> Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
I ran some numbers with the above masses and costs and compared them to the
Pulse torp and as a result, the Class 2 RG takes up half the mass of the PT,
does 14% more damage on average, and costs less! What a bargain.
Here are the tables:
Ave Dmg Mult 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6
RG 1 1 0.833 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 RG 2 2 3.333 2.667 2.000 1.333 0.667 RG 3
3 7.500 6.000 4.500 3.000 1.500 Pulse Torp 2.917 2.333 1.750 1.167 0.583
Dmg / Mass Mass
RG 1 1 0.833 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 RG 2 2 1.667 1.333 1.000 0.667 0.333 RG 3
4 1.875 1.500 1.125 0.750 0.375 Pulse Torp 4 0.729 0.583 0.438 0.292 0.146
Dmg / Cost Cost
RG 1 5 0.167 0.133 0.100 0.067 0.033 RG 2 10 0.333 0.267 0.200 0.133 0.067 RG
3 20 0.375 0.300 0.225 0.150 0.075 Pulse Torp 12 0.243 0.194 0.146 0.097 0.049
In the end I think the damage/cost needs to be much closer. Either
increase the mass of the larger railguns or increase their cost per mass. The
7.5 pts of damage for the Class 3 RG at close range is really mean for a mass
4 system (plus being 9 times as deadly as a class 1).
So how about increasing the mass for a Class 2 RG to 3 and the Class 3 RG to
6. This results in:
Dmg / Mass Mass
RG 1 1 0.833 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 RG 2 3 1.111 0.889 0.667 0.444 0.222 RG 3
6 1.250 1.000 0.750 0.500 0.250 Pulse Torp 4 0.729 0.583 0.438 0.292 0.146
Dmg / Cost Cost
RG 1 5 0.167 0.133 0.100 0.067 0.033 RG 2 15 0.222 0.178 0.133 0.089 0.044 RG
3 30 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 Pulse Torp 12 0.243 0.194 0.146 0.097 0.049
This looks better. The Class 2 dmg/cost is a bit below the Pulse torp
but
with 2 to-hit rolls instead of 1, it may work out since the percentage
of rolls without any damage is lower on the RG (2.8% chance total miss for a
class 2 RG at 2+ to-hit compared to a 16.7% chance of a total miss for a
Pulse Torp). In effect, the multiple rolls result in a bit of a shotgun
effect, greatly reducing the chance of a total miss (0.5% for a Class 3 at
2+, 58% at max range so 42% of the time a Class 3 RG will do at least 3
pts of damage at max range! Is that what we want?).
The Class 1 RG has lower numers but it would have a 2nd arc which all the
other lack.
OK, feedback time.
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Dean Gundberg wrote:
> OK, feedback time.
Ok Dean, I don't understand any of this -- Torpedoes have the same range
and hit numbers of Railguns, and do 1d6 damage at any range..
> From what I understand:
Class3 Railgun 0,3,6,9 damage - depending on dieroll
Class2 Railgun 0,2,4 damage - ""
Class1 Railgun 0,1 damage - ""
So how can your chart show a class2 raingun having a higher rating than a
torpedoes?
Help..
SA
> Steve Arrowsmith wrote:
What I showed was Average damage. The PT rolls 1 to-hit die (chance
depending on range) and then a die for damage (3.5 points on an average damage
roll).
So 3.5 times 5/6 (the chance of a hit at close range 2+) = 2.917 points
average
Class2 Railgun, same range, but 2 dice are rolled to-hit and each one
that
hits does 2 points of damage. Since 2 dice are rolled to-hit, none,
one, or
both may hit. So again at 2+ to hit range, 5/6 (chance to hit) times a
damage of 2 = 1.667 points of damage FOR EACH DIE. Since 2 dice are rolled, 2
times 1.667 = 3.333 points of damage on average for a Class2 Railgun at close
range.
Ave Dmg Mult 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6
RG 1 1 0.833 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 RG 2 2 3.333 2.667 2.000 1.333 0.667 RG 3
3 7.500 6.000 4.500 3.000 1.500 Pulse Torp 2.917 2.333 1.750 1.167 0.583
The Class3 Railgun gets extreme with its 3 dice rolled and each 'hit' doing 3
points of damage. As stated before at maximum range, 42% of the time one of
the 3 dice will be a 6 resulting in a hit and 3 points of damage. This is an
average damage of 1.5 points at a range of 30" where a Class3 Beam does.53
points at this range on average.
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 3 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 6 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
I've put these in the latest spreadsheet with the MT designs and it seems to
push the ship mass way
up, especially for the gun-toting ships.
In converting the MT designs is it better to fix the mass or the systems? I've
been fixing systems but the mass and points go up way too much.
Next I'll fix the mass to ~ double that in MT
and re-design using the MT ship design as a guide.
> Dean wrote:
Nice crunch and analysis.
> In effect, the multiple rolls result in a bit of
I'm not sure we do as the original premise was that it became harder to
predict at longer range, and 42% chance of doing 3 points seems way too high.
The only way to justify it is the bigger guns go faster. I would say I'm 42%
satisfied with the current proposal.
Aye, and where might said sheet be had??
JimC
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tim Jones" <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Railguns Number-Crunched
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:14:27 -0000
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Class 1 Railgun (2-arc fire) - 1 MASS
Class 2 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 3 MASS
Class 3 Railgun (1-arc fire) - 6 MASS
POINT COST = 5 per MASS
I've put these in the latest spreadsheet with the MT designs and it seems to
push the ship mass way
up, especially for the gun-toting ships.
In converting the MT designs is it better to fix the mass or the systems? I've
been fixing systems but the mass and points go up way too much.
Next I'll fix the mass to ~ double that in MT
and re-design using the MT ship design as a guide.
tim jones
> JimC wrote:
> Aye, and where might said sheet be had??
<aside> Hopefully no evil html attachment this time if you cut a paste a URL
in MS outlook it does
bad things (tm) to your text/plain message, this
was lovingly typed by hand.
</aside>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/kv-fb-design.html
bottom of the page.