> Schoon wrote:
> BPS Pricing: the log scale doesn't work. Since range is the same
A C3-5 beams is more than 8 times better than a C1-6, which is why the
C1 has its point defence capability in addition to the anti-ship
firepower.
However, depending on what power generation system you use you can't
even be certain that a bigger BPS is better than a smaller one - eg, in
Beth's original HBW rule Size 3 or 4 capacitors were better overall
than a Size 6 since they all reloaded just as fast :-/
> BE Pricing: same story. Three BEs are only 3 times as effective as 1
IMO 3 arcs aren't even 3 times as effective as 1 arc. Again I think the
FB1 C3 is a good example - increasing the number of arcs from 1 to 3
increases the Mass of the weapon by only 50%. The Mass of the entire weapon,
> However, a BE attached to a Class 3 is also 3 times as deadly as a BE
It needs to be factored into the Mass of the entire weapon, not the mass of
the individual emitter. Sure, you won't get exact balance between all
combinations of BPS and BE, but you don't have exact balance between all
variants of normal beam weapons either (which is
why you see so many C2-3s and almost no C3-6s out there). Make sure
that the *best* BPS/BE combination is balanced, and the rest will take
care of themselves.
> Noam wrote:
> HBW's are Heavy Weapons - minimally equivalent to class
The really big generators have just the same chance to go down to thresholds
as the smaller ones. However, they can be reasonably balanced by setting the
generator Mass appropriately. Don't limit yourself to a linear relationship
between Class and Mass, is all.
> As for Rerolls - No. 17% more damage (I think)
No, 20% more damage. 17% of the total after you've added the re-roll
:-)
> Dean wrote:
> One point on this that has not been made is that weapons that ignore
Sub-Munition Packs get re-rolls, but they ignore screens.
Noam and Tom:
> The better comparison is the SML+ Magazine, and that's so subject to
If it was only the threshold part of the SM(L+M) you wanted analysed,
it is quite easy to do :-) Even easier than calculating the average
damage inflicted against a fixed number of PDSs; I did both of those
last spring <g> A total analysis of the SMs, though - ie, including the
hit probability etc... that's beyond me :-(
> You Betcha. Anyone careless enough to get in that close and inside
If the weapon is big enough in comparison to the damage it inflicts, it isn't
particularly unbalanced IMO.
> Average [SM damage] is 12.25 minus 2.6 per PDS.
That's a bit too high - 2.5 for the 1st PDS, 2.1 for the 2nd against
the same salvo, 1.8 for the 3rd, etc.
> And I'll hazard to say FBII will make the mods of the
<G>
Graeme and Schoon:
> HBW's on the other hand have the added benefit of allowing a two turn
Graeme's argument is very viable indeed. If I have a weapon which can inflict
20 points on yours on turn 1 but then can't fire on turn 2 while you have a
weapon which will inflict 10 points each turn, I have a better chance to knock
your weapon out on turn 1 than you have to knock out mine. If I do knock your
weapon out on turn 1, there's a good
chance that you don't get to fire on turn 2 - and then the average
damage I inflicted is twice yours, in spite of both weapons having the *same*
theoretical average damage. Damage now is better than damage next turn, as
long as it is applied to a relevant target (eg, not BJs
<G>).
Noam:
> (and less than half as efficient per die from 18-30").
I don't understand why Noam keeps harping about "efficiency per die"
instead of efficiency per MASS - the former is says absolutely nothing,
the latter virtually everything... a C3-1 battery throws more dice than
a P-torp, so it too has a lower efficency per die than the P-torp
except at range 30+, but the damage/mass ratios are similar. Sure, the
P-torp and the C3 use very different mechanics to determine the damage,
but the difference between the P-torp and the HBW is fairly big as well
:-/
Kr'rt:
> I always cringe a little (a lot) when people talk about weapon
Yeah, sure. Matildas and Shermans are much more stylish than King Tigers, so
why not represent them all with identical stats in a WWII tactical game?
Best wishes,
> It needs to be factored into the Mass of the entire weapon, not the
Agreed.
> Graeme's argument is very viable indeed. If I have a weapon which can
See my previous response to Graeme
> I don't understand why Noam keeps harping about "efficiency per die"
Actually that should be (Avg Damage)(Arc Area)/(Mass)
> Schoon wrote:
> >Graeme's argument is very viable indeed. If I have a weapon which
> You cannot accurately factor this into the statistics; thus I kept
Eventually, yes (assuming that the "some damage each turn" isn't crippled by
the opening salvoes of the "heavy damage some turns" force). However, in my
experience this "eventually" tends to be longer than an average FB battle
lasts.
You can't *accurately* factor this into the statistics, but you mustn't
ignore it either - which you seem to have done. You need to be aware of
it, and of the fact that it makes the "heavy damage some turns" weapons
more powerful in a average-length battle than the raw statistics
indicate.
> You can't add "bad piloting" into the equation.
OTOH, you seem to assume "completely random piloting" into the equation
(see below) :-/
> I don't understand why Noam keeps harping about "efficiency per die"
I assume "that" refers to what Noam calls efficiency per die, or something?
Makes it quite a bit clearer, yes. If it had been defined
somewhere in the debate, I missed it - sorry about that.
This is one way to weigh in different ranges and arcs. I'd say that
this overvalues long-range weapons somewhat - the difference between
the 1:4:9 progression for 1:2:3 range bands this formula gives isn't very far
from the empirical QnD 1:3:6 one I use, but even the QnD
formula is a bit hard on the longer-ranged weapons.
However, my main problem with this formula is that it assumes completely
random maneuvers (or, more accurately, completely random target locations)
when computing the value of wide fire arcs. If you assume that the players are
attempting to point their weapons at the
enemy, 2-arc weapons aren't worth twice as much as 1-arc weapons, and
6-arc weapons definitely aren't worth 6 times as much, yet the formula
seems to suggest that they are.
IME, 6-arc weapons are worth roughly twice as much of the 1-arc one (in
Cinematic, less in Vector). Maybe as much as three times more in the
hands of players unused to single-arc weapons, but that'd leave the
narrow-arc weapons too good in the hands of an experienced player.
Later,
> You can't *accurately* factor this into the statistics, but you mustn't
Yes and no. I see your point, but let's say HB armed ships A & B both have
empty BPSs. On the first turn A expends the EPs, and B saves them. On the
second turn, both expend all available Eps. Both have expended the same number
of EPs, though at different points over the two turns. Which is more
effective?
The answer can only be: it depends on the situation. Maybe by holding his EPs,
A suffers a threshold which takes down his facing BE (or worse his BPS). Maybe
by holding them, A is able to deliver a critical blow on the second turn.
My belief is that you've got to "call" the What-Ifs somewhere, and
that's why I tend to rely on the statistics I've detailed in previous
messages. It's not perfect, but it tends to balance out in the long run. And
by "long run" I mean many games; not just one battle.
> However, my main problem with this formula is that it assumes
See my previous comments on situation vs. statistics.
> IME, 6-arc weapons are worth roughly twice as much of the 1-arc one (in
This is actually a good point, though I think that I'd go with:
1 Arc = 1 3 Arc = 2 6 Arc = 4
> Schoon wrote:
> You can't *accurately* factor this into the statistics, but you
The only way they'll have empty BPSs at the start of a battle is if they've
taken threshold damage to the BPS before they get to fire their first salvo.
Yes, that can happen, but the risk for that is about as
big for P-torp-armed ships.
> On the first turn A expends the EPs, and B saves them. On the
Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first turn, A is
more effective. It has had a chance to take out at least some enemy weapons on
turn 1; B hasn't had that chance.
IME you are very likely to have a worthwhile target to shoot at during your
initial attack run (when your HBWs are almost guaranteed to have fully loaded
BPSs).
IOW, the situation you describe above is most likely to occur in the
*middle* of a battle - but by that time, the HBW force has already
fired their heavy first blow and their opponents have some serious
catching up to do :-/
> It's not perfect, but it tends to balance out in the long run. And by
The BPSs are fully loaded the start of each battle, so you'll never get this
"heavy first blow" effect completely averaged out. I strongly suspect you
won't even get close to averaging it out.
> My belief is that you've got to "call" the What-Ifs somewhere, and
When you call the what-ifs, you need to bring in empirical or
experimental data into your evaluation - eg, as I did in the section on
fire arcs below. What you can't do (and still get a reasonably accurate
result) is to just ignore them.
> IME, 6-arc weapons are worth roughly twice as much of the 1-arc one
IOW you consider all variable-arc FB1 weapons to pay too little for
their extra arcs.
How often do you use 3-arc C2 or C3 batteries, compared to how often
you use 5- or 6-arced ones?
Regards,
> The only way they'll have empty BPSs at the start of a battle is if
The chance of having initial fire disrupted is actually twice that of
P-Torps because of the dual nature of the system. either the BPS or BEs
could be knocked out by an initial threshold. Having the BPS taken down
also affects all the BEs on a ship, unlike P-Torps.
> Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first turn, A
I was assuming that B was holding fire for a closer range shot. My example was
meant to have A & B in identicle circumstances, not simply as abstract
individuals.
> IME you are very likely to have a worthwhile target to shoot at during
Depends on if you gamble for the closer range shot.
> IOW, the situation you describe above is most likely to occur in the
True.
> The BPSs are fully loaded the start of each battle, so you'll never get
Actually, given our present discussion, I'd say that BPSs would start the
game empty (PSB - they can't hold a charge over extended periods of
time).
> When you call the what-ifs, you need to bring in empirical or
Also true, but we need to have a rules basis set so we CAN get down to the
playtesting phase. The we'll discover if the statistical data is flawed or
not.
Look at MT, someone thought that the 1st incarnation of the Kra'Vak were
balanced (which playtesting obviously disproved), or the Sa'Vasku playtested
against the Kra'Vak at GenCon two years ago (which served to
prove they'd been overbalanced from their previous incarnation - the K'V
got severely spanked).
> IOW you consider all variable-arc FB1 weapons to pay too little for
No. They actually hold up very well to statistical and playtest results.
> How often do you use 3-arc C2 or C3 batteries, compared to how often
5 arc C3s are indeed, quite rare. However 6 arc C2s are relatively common.
Part of the reason for this is that Beam batteries are specifically designed
to loose efficiency as their class increases, so it's not cost efficient to
buy a 5 or 6 arc C3. How many times do you see C4s in regular play, much less
one with multiple arcs: they aren't cost efficient.
> Schoon wrote:
> The only way they'll have empty BPSs at the start of a battle is if
It is less than twice as big if you compare 1 BPS + 1 BE vs 1 P-torp,
because some of the time you'll lose both the BPS *and* the BE but you still
won't lose more than all your firepower for that turn.
If you are talking about a class 2+ BPS, you have to compare it with 2+
P-torps; while they are unlikely to lose all of their number to an
early threshold check, they're likely to lose *some* of their firepower
- which reduces the penalty for multi-system HBWs further still. It
doesn't go away entirely, but it isn't very big either.
> Having the BPS taken down also affects all the BEs on a ship, unlike
You mean all the BEs linked to that BPS, no? I seem to recall some discussion
on allowing multiple BPSs on a ship, but each BE being linked to only one of
them.
Anyway; multiple BEs linked to a single BPS reduces the HBW sensitivity
to threshold checks and puts it closer that of to single-system weapons
(since only the BPS is truly critical if you have multiple BEs).
> Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first turn,
Which is equivalent to assuming that A did not have a worthwhile target to
shoot at on the first turn, ie the opposite of what I was assuming. Fair
enough.
> IME you are very likely to have a worthwhile target to shoot at
No, but it depends a bit on whether or not you win the initiative on
the turn you close from range 30-40 to range 9-15, and also on which of
the enemy's fire arcs end that turn in :-/
> The BPSs are fully loaded the start of each battle, so you'll never
time).
In our games the opposing fleets are usually deployed 70-90 mu apart,
with the first salvoes being fired on turn 2 (or turn 3, if someone is flying
slowly). Since your BPSs recharge at the start of the turn, the
first HBW shot will be fully-charged in our games no matter their
status at the start of the game.
> When you call the what-ifs, you need to bring in empirical or
Wide vs narrow fire arcs vs maneuvering: Draw on all your previous FT gaming
experience.
HBW damage patterns: Draw on your EFSB playing experience.
Multi-system weapon sensitivity to thresholds: Draw on your SM(L+M)
experience.
IOW, there already is playtest experience available which applies to several
of the problematic areas of the HBW rule. Of course you also need to playtest
the actual rule, but by looking at similar systems you can avoid being
surprised by the things you ignored in the statistics.
> Look at MT, someone thought that the 1st incarnation of the Kra'Vak
I don't remember any details from the GenCon battle reports, so I can't
comment on them.
The MT KV is a very good example of what happens when you neither
playtest enough nor number-crunch enough - or possibly what happens
when you try to do a pure mathematical analysis and ignore features you need
empirical data on, eg the interaction between KV engines and
single-arc weapons.
The latter case is exactly how I percieve your HBW analysis.
> IOW you consider all variable-arc FB1 weapons to pay too little for
Assuming the C2-3 and C3-1 batteries are correctly priced at 2 and 4
Mass respectively, your 1:2:4 mass progression for 1:3:6 arcs would mean:
C2-6: Mass 4 instead of 3
C3-3: Mass 8 instead of 6
C3-6: Mass 16 instead of 9
Alternatively, if you assume the C3-3 to be the correctly balanced
member of the C3 family, your mass progression would put the C3-1 at
Mass 3 (instead of FB1's 4) and the C3-6 at Mass 12 (instead of 9).
So, I have to ask... if you consider the FB1 mass costs for extra arcs to be
correct, why would you set the cost for extra arcs much higher than FB1 does?
> How often do you use 3-arc C2 or C3 batteries, compared to how often
<chuckle> The mass ratio between a C3-5 and a C2-6 (8/3 = 2.67) is
*less* than the mass ratio between a C3-3 and a C2-3 (6/2 = 3).
If, and this if is important, you consider C3-3s and C2-3s to be
balanced against one another and you don't take piloting into the
equation, your formula seems to say that the C3-5 is a *better* buy
than the C2-6 (since you usually can't use the (A) arc anyway because
of using the main drives)...
...and in spite of this you think the C3-5 isn't cost effective but the
C2-6 is? You must've drawn on playing experience here, not on your
formula <G>
> How many times do you see C4s in regular play, much less one with
Apart for playtest battles, about a third of my battles feature C4 batteries.
Their efficiency depends a lot on the size of your table, and which
arcs you're using - C4-1s can be very effective in Vector, or in
Cinematic if mounted in the AP or AS arcs (ask Noam about this!), but
I've found symmetrically-mounted C4-3s better than C4-1(F)s in
Cinematic since the ships carrying them invariably want to keep the range
open... but in all these cases you need a table big enough that a
range of 40+ mu doesn't cover virtually all of it.
Regards,
> On the first turn A expends the EPs, and B saves them. On the
> Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first turn,
Question: Doesn't it depend on _where_ A and B are when this comparison
is made?
Assume valid targets for both.
Situation 1: Close range punchout. A has a distinct advantage, delivering more
damage sooner.
Situation 2: Medium/low speed approach run. A half fires its load from
some distance, while B fires all at close range. Since HBW is really a close
range weapon, if A fires at ranges greater than 18" (or 12" vs screen 1, or 6"
vs. screen 2) it's likely to do far less damage than B would uloading at least
6" closer.
Situation 3: High speed strafe: B has the distinct advantage (at the risk of
being attacked at medium/long range and knocked out by those weapons). A
fires half at extreme range, for marginal damage, and fires half the dice
close in.
Relative advantage of A over B is requires some quantization of how often each
situations encountered.
> IME you are very likely to have a worthwhile target to shoot at during
But how you close the range is critical to the effect of the weapon, and
whether A or B is the better way.
> Noam wrote:
> > Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first
"Assuming A had had a worthwhile target to shoot at on the first
turn,..."
Yes, it does. If A was at extreme range, it had no worthwhile target to shoot
at on the first turn and should not have fired.
In the first attack run in a battle, which was the situation I was discussing,
neither A nor B will have *any* target at all until they
reach range ~12 - OK, if the range 36 HBW is used they *might* have an
opportunity to fire at range 35 or so, but again that is not what I consider
to be a "worthwhile target".
If you already are at range 12 and not in the enemy (A) arc - which is
unlikely during the first attack run in a battle - waiting to reach
range 6 is not a very smart thing to do. The risk of being savaged is
considerable, as is the risk of overshooting.
> Assume valid targets for both.
> Situation 2: Medium/low speed approach run. A half fires its load from
Assuming any maneuvers whatsoever, situations A and B are virtually identical.
If B doesn't fire at range 18 or so and its current
vector/velocity will allow it to fire at a better range next turn, it
becomes a priority target. In a low/ medium speed approach, A and B
have already been under fire for a turn when they reach range 18, and
another turn of concentrated close/medium range fire will do no good at
all for ship B's chances to fire on the next turn.
> Situation 3: High speed strafe: B has the distinct advantage (at the
In this situation, A does not have a valid target - usually does not
have *any* target - on turn 1, and on turn 3 A and B will both have
overflown their targets. Both ships have to fire on turn 2, so A = B.
Regards,