Last week had a little fight with Matt Siedl which went, IMHO, well. I used
Roman ships and he used K'V, with vector movement. I basically won due to
really good dice rolls (do NOT loose initiative when your dreadnought is
staring down another dreadnought armed with 8 pulse torpedos at a range under
12 MU) and one turn where the KV dreadnought was placed so that the only
target in its arc was an escort cruiser. I didn't think that tweaking the ship
designs further
specifically for vector (no multi-arc size 3 beams)
would matter that much, but it really seemed to put me on a more level playing
field with those lizards.
Am I the only person underimpressed with MD-5s? I
mean, really. They aren't likely to double and there's only a couple so each
missed dice roll really hurts the KV player. I'd rather go up against those
monsters than those cursed MD-2s sandpapering away my
ships (at an average 3.333 points of damage per shot). At least I can hope for
one or two bad dice rolls to waste my opponent's entire turn of capital ship
shooting. Law of averages catches up with me on the size 2s. And two hits from
them will, on average, do more damage than one from a size 5.
> Am I the only person underimpressed with MD-5s? I
They aren't?
> John Atkinson wrote:
[...]
> Am I the only person underimpressed with MD-5s? I
How well (or not well) was the K'V player rolling?? I mean, most times I've
seen the K5s used and hit, they do double (were you
guys rolling K-gun class and *greater* for doubling potential,
or K-gun class and *less*? should be "and less", so if you are
Aaron Teske you'll not likely double, but if you're me... ;-).
10 pts is (for most ships, anyway) difficult to recover from in one fell
swoop.
Mk
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Am I the only person underimpressed with MD-5s?
"MD-5"? I assume that you mean the class-5 K-gun (aka "K5"), but I'm not
entirely sure about it.
> I mean, really. They aren't likely to double
If you do mean the K5 they inflict double damage on 5/6ths of their
*hits*;
and their hit rate is identical to that of the Roman P-torps. If the K5s
"aren't likely to double", then your P-torps are almost as unlikely to
hit in the first place.
> and there's only a couple so each missed dice roll really hurts the KV
If the "MD-2s" inflict on average 3.333 pts *per shot*, then either your
"MD-x" family of weapons is something completely different from the FB2
K-guns or your maths are even more impressively inaccurate than they
were
last time you ranted about K-gun performance (at which time you blamed
your falty maths on your being solidly drunk when you wrote the rant in
question).
K2s inflict an average of 2.667 pts per *hit*, which is a pretty far cry
from the 3.333 pts *per shot* you claim here (unless of course Matt managed to
hit with more than 100% of the shots, but I kinda doubt that). In comparison
the K5 inflicts on average 9.167 pts *per hit*, which is
6.25%
less than the same Mass of K2 on a per-mass basis but gives a vastly
better armour penetration against armoured targets. Sucks if the KV only ever
fight unarmoured targets like your specialized anti-KV designs, of
course.
FWIW 2 hits from K2s are rather unlikely to exceed the damage from a single
K5 hit - it only happens if the K5 fails to double *and* at least one of
the K2s doubles, giving a probability of just under 10%.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Hey, I realized what we were doing wrong. I don't have the KV rules memorized
(why should I? I play humans) and Matt misunderstood them. We were doubling
if he rolled _over_ the size class. Makes class 5
ones pretty unimpressive for the mass. Don't mind me. I think I'm giving up on
Full Thrust.
> I think I'm giving up on Full Thrust.
To be replaced with...?
I don't see your Romans ceding space to anyone else.
The_Beast
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:34:27AM -0500, Doug Evans wrote:
I can see the advert in the Navy Times now...
WANTED: Grand Admiral
Must have a good grasp of practical politics.
By the time you read this, the decision has already been made.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Hey, I realized what we were doing wrong.
Good.
> I don't have the KV rules memorized (why should I? I play
In other words, you sent a fairly long post based on what *someone else*
*thought* the rule said *without checking whether or not he was right*. If you
had bothered to actually read the rule in question for yourself before you
posted, you could've saved yourself a bit of both typing and scathing
commments from others :-/
As I wrote in another thread yesterday, in order to change a rule in any
meaningful way you first have to know what it *actually* says - not just
what you *think* it says...
Regards,