From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:50:59 -0500
Subject: [FT] Weapons comparison
> From the Alarishi Naval Architects, a quick analysis: Comparing weapons, we take 60 Mass worth of each weapon, all bought with 3 arcs: 5@Class 4=16/16/12/12/8/8/4/4 10@Class 3=24/24/16/16/8/8 30@Class 2=48/48/24/24 60@Class 1=48/48 60@Submun=144/96/48 10@P Torps=29/23/17.5/12/6 The numbers are the damage anticipated for the given number of weapons in each 6" range increment. Thus 60 Class 1 Beams would be expected to do 48 points of damage at range 6 and 12", and none after that. Factors not considered in the above: 1) screens reduce the effect of beams 2) armor affects incoming damage differently depending on the weapon 3) class 1's have PDS ability and 6 arcs available 4) fewer (larger) weapons mean that, when you lose one to a threshold roll, you lose a comparatively large percentage of your firepower On the other hand, more (smaller) weapons mean you're more likely to lose at least some of them, and you will have more things to have to split your DCP's among. My feeling (ie I haven't done the math) is that you're actually better off with a few large systems than a lot of small systems, if they produce the same damage at the range you wish to maintain. 5) SMR's are subject to too many variables to subject to this sort of analysis. The lesson from this chart (or rather, the lesson that I picked up) is that the ability to maintain the range you want is likely the most important factor in victory (other than hot dice). If you have a battlecruiser with a couple of Class 4 beams, you can plink away at the enemy and win, as long as you can stay out of his range. On the other hand, if you have Class 2's and he has Class 3's, then you want to get to knife-fighting range and stay there. This in turn implies that perhaps the most important factor about a ship is its speed, and the captain's ability to use it. Argument?