is more likely to
*completely destroy* a beam-armed opponent than vice versa, but except
for
the 12-18mu range band the beam-armed ship is more likely to *cause
threshold checks* (thanks both to the G1's higher risk of missing completely
and to the low number of damage points needed to inflict
threshold checks on the FB escorts) - and the beams' advantage in
causing threshold checks is considerably higher than the G1s' advantage in
complete destruction.
> My statistics isn't good
Correct. However, for escort-sized ships even the
smaller-but-more-likely
steps are surprisingly large.
[...]
> None the less, a graser-1 really will inflict heavier hits
Of course it will; and I don't think that any of us playtesters has said
anything to the contrary. The other side of the coin however is that the G1
will also *miss* considerably more often than the beams.
> I worked out the probability of
I have two problems with this part of your analysis:
First, as Noam has already pointed out you're comparing weapons of equal
MASS instead of weapons of equal COST. Since the Grasers cost about 20% more
than the equivalent MASS of beam batteries (when you take into account the
extra cost for the larger engines etc. needed to support the beams), it
shouldn't come as a big surprise that they also inflict more damage in a
straight MASS comparison! I've already gone into this in a fair amount of
detail in my earlier replies to Glen Bailey, so won't repeat it all again
here.
Second, and specific to this analysis, for escort-sized ships 10+ pts is
very often overkill. 6 pts will destroy a Hunter; 9 pts is sufficient to
destroy a UNSC Lake- or NAC Ticonderoga-class DD, your own Tacoma/C
design,
or any Fleet Book design smaller than a DD. (The other FB DDs - other
than
the Tico and Lake, that is - all have 11 or 12 hit points; a 10-pt hit
will inflict a triple threshold on any of them.) In addition all of these
ships start losing weapons to threshold checks long before they're destroyed.
This means eg. that if you're fighting against a UNSC Hunter it is completely
irrelevant to know
how likely you are to inflict *10+* damage pts at it - because you only
need *6* pts to destroy it completely. 4 pts is very likely to cripple it (55%
risk of losing either the FCS or both G1s, and an additional 27% risk of
losing one G1), and even a mere 2 pts of damage causes a significant risk of
losing one or both G1s (19% chance of either losing both G1s or the FCS, 23%
chance of losing one G1).
And this is where the G1's higher risk to *miss* compared to the same cost
(not same Mass!) of beams becomes important: if you calculate the chances of
inflicting at least 2, 3, 4 etc. pts of damage with a G1 or the equivalent
cost of beams, you'll find that the beams beat the G1 to
(ie.,
have a higher probability to inflict at least) 2, 3 and 4 pts of damage (ie.,
to reach the first, and often also the second, threshold). The G1
only catches up around 5-6 pts if it is 3-arc (the 4-arc one takes even
longer to catch up), and only pulls ahead significantly for 8-pt hits
and
higher - but these high-power killing hits aren't nearly as common as
the
low-powered crippling ones.
If you're shooting at cruisers or capitals rather than at escorts, the
ability to roll 10+ pts of damage with a single Graser die is relevant
since you're usually not overkilling them - but if you're shooting at
cruisers or capitals, you usually have more than one Graser die to fire
(otherwise you're most likely rather badly outgunned!), and this reduces
the probability for really extreme results (of course some of the dice can
score high, but you'll usually also have a bunch of other dice which doesn't
inflict any damage at all).
> For the beams, factoring in up to 5 rerolls after an initial
If you factor in an infinite number of re-rolls (easy to do since all
combinations which score more than 10 pts are baked into the "10+"
group)
you get a ~1/229 (~34/7776) probability to score 10 or more pts on 3
beam dice.
However, since you compare equal MASS instead of equal COST you're
short-changing the beams a bit. An equal COST of beams gives you closer
to
4 beam dice, with IIRC a ~1/79 (~98/7776) probability to score 10+ pts.
(I
don't remember which way the rounding goes; it could be closer to 1/80
instead.) Still not quite up to the G1's high-hit probability of course,
but the gap between them has suddenly dropped from a factor ~17 to a factor
~6 - and that doesn't take the lower-level hits into account at all.
> For the graser-1, only factoring in
With 4 re-rolls included it increases to 1/13.3 (~583/7776). But let's
go back to the main problem with your analysis:
> [...] an order of magnitude difference in the chance of getting
IF you only count 10+ damage points as "incapacitated or destroyed",
then there's roughly one order of magnitude between them.
But as discussed above it takes much less than 10 pts to incapacitate most
of the Fleet Book escorts, and 10+ pts will destroy all but the largest
of
them - and for those lower damage levels, the advantage lies with the
beams instead.
> Another way of looking at it is that the graser-1 is a great
Very good description, yes.
> In an escort vs escort battle against grasers you have fewer
Yet at the same time those high-probability Graser misses occur quite
often
too, and so do the beams' lower-level but nevertheless crippling hits.
And,
of course, if there aren't any G2s or other long-ranged weapons around,
the
beam-armed escorts can afford to err on the side of caution and stray
more than 24mu away from the enemy; the G1 escorts don't have that luxury.
> Only a small fluctuation in die rolls is enough to defeat good tactics
...or defeat good tactics by the Graser-armed ships, when they miss
slightly more than average instead of hitting slightly better than average.
> It's not a big difference, but IMHO still a problem. One
Six arcs would be 7 Mass under this scheme, not 6.
> The other would be to increase the
Either of these would be sufficient to allow an equal cost of beams to
outgun the 3+-arced G1 versions rather impressively at range 0-12 and
(of
course) 18+, and come quite close to matching them at range 12-18.
That'd
effectively make these G1s useful *only* at range 12-18mu, which is not
a good thing for the game balance.
> My second suggestion is for those playtesting the UNSC ship
This makes the Lake even more sensitive to being outflanked than it already
is, reduces its max range by 25% (quite significant when defending a task
force against enemy strikeboats) and weakens its point defence by 20%, in
return for an increase of the FP/F/FS firepower of ~5% in the 0-12mu
band
and 31-55% in the 12-18mu band. The refit is worth the extra points as
long as the ship never has to fight strikeboats, fighters or missiles, doesn't
get outflanked, and is always able to rapidly close the range to 18mu or
less; otherwise it is a bit more dubious :-/
> Mountain Mk II: replace beam-2s and 1s by three 3 arc
Works fine as long as the enemy stays in front of the ship, but cuts the
firepower in the rear 180 degrees roughly in half... and since the Mountain
is only thrust-4, it can't rely on Cinematic-moving enemies staying in
front of it (and can have problems getting into range of nimbler opponents,
too).
> It might also be interesting to do the same experiment with
Same for them as for the Mountain. I already find the UNSC heavies to be
too vulnerable to being outflanked in Cinematic; your suggested refits would
make them even more so.
Later,
> Noam Izenberg wrote:
> First, is that comparing Mass of Grasers to beams is not sufficient.
True, I didn't take that into account. The difference is exaggerated in the
UNSC designs by their expensive hulls though.
> Third, Head-on passes against grasers are not the best way to survive.
My impression is that the head on attack works because it gets the maximum
number of beams into action as soon as
possible. It's tempting to try and skirmish at 18-24 where
the grasers can't hit you at all, but if you get caught in
the 12-18 band where you only have one-third to one-half
the firepower, it isn't pleasant. Outflanking attempts have the same danger,
hence my comment about having to get it exactly right.
I'll see if I can fight some battles against human opponents.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Hm. This sounds as if you were flying *very* slowly - 9 mu/turn or
Forgot to specify that. Small 48x72 MU table, so yes the ships were flying
relatively slowly (by your standards, not mine!) at no more than 15MU.
> Excellent. Do you have the data in electronic format, BTW?
I could type it up. Mostly I kept the records so I could calculate the average
die rolls afterwards.
> Nope. In an escort-vs-escort fight the G1-armed ship is more likely to
This is at 0-12 MU though? The beam ship has to survive
to get that close, which is why I found that the NAC (or others) usually lost
if they let the UNSC get a volley
off at 12-18.
> I have two problems with this part of your analysis:
[ long analysis, more thorough than mine, munched ]
OK, you've convinced me that there really isn't a
difference - mathematically. On the tactical side
I need to fight some more battles against real people.
I suspect the *perception* that the graser-1 is a
better weapon because of the occasional megahit will be much harder to dispel,
and not just for me. I assume you've kept a copy of your message, you're
probably going to be cutting and pasting bits of
it for a while :-)
> >Lake Mk IV: replace the beam-2 and beam-1 on a III by a
OK, that's one "no" vote. I think that 31-55% increase in
the 12-18MU band is worth losing the extra 6 MU range from
the single beam-2, and that escorts are much better off
trying to dodge missiles than shoot them down. (And usually doomed if fighters
take a serious interest in them.) The Lake is fast enough that outflanking it
will be tricky, and it can rapidly close the range if necessary.
Anyone else?
> >Mountain Mk II: replace beam-2s and 1s by three 3 arc
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant 3 arc graser-1s with the
centre being port, starboard, and fore. More precisely, the grasers cover 7
o'clock to 1, 9 to 3, and 11 to 5. Same wide angle coverage for the bigger
ships.
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >First, is that comparing Mass of Grasers to beams is not sufficient.
Er, no. The hulls pay for their own advantages; their higher cost doesn't
affect the cost of the ship's weapons.
> >Third, Head-on passes against grasers are not the best way to
But it also brings the maximum number of *grasers* into action as soon as
possible. If you are outgunned (F) to (F) but can match or outmatch the enemy
(FP) to (FP) or (AP) to (AP), go for the broadside fight instead of
the head-on ones! (IME (AP) to (AP) is often easier to arrange than (FP)
to
(FP).)
> It's tempting to try and skirmish at 18-24 where the grasers can't hit
But this situation is even worse for the graser ships, for where the beam
ships only get into trouble if they get their range too short (less than
range 18) the graser ships get into trouble both if they get the range too
short (less than range 12) *and* if they get it too long (more than 18)
:-/
Later,
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >Hm. This sounds as if you were flying *very* slowly - 9 mu/turn or
15mu/turn still sounds rather fast for the head-on case, at least if
they want to keep each other in the (F) arcs rather than the (A) arc...
> >Excellent. Do you have the data in electronic format, BTW?
If you have time, please do so. I'd be very interested in seing it.
> >Nope. In an escort-vs-escort fight the G1-armed ship is more likely
0-12 and 18-24. When you take the first threshold after 2-3 pts, even 2
dice are dangerous... and four enemy ships firing 2 dice each can easily
cost you a ship :-/
> The beam ship has to survive to get that close,
Just like the graser ship and its weapons have to survive to get to range
18 :-/ (The weapons are in more danger of dying than the ship is, of
course.)
> I suspect the *perception* that the graser-1 is a
No doubt about it. In that way the Graser is no different from the previous
new Fleet Book weapons (Salvo Missiles, K-guns etc.) :-/
> >>Lake Mk IV: replace the beam-2 and beam-1 on a III by a
You haven't fought strikeboats much, then?
> and that escorts are much better off trying to dodge missiles than
In Cinematic close-range ships like the Lake IV can dodge missiles *or*
attempt to close the range, but they can very rarely do both at the same
time. An interesting tactical choice, really - do you dodge the missiles
and risk getting hammered by the enemy's longer-ranged weapons while
getting back into an attack position again, or do you close the range as
fast as you can and take the missiles on the chin? :-)
> (And usually doomed if fighters take a serious interest in them.)
The more of the fighters your escorts can take with them before dying, the
fewer fighters there'll be left to kill your capitals afterwards.
> The Lake is fast enough that outflanking it will be tricky,
Not really. Overflying it is quite easy to do in Cinematic (particularly in
head-on charges!), and for a wider-arced enemies that gives the same
effect as outflanking.
> and it can rapidly close the range if necessary.
Unless it has to dodge missiles, or gets overflown and ends up facing the
wrong way, or... :-)
> >>Mountain Mk II: replace beam-2s and 1s by three 3 arc
No, you were perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you :-/
While the armament you propose has the "same coverage" in the sense that it
allows some firepower to bear into the AP/AS arcs (though not into the
(A)
arc, if you use that optional rule), it brings *less* of the ship's
firepower to bear into those arcs than the current armament does - IOW,
it
makes those arcs weaker than they are now while making the FP/F/FS arcs
stronger. Let's take a look at how large a fraction of the secondary
armament the Mountain Mk I and Mk II can bring to bear into their AP/AS
arcs (I'm leaving the P-torp "main battery" out of it since it is the
same on both designs and would only clutter the tables up without really
adding anything):
Mountain Mk I secondary armament, range 0-12:
1xB2-6 + 2xB2-3 (AP/FP/F, F/FS/AS) + 2xB1-6: 8 Beam dice (dB) total
F: 8dB = 100%
FP/FS: 6 dB = 75%
AP/AS: 6 dB = 75%
(A: 4 dB = 50%)
Range 12-24:
1xB2-6 + 2xB2-3 (AP/FP/F, F/FS/AS):
F: 3dB = 100%
FP/FS: 2dB = 67%
AP/AS: 2dB = 67%
(A: 0 dG = 0%)
Proposed Mountain Mk II secondary armament:
3xG1 (AP/FP/F, FP/F/FS, F/FS/AS): 3 Graser dice (dG) total
F: 3dG = 100%
FP/FS: 2dG = 67%
AP/AS: 1dG = 33%
(A: 0 dG = 0%)
At range 0-12, the Mk I's 6 dB in the AP/AS arcs is nearly twice as much
firepower as the Mk II's 1 dG in the same arcs. The Mk II has an advantage
at range 12-18 even in these arcs, but is again weaker than the Mk I at
range 18-24.
In compensation the Mk II's FP/FS arcs are slightly stronger than the Mk
I's even at range 0-12, and its (F) arc is noticably stronger - but when
fighting a more manoeuvrable opponent in Cinematic, thrust-4 ships are
rather likely to end up with enemy ships in their AP/AS arcs.
(Particularly if the enemy is Kra'Vak, of course... and in the GZGverse
timeline the Mk II would be a Xeno War refit (just like the Lake Mk III, Luna
Mk II
etc.).
However, even thrust-6 human ships can outflank the Mountain.)
Later,