I had written:
> The Graser-1, for its mass and within
Oerjan had written:
> This is part of your problem. You're
Fair enough, I'll look at it from a cost angle. But, you cannot just look at
weapon systems alone, especially when it comes to cost. They do not operate in
a vacuum.:) The mass matters on how much you can put into a given ship's
space, which is why the mass vs. mass comparisons were done. Now it's time for
a cost comparison, but the cost is also reflected in the support system: the
entire ship.
I wasn't sure how to do this, except to go ahead and design two ships with the
same cost
of Beams and Graser-1s (G1). The ship armed
with Beams is designed with a mix of Class-1
(B1) and Class-2 (B2) Beams. I tried to keep
them as similar as possible (i.e., hull size). Total cost of the weapons for
each ship, not counting PDS, is 108. Comparing the effectiveness of each
weapon grouping for mass had the two types of weapons being nearly equal.
"Beamster" Mass: 99; NPV: 342; Hull: 27, 4 rows; FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3;
Armament:
8x B1, 8x B2 (3-arc), 4x B2 (6-arc).
"Grazoriani" Mass: 86; NPV: 321; Hull: 27, 4 rows; FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3;
Armament:
5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
To be fair, since "Grazoriani" does not have
the defensive capability similar to class-1
Beams, I also made a design with 3 additional PDS which is well more than the
number of PDS
on a similar-sized Fleet Book 1 ship.
"Grazoriani 2" Mass: 90; NPV: 336; Hull: 27, 4 rows; FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 6;
Armament:
5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
"Grazoriani" is 21 NPV cheaper than "Beamster". "Grazoriani 2" is 6 NPV
cheaper than "Beamster".
So, in conclusion, the Graser is cheaper than the Beam with the same damage
potential.
I also designed a ship with the G1 having
masses of 3/4/5 and costing 3 per mass. But
the cost change also affects the larger class of Grasers which is probably not
a good thing. This design has 105 cost in Grasers.
"Grazoriani X" Mass: 98; NPV: 338; Hull: 27, 4 rows; FTL; MD 4; FC: 3; PDS: 3;
Armament:
5x G1 (3-arc), 3x G1 (6-arc).
I think I'd rather stick with the the current Graser masses and cost. But, my
main complaint
is really about the 6-arc G1. So I made a
design with the 6-arc G1 having a mass of 5.
It looks like "Grazoriani" with one less
3-arc G1. Yes, a little less damage
potential than "Beamster", but also 21 NPV cheaper.
I still would like to see the mass of the
6-arc class-1 Graser be increased to 5. Right
now I do not see an incentive to use a 3-arc
class-1 Graser. For 1 more mass, (I'm sorry,
for a 33% increase in mass one gets 50% increase in arc), you have a powerful
weapon system that can fire in any direction.
Glen
When thinking of increasingly futuristic systems one expects more bang for
less mass. If the points cost balances this out it makes the
battles more playable. It looks as if Graser-1 arc cost is what needs
to be readdressed.
On the lighter side I pay with Glen and Steve. They tend to use a combination
of improbability drive and bad news drive so statisics don't realy count.
Andy A
> From: <bail9672@bellsouth.net>
> Glen Bailey wrote:
> This is part of your problem. You're
Of course they don't. That's why I wrote, in the section immediately after the
one you quoted above:
> If you, as you did in one of your previous posts, compare 1x G1-6 (4
The Graser costs only about 20% more than its own Mass of beams instead of
the 33% more the straight per-Mass count suggests *precisely because* it
doesn't operate in a vacuum. The "missing" ~13% are due to the fact that
the beams require larger engines to achieve the same thrust rating, a
larger hull structure to hold them etc. - and the costs for these bits
also
have to be included in an "equal-cost" comparison", even though they are
"hidden" in the ship design system.
> I wasn't sure how to do this, except to go
Since you need to include the "hidden" part of the weapon cost in the
comparison as well as the actual per-Mass cost, it is actually quite
simple: design two ships which have the same points cost (or as close as
you can make it), the same thrust rating, the same hull and armour integrity
(in # of boxes, not as a percentage of the TMF), and the same
#
of FCSs and PDSs - ie., don't change *anything* except the armament and
the TMF. OK, in this case you may want to change the number of PDSs to account
for the B1s' PD capabilities just like you did for the Grazoriani 2 below, but
if the Beamster had carried more B2s and fewer B1s you wouldn't have
needed this either.
> "Beamster"
The Grazoriani's average damage at range 0-18 is 22.4 pts in its best
fire arc; the Beamster's average damage in its best arc is 25.6 pts at range
0-12 and 9.6 at range 12-24. IOW the Beamster outguns the Grazoriani at
ranges 0-12 (where both ships could potentially destroy the other with a
single salvo, though the Beamster is more likely to kill the Grazoriani in
this way than the other way around) and 18-24 (where the Beamster can
shave off a bit over one Grazoriani hull row per salvo but the Grazoriani
can't reply at all); the only range where the Grazoriani has a firepower
advantage is range 12-18. All in all I wouldn't consider the
Grazoriani's firepower to be as good as the Beamster's.
However, in this comparison both ships spend 153 pts on its hull integrity
and non-weapon systems - but while the Grazoriani spends 168 pts on its
weapons (and their supporting engines etc.), the Beamster spends 189 pts on
its weapons (incl. supporting engines etc.). 168 =|= 189, so it isn't
very surprising if the Grazoriani is a bit outgunned overall! If you add an
extra Graser to the Grazoriani (a 3-arc brings its NPV up to 339, a
4-arc
to 344) you bring the total weapon costs for both ships up to about the same
level (189 for the Beamster vs 186 or 191 for the Grazoriani).
This change brings the Grazoriani's best-arc average damage up to 25.2
pts,
ie. effectively matching the Beamster's best-arc 25.6 pts at range 0-12
and
increasing its superiority at range 12-18; but of course it doesn't make
it
any more able to return fire at range 18-24 or improve its PD
capability.
> "Grazoriani 2"
And it is outgunned by the Beamster at range 0-12 and 18-24, in addition
to having weaker point defences.
> "Grazoriani 2" is 6 NPV cheaper than "Beamster".
And it is outgunned by the Beamster at range 0-12 and 18-24 :-/
> So, in conclusion, the Graser is cheaper than
Depends on how you define "same damage potential", I suppose. As already
noted above, I'd rate both of your Grazoriani designs as having slightly
less firepower than your Beamster design.
[...]
> Right now I do not see an incentive to use a 3-arc
I'm not particularly worried about this. Phalon Pulsers use exactly the same
Mass progression as the G1s do, and in our recorded playtest battles
to date the 3- and 6-arc Pulsers have inflicted about as much damage per
cost - for the Pulser-C (12mu range) the 6-arc version is marginally
better
than the 3-arc one, but increasing the Mass of the 6-arc version to 5
would
make it distinctly inferior instead; for the -M and -L tunings (24mu and
36mu range respectively) they're almost exactly equal, so again increasing
the Mass of the 6-arc Pulser would make it distinctly inferior to the
3-arc
one. While there aren't nearly as many recorded Graser battles yet as Pulser
ones, so far at least the G1s have followed the same pattern as the Pulsers.
Of course, these playtests all used the Fleet Book "no (A) arc fire" and
"no (A) arc fire if the main drive was used" rules, while IIRC your group
allows unrestricted fire through the (A) arc (at least you used to do this;
not sure if you still do?); this probably is why your group finds 6-arc
weapons so much more attractive than other groups do.
(There's little doubt that your group finds 6-arc weapons more
attractive than other groups do, because between the three of you Steve, you
(Glen)
and Andrew Apter have provided about 5% of the warships designs in my
design archive (78 of ~1500 - the exact count depends on where you draw
the
line between "warship" and "heavily armed auxiliary" :-/ ), yet you've
provided nearly half of all B3s with more than 3 arcs and nearly
one-third
of all B2-6s.)
Regards,
> >Fair enough, I'll look at it from a cost
Given that it's a starship weapon, that should make it really, really
cheap :-)