Finally got to test out the graser beams. The general consensus is that they
are too strong. But, this is in regard to us using lots of
class-1
Grasers with 6 arcs. IMO, the mass is too small, its the same as a SMR (mass
4) and someone made the claim that it was like having an
unlimited supply of missiles. The mass of a 6-arc class-1 Graser
should
probably be 5. I had a mass-244 ship with 6 SMRs and lots of beams.
I swapped out the 6 SMRs for 6-arc class-1 Grasers and toasted
ships with them.
I also tried out a 1-arc class-1 Graser strike boat, mass at 7,
costing 30 (main drive was advanced). I got 33 for 1000 points, lost 7 and
destroyed a dreadnought-sized ship. Steve had made a similar one
costing 49 that had a 6-arc class-1 Graser (and an armor).
Glen
> Finally got to test out the graser beams. The general consensus is
Great, battle reports. Since some others have voiced this same concern, I have
some questions so we can better understand how it was used in battle and make
sure other factors didn't play a part in this concensus.
How was the dice rolling? High, medium or low?
> IMO, the mass is too small, its the same as a
What if you replaced those 6 G1-6s with 8 Beam2-6arcs, would it have
been similar? Would the extra 6" of range of the B2 have made a difference?
What was the normal engagement range? Did your opponant try and keep away or
close?
> I also tried out a 1-arc class-1 Graser strike boat, mass at 7,
Did all 33 go against a single DN? 33 fire cons vs maybe 4? That kind of
battle can give weird results. Try it again with the same strike boats but
with a single Beam2-3arc and see how it goes (you can actually field 35
of the Beam2 versions for 1000 pts, 38 if they have normal drives)
Thanks again for testing the Graser,
Also, was this using cinematic or vector rules?
Kevin Walker
> On 3/15/04 9:32 PM, "Star Ranger" <dean@star-ranger.com> wrote:
> Did all 33 go against a single DN? 33 fire cons vs maybe 4? That
> Glen wrote:
> Finally got to test out the graser beams. The general consensus is
> I also tried out a 1-arc class-1 Graser strike boat, mass at 7,
Since the battle I described a few weeks back my group have been continuing to
use the grazer armed vessels I designed, and though the players involved think
the graser is powerful they do not think it is any more deadlyl than
the equivilent mass of k-guns. The graser armed vessels have lost as
many battles as they have won, fighting numerous types of foes with differing
doctrines and weapon systems. Like all full thrust weapons, no matter how
powerful, if you get your move wrong, and your opponent gets his right, you
are toast no matter what he's firing at you!
Take the example cited of 33 graser armed gunboats decking an SDN. Was this
because they were armed with grasers specifically? I think not. Arm all those
gunboats with submunissions packs, pulse torps or whatever and after 33 have
let rip I would think most SDN's would be glowing red and covered in holes!
I'm a graser fan. I like them, and I use them responsibly. But if people think
they are too powerful then I'am afraid I will have to demand
K-guns
get the axe as well ;-), after all K-guns cut through armour, ignore
screens
and have a 5/6 chance on k-5 or bigger of ruining any ships day with a
single hit. Graser's make me afraid, but K-guns TERRIFY me...but I
wouldn't want them changed, they keep me on my toes!
Regards,
Excellent point, Matt. That's why dean and O.O. keep asking for the details of
the engagements (why so few responses? Are the rest of you as
bad as I am in keeping track/records of the action during games?) so
they
can see if there is a Uber-weapon to be aware warps the game or if a
particular tactic/weapon works in situation "x" devastatingly but is
useless in siyuation "y" - just like in history. The British in the age
of sail found that certain tactics were better versus French ships (who
preferred long range sniping) then the Americans (Big, Mean, Short range
carronades.)
Like I know that much about naval games...
Gracias, Glenn
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:59:46 -0000 "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>
writes:
> Glen wrote:
First, all of our battles were cinematic. Most ships
had level-1 screens; except for some small ships
(massing 24-34) that died instantly a Graser was
turned on them.
> Finally got to test out the graser beams. The general
All of the above.:) What really skewed things were the rerolls. We had a
couple strings of 6s on rerolls.
For example, a DD, with 4x 5-arc class-1 Grasers,
hit with only 2 but one roll was a 6. The rerolls produced 9 damage dice. My
battle winning salvo was with 6x
6-arc class-1 Grasers (replacing the 6 salvo missile racks)
that did 30 damage, plus lots of beam damage (10-15?),
and destroyed a 244 mass ship that had suffered one threshold beforehand. Is
this the effect you want?
The target had a level-1 screen.
FYI: My ship also had 6x class-3 Beams (2x 6-arc,
4x 5-arc), 3x class-2 Beams (6x 6-arc), 4x class-1
Beams, MD2 (total mass of 244).
> IMO, the mass is too small, its the same as a
The enemy had mostly tried a flanking maneuver to
get their Pulse-torp & Beam-3 equipped MD4 ships
to our MD2 ships' rears. We were going around in circles as they tried to
avoid getting within 18", but once they did it was all over. My ally, Steve,
had his WW2
BB-styled ships, about 10x class-1 K-guns as his main
batteries but had swapped out his secondaries for Graser-1s.
The Grasers outperformed every other weapon by
a large margin. We had 6-arc Graser-1s, they had
some Graser-2s on one ship but it got separated from
the main group (it had MD2 while others had MD4). He did get initiative but
completely missed with the
Graser-2s. I made him pay for that mistake. :)
He did have a level-1 screen.
(Andy, Mat: that was Phil)
I'm thinking that the class-1 Graser masses should be:
1-arc: 4, 3-arc: 6, 6-arc: 9. Except for range, it is
much better than a Pulse Torpedo Launcher. A mass
of 4 for a 1-arc G-1 is probably on par with the
4-mass 1-arc PTL. The PTL has range, but only
ever can do 1d6 damage and at long range has a slim chance to hit. The Graser
has unlimited damage potential. Maybe it should have no rerolls, or be limited
to 1 reroll?
> I also tried out a 1-arc class-1 Graser strike
It was 3 people vs. 2 people, 3000 points per side. I had 1000 points which
bought the 33 strike boats. My two allies were taking a pounding, but also
dishing it out. When my strikeboats made their attack run at the time the main
combatants were closing it was a maelstrom of fire from everyone onto
everyone. My allies fired their ships before I did, the enemy had several
large ships that tossed a few shots at my strikeboats. They were claiming they
could take out 20 in a turn. They took out 7, mostly because they fired many
weapons at my allies' large ships and also missed a couple of mine. It did
take the remaining 26 to destroy the
what-was-intact DN (mass was about 134-154,
okay, maybe a BB) with some overkill. It had no screens.
This is probably the one instance where escort ships can make a difference: to
keep away the "torpedo boats" as what happened in the real world. No one,
besides me, in this battle had any ship smaller than 134 mass.
A class-2 Beam vs. a class-1 Graser? There is no
comparison. Forgetting about rerolls, an unscreened target will take 2 damage
on a roll of 6 from the Beam (or 4 damage on two 6s at close range), but 2d6
damage from the Graser (averaging 7). That extra 6" of range for the Beam?
Sometimes it may make a difference, but oh woe is the target that gets within
18".
Now, on the other hand, a 3-arc Graser-3 has the mass
of 36. This is equivalent to 6x 3-arc Pulse Torpedo
Launchers. I'll take the PTLs. Hmm, but that potential of 2d6 damage out to
range 54" has me wondering....:)
Our playing space was approximately 6' x 8' with no "boundaries", and we used
no "terrain".
Glen
> bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> The Grasers outperformed every other weapon by
[...]
It is a fair statement to make, but it is also fair to consider that different
tactics need to be employed when facing Graser weapons. We
all found the same when the K-guns on the Kra'Vak first appeared. People
started clamoring that the K-guns outperformed every other weapon. It
wasn't until different tactics were developed that the K-gun "appeared"
to become more nominal. Ditto the pulsers and Sa'Vasku weapons (although the
S'V still have some issues that need to be dealt with and have been through
playtester feedback and houserules). I've personally had very little time to
play with the Grasers prior to the beta release here (and then it was
primarily the earlier versions), but what I've seen
of it's current development I think it will be okay - as soon as new
tactics are developed. :-)
> I'm thinking that the class-1 Graser masses should be:
Beam batteries have unlimited damage potential as well. I remember several
games against Aaron Teske when he rerolled more than a half dozen times with
one beam shot, a few of those gutting ships I had arrayed against him (and I,
on the flip side, rolled almost the
same number of 1's ;-)
The shock value of the Graser damage can be pretty severe. But so
was the initial shock value at what K-guns could do (esp K4s and K5s).
> It was 3 people vs. 2 people, 3000 points per side.
It has been shown repeatedly that a fleet of mosquitos can
successfully take out an equivalent massed/point-costed
larger single opponent ship.
> A class-2 Beam vs. a class-1 Graser? There is no
So the Graser will now give some precedent for targets to begin
carrying screens, eh? ;-) Kinda partly what was desired from
introducing this weapon into the mix; too many other weapons ignore screens
such that many people don't even bother with them
anymore (not worth the mass/point cost vs what they typically
fight against).
> Now, on the other hand, a 3-arc Graser-3 has the mass
I'd like to see more reports of games you guys play. I'm sure the rest of us
playtesters on the list here (OO, Dean, others) are equally as interested in
what your results are. If you can (and this will add time to your games), try
and give a
blow-by-blow per turn (who fired at what target, range, and
damage - if any - done; give full ship stats at the start of
your AAR). It's tedious, yes, bogs the game down, but gives valuable feedback
to the playtesters. In order to alleviate
the volume of record-keeping you'll do, maybe try games with
smaller fleets. 300-500 point groups. Maybe just all in the
cruiser range (light to battle, for example; ignore anything
smaller/larger).
Mk
> --- bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Our playing space was approximately 6' x 8' with no
1 MU =?
1" = 72 x 96
0.5" = 144 x 192 1cm = 180 x 240
might make a difference.
J
> --- Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:
Then why is there such a push for CPV? Won't it just make the situation more
pronounced as large ship get more expensive and small ships get cheaper?
> > Now, on the other hand, a 3-arc Graser-3 has the mass
How about 6x 3-arc B3's? We have always found B3's more effective
against any target with less than screen-3 (which we continue to use
from FT2). That is why we allow PTs rerolls
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >It has been shown repeatedly that a fleet of mosquitos can
The "mosquitos" Indy talks about here are single-weapon, single-hull box
strike boats like the ones Glen used. The reason for the CPV is that a
fleet of destroyers and/or cruisers - ie. considerably larger than
"mosquitos", but still not particularly large - usually *can't* take out
an
equivalent massed/point-costed larger single opponent ship.
> Won't it just make the situation more pronounced as large ship get more
> expensive and small
Not much. Thanks to the rounding errors (actually "rounding features" in
this case :-/ ) the "mosquito"-type strikeboats gain less from the CPV
system than the mid-sized ships do - and it is the mid-sized ships that
need the help most.
> >>Now, on the other hand, a 3-arc Graser-3 has the mass
!?!? You have to be kidding. The average damages inflicted by one shot of
these two weapons (assuming the same number of fire arcs on both, so they're
the same Mass and cost) are:
Range 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36
P-torp (std) 2.92 2.33 1.75 1.17 0.58 0
P-torp (Hilal) 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.4 0.7 0
B3 vs scr-0 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.8
B3 vs scr-1 1.9 1.9 1.27 1.27 0.63 0.63
B3 vs scr-2 1.4 1.4 0.93 0.93 0.47 0.47
B3 vs scr-3 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3
Even against level-1 screens, the B3 only beats the standard P-torp
outside
range 18 (and not by very much it doesn't beat the P-torp by very much);
inside range 18 the P-torp wins hands down. Against level-*2* screens
the
P-torp beats the B3 at all ranges it can reach, leaving only the 30-36
mu band for the B3 to shine.
Regards,
> Glen Bailey wrote:
> Finally got to test out the graser beams. The general consensus is
At Mass 4, the G1-6 falls between the same points worth of B1-6 and B2-6
batteries (so roughly 5xB1-6 or 1.7xB2-6 vs 1xG1-6) both in range and
average damage - the G1 has 6mu longer range than the B1 but
considerably lower average damage inside the B1's 12mu range, and 6mu shorter
range than the B2 but inflicts more damage per cost once in range
(significantly more
at range 12-18 mu, but the B2 nearly catches up inside range 12).
At Mass 5 the G1-6 only beats its own cost of B2-6 batteries at range
12-18
mu; at range 0-12 and 18-24 the B2-6 is more powerful. Doesn't really
leave much reason for using the G1, unless of course you're Steve and roll an
unusual amount of '6's :-/
> I also tried out a 1-arc class-1 Graser strike boat, mass at 7, costing
In your follow-up post you describe this target dreadnought as being
somewhere in the TMF 134-154 range, ie. towards the lower end of the
Fleet Book "dreadnought" size bracket. Ships of that size are usually worth
around 450-550 pts (NPV; around 500 - 620 in the CPV system); you
attacked it with 990 (825) pts worth of ships. (The strikeboats you lost
before they could fire still count in the points total, since the ability to
absorb damage is one of the things you paid those points for.)
If you had attacked this dreadnought with a single weak-hulled (and thus
weapon-heavy) 990-pt superdreadnought instead of with 990 pts worth of
weak-hulled strikeboats, would you then have found it outrageous to
destroy the target in one turn? Or if your strikeboats had been armed with
single-shot weapons, eg. MKPs or SMPs?
In addition your opponents seem to have mostly ignored your strikeboats and
instead concentrated on your allies' heavier units, even though they knew that
those strikeboats were within range and arc of a worthwhile target and that
killing the strikeboats would kill a lot of firepower with each damage point
inflicted. To me this sounds as if your opponents' somewhat dubious targetting
priorities contributed a fair bit to the G1s' success here
:-/
> Most ships had level-1 screens; exept for some small ships (massing
Sounds as if these ships had rather weak hulls, then? Average-hulled TMF
24-34 ships have a decent chance of surviving a Graser die, or even two.
> >How was the dice rolling? High, medium or low?
Hm. If those Grasers were 5-arc rather than 6 or 3 you're using house
rules
rather than the beta-test versions, and 4 such weapons would have a Mass
somewhere in the 12-16 range which is rather more than the Fleet Book
DDs
carry - so either this destroyer had very little hull integrity/armour,
or
it was closer to the Fleet Book light/medium cruisers in size.
> My battle winning salvo was with 6x 6-arc class-1 Grasers (replacing
> (2x 6-arc,
Should that be 3 or 6 B2-6 batteries on your ship? Either way 10-15
damage from the beam batteries sounds very low if you were inside range 12,
but
about average (possibly a little high) at range 12-18; the G1s OTOH
scored over twice their expected average damage.
However, if the TMF 244 target only had 40-45 hull boxes left after its
1st
threshold it too seems to have been fairly weak-hulled, and you hit it
with the full force of your own superdreadnought. Under those circumstances I
don't think it is entirely unreasonable that it was destroyed :-/
> The Grasers outperformed every other weapon by a large margin.
Was that because they survived long enough to fire (eg. your G1-1
strikeboats - or was that in a different battle?) whereas other weapon
types didn't, or because of the lucky re-rolls?
> I'm thinking that the class-1 Graser masses should be:
As long as the target has no screens and you don't get shot up at long range
before you can start shooting back, sure. Neither of those conditions
are entirely negligible, however - quite the contrary, in fact.
> A mass of 4 for a 1-arc G-1 is probably on par with the 4-mass 1-arc
The Graser has unlimited damage *potential*, but it only rarely lives up to
that potential. The P-torp also has as good or better hit probability
against all targets inside range 18 mu.
> A class-2 Beam vs. a class-1 Graser? There is no comparison.
Forgetting
> about rerolls, an unscreened target will take 2 damage on a roll of 6
*If* the Graser gets to fire at all, that is. Since the B2 has three times as
wide a fire arc in addition to its somewhat longer range, the B2 tends
to get more chances to fire over the course of the battle than the G1-1
-
in Cinematic its wider arc is rather more important than its extra range.
If OTOH you compare a 3- or 6-arc G1 with B2 batteries you should match
a single G1 against one and a half or even two B2s, which kinda changes the
odds.
Later,
> Oerjan wrote:
> The average damages inflicted by one shot of
Oerjan, do you have the probability numbers for grasers? I think it would be
instructive to the group at large to see the probabilities at different
ranges.
What I find very interesting about these threads is that I think it's giving
the general list population an idea of what goes into designing new systems
for FT.
It also shows why we need detailed AARs, if possible. We need to know how the
dice rolled so that we can figure out if the results were due to lucky or
unlucky rolls, or if the results were a problem in the system. Perception is
often different from reality. Someone might play a game with grasers where
their battleship was gutted with a single graser shot and say, "Grasers are
too powerful!" What they failed to note were the number of times a graser
fired and missed. The person also noted the damage done by that single graser.
He may not have noted the damage done by all weapon systems on the ship, and
for what mass and point cost. The one graser may have gutted a battleship, but
the same amount of damage may have been done in the same number of rounds of
combat by a ship armed with nothing but B2s. That one shot sticks out in your
mind, while the whittling down with B2s doesn't register at all.
Grasers are an all-or-nothing type of weapon. When they hit, they tend
to hit big, but they hit far less often than other weapons. Using them can be
a bit of a gamble. Some players will win big with them, especially if the
graser does lots of damage early in a game. Other players will lose big with
them, especially if the only time they do 36 points of damage in a single roll
is against a cruiser with only 4 damage boxes left, late in the game...
> agoodall@att.net wrote:
From FTJava, after 200,000 trials each
Graser 1 vs. Screen-0
Average = 2.79584 Min = 0 Max = 56
Graser 1 vs. Screen-1
Average = 2.209875 Min = 0 Max = 54
Graser 1 vs. Screen-2
Average = 1.633 Min = 0 Max = 47
Maximum damage will rip apart a BB or BDN.
> Jon Davis wrote:
I'd be curious to see what the "max" is for an equal mass of Beams ie "what
would Teske do?"
> Laserlight wrote:
> Jon Davis wrote:
Beam 1 vs. Screen-0 Graser 1 vs. Screen-0
Average = 0.801545 Average = 2.79584
Max = 14 Max = 56
Beam 1 vs. Screen-1 Graser 1 vs. Screen-1
Average = 0.63616 Average = 2.209875
Max = 12 Max = 54
Beam 1 vs. Screen-2 Graser 1 vs. Screen-2
Average = 0.467905 Average = 1.633
Max = 12 Max = 47
Mass 1 - All arcs Mass 2 - Single arc
Using those figures (and ignoring the extra 6" of range) we can make some
variable comparisons. This is rough and doesn't take into account all the
variables that OO plugs into his math.
Damage per mass (6-arc comparison):
B-1 (6 arc) Graser-1 (6 arc)
Pulsetorp (2 x 3-arc)
12 mu vs Screen 0 0.8015 0.6987 0.3889 12 mu vs Screen 1 0.6362 0.5525 0.3889
12 mu vs Screen 2 0.4679 0.4083 0.3889
Damage per mass (1-arc comparison):
B-3 (1 arc) Graser-2 (1 arc)
Pulsetorp (1-arc)
06 mu vs Screen 0 0.6011 0.6213 0.7292 12 mu vs Screen 0 0.6011 0.6213 0.5833
18 mu vs Screen 0 0.4008 0.6213 0.4375 24 mu vs Screen 0 0.4008 0.3107 0.2917
30 mu vs Screen 0 0.2004 0.3107 0.1458
36 mu vs Screen 0 0.2004 0.3107 n/a
06 mu vs Screen 1 0.4771 0.4911 0.7292 12 mu vs Screen 1 0.4771 0.4911 0.5833
18 mu vs Screen 1 0.3181 0.4911 0.4375 24 mu vs Screen 1 0.3181 0.2455 0.2917
30 mu vs Screen 1 0.1591 0.2455 0.1458
36 ms vs Screen 1 0.1591 0.2455 n/a
06 mu vs Screen 2 0.3509 0.3629 0.7292 12 mu vs Screen 2 0.3509 0.3629 0.5833
18 mu vs Screen 2 0.2340 0.3629 0.4375 24 mu vs Screen 2 0.2340 0.1815 0.2917
30 mu vs Screen 2 0.1170 0.1815 0.1458
36 mu vs Screen 2 0.1170 0.1815 n/a
Brendan 'Neath Southern
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> > The average damages inflicted by one shot of
You mean the probability to inflict a specific amount of damage, rather than
the overall average? Yes, certainly; and you're quite right that they're
instructive. The calculation here was truncated after the 4th
re-roll (since the probability to reach that high is so small that it
disappears in the rounding) which is why all damage over 12 has been baked
together into the "13+" entry, but with that caveat the probabilities
that 1 Graser die will inflict X pts of damage are:
Target screen level: Damage: 0 1 2 0 50.0% 66.7% 66.7%
1 5.6% 2.8% 4.2%
2 5.8% 3.0% 4.3%
3 6.0% 3.3% 4.5%
4 6.3% 3.6% 4.7%
5 6.6% 3.9% 4.8%
6 7.0% 4.2% 5.0%
7 1.8% 1.8% 1.0%
8 1.7% 1.7% 0.9%
9 1.6% 1.6% 0.8%
10 1.5% 1.5% 0.7% 11 1.3% 1.3% 0.6% 12 1.1% 1.1% 0.4%
13+ 3.7% 3.7% 1.4%
Average: 2.8 2.22 1.63
(The columns don't all add up to exactly 100.0% due to rounding errors.)
IOW there's a big (50-67%) risk that the die misses completely, a fair
chance (21-37% depending on target screen level) that you'll inflict 1-6
pts, and a small (7-13% depending on target screen level) chance that
you'll inflict 7 or more pts of damage.
Note that level-1 screens cuts the probability of low-strength hits (1-6
pts of damage) nearly in half but doesn't change the probability for
high-strength hits, whereas level-2 screens shifts half of the would-be
high-strength hits down into the low-strength section.
Also note that the second most likely result (after 0, that is) is 6 pts of
damage, closely followed by 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 in that order, then a jump down
to 7, and then the probabilities steadily decrease as the damage increases.
This somewhat unusual damage profile reinforces the graser's "if it hits, it
hits big" characteristic.
> It also shows why we need detailed AARs, if possible.
Yep.
> Grasers are an all-or-nothing type of weapon. When they hit, they tend
Yes, at least on a similar-Mass comparison (since other weapons tend to
roll more to-hit dice :-/ ).
Later,
> Glen wrote:
> Like all full thrust weapons, no matter how powerful, if you get
> But that is player tactics. The game system should have everything
Well, yes, which was kind of my point, the idea being that if your opponents
screwed up their entire tactical approach to the battle and let your strike
boats within range of the dreadnought then it was dead no matter what! That
isn't the fault of the grasers, or yours, it is their's. In my opinion grasers
are balanced, but is is difficult to judge the balance of any weapon system if
the enemy will present themselves as a sitting duck.
> Take the example cited of 33 graser armed gunboats decking an SDN.
> No way does beam damage compare to "pulse torpedo" damage
Of course the "damage" generated by grasers compares to all other weapons. You
had 33 of these strike boats. If they were armed with pulse torps, sMP's or
class 1 beams even, you are still generating a huge volume of fire that will
obliterate the target! The destruction of the dreadnought was not a function
of the graser but of the volume of fire power you were using. As Oerjan
pointed out the strike boats massed almost twice that of their target! The
dreadnought was dead whatever was fired at it!
> I'm a graser fan. I like them, and I use them responsibly. But if
> I don't find K-guns to be overpowered. They are terrifying, but the
Nor do I find K-guns overpowered (just terrifying;-), but my point here
was
that grasers are no worse then K-guns. Both are equally as deadly.
Grasrs
may have fire arcs going for them, but K-guns have the whole "armour and
screens don't stop me" going for them. Different weapons, different abilities,
both scary, but both equal to each other over all, from what I have seen in
action.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
OK. I get that.
<snip 3-arc B3 vs 3-arc PTL>
> !?!? You have to be kidding. The average damages inflicted by one
<snip>
> Even against level-1 screens, the B3 only beats the standard P-torp
> leaving only the 30-36 mu band for the B3 to shine.
Yeah, I have worked out the statistical average numbers myself. However, I am
not talking about theoretical averages, but rather about our empirical results
acquired repeatedly and consistently over many games.
Our comparisons were acquired as follows: A capital ship armed
exclusively with 3-arc B3s and a variant replacing the B3s with 3-arc
PTLs covering the exact same arcs. Other variants replace B3s with same mass
covering same arcs of B2s, B4s, and B5s. Designs were tried
in a variety of configurations and fire arc distributions. 4-6 such
ships are played as a squadron in close formation. Usually 2x B3, 1-2x
PTL, 0-1x B2, and 0-1xB4 or B5 ships in the squadron.
Against homogeneous opposition squadrons, the PTLs consistently produced
poorer results than the B3 in terms of damage done per volley
except against Screen-3. By maneuvering in close squadrons, the
targets were usually (~80%+) within the same arcs and +/- 2-3 MU.
There was only one occasion of fire at <6 MU, and that was the only instance
of roughly equal performance between the B3s and PTLs against
ships with less than Screen-3. If it had just happened once, we would
have written it off, but it was consistent and with ships firing
volleys of 4-12 torpedoes (depending on arc), so it was not the
anomalous results of single launcher "strikeboats".
At 1 MU = 1", the B4s and B5s were also outperformed by the B3s, although we
have not yet played enough games at 1 MU = 0.5" to see if they are cost
effective with the larger maneuver area, which I understand they are supposed
to be.
With this experience, we began allowing PTs penetrating rerolls on 6's, which
seems to balance them for us.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Yeah, I have worked out the statistical average numbers myself.
Strangely enough, in our group the opposite is true. On the whole the guys
found pulse torps more effective than beams. So much so that for a couple of
years no design used a beam larger than class2, and no-one used screens.
Fortunately that has all changed over the last year or so but Pulse torps are
still the weapon of choice amongst my colleagues. I would have to say the
results from our battles match the stats quoted by Oerjan and everyone else.
However, if that doesn't tally with your observations then fair enough.
Regards,
> Jon wrote:
> From FTJava, after 200,000 trials each
Thanks, Jon.
I take it that the average was a mean (total damage / number of trials)?
The graser is a nasty weapon some of the time. There _are_ people going
to say, "It's too powerful!", especially if they are on the receiving end of
54 points from one shot. However, a good many graser shots are
going to miss if the average against Screen-1 is 2.2 damage points and
the maximum is 54. I bet some folk will see a devestating attack and decide
that grasers are for them... and then proceed to lose several
games in a row while their grasers roll sub-par.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> <snip 3-arc B3 vs 3-arc PTL>
<snip description of tests>
> Our comparisons were acquired as follows: A capital ship armed
Why do you run mixed-weapon squadrons instead of "pure" ones (ie. a
squadron with only P-torps against one with only B3s, etc.) - or was
that what you meant by "homogeneous"? (If it was, how did the "homogeneous"
PT-armed opposing squadrons fare?) (Pitting pure-weapon squadrons
against one another reduces the risk of having the evaluation skewed by things
like which ship in the squadron you fired first.)
> Against homogeneous opposition squadrons, the PTLs consistently
In other words, either your dice are consistently skewed in favour of the
beams (not very likely), or most of your shooting occurs at ranges longer than
18 mu. Fair enough.
Regards,
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Using those figures (and ignoring the extra 6" of range) we can make
Two important factors that you left out are:
- Equal COST comparisons are rather more relevant than equal MASS ones,
and Grasers cost 4xMass whereas the other weapon types cost only 3xMass.
Because of this you should reduce the graser values by ~15% (note that it is
15% rather than 25%, since you also need to account for the cost of supporting
systems like engines that are proportional to the system's Mass).
- A theoretical 6-arc P-torp would have a Mass of 9 (same as the B3-6)
rather than 12, so all the P-torp values should be increased by 33%.
(The
2x3-arc P-torps you used to cover all 6 arcs in the range-12 comparison
could fire at two separate targets in the same turn, whereas a single
6-arc
weapon can't do that.)
Later,
> agoodall@att.net wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:08:25 -0800 (PST) Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes: <snip>
> With this experience, we began allowing PTs penetrating rerolls on
If it works for you...
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >with same mass covering same arcs of B2s, B4s, and B5s. Designs
4-6
> >such ships are played as a squadron in close formation. Usually 2x
So that the PTs are used in parallel with the beams.
> or was that what you meant by "homogeneous"?
"Homogeneous" in the sense of all ships having hulls (structure, screens, FCS,
PDS) identical to their squadron mates. When a ship fires a volley, we resolve
the entire volley, then apply the damage, so that if a target has, for example
15 hull boxes left, we would resolve the entire volley, even if it does 30
points of damage. We often play with a third person as ref, and hull points
remaining does not have to be disclosed to one's opponent.
> >Against homogeneous opposition squadrons, the PTLs consistently
Usually 12-30, occasionally an isolated exchange at under 12 (usually
when one side zigs and the other zags:)). If it is discovered that one side
has a "carronade ship" armed with B2s, the other side usually
tried to open the range to 24-36.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 4-6 such ships are played as a squadron in close formation. Usually
And you flew these squadrons in tight formations, you said. Um.
These various weapons all have different optimum ranges, so keeping them
together in a tight formation will result in some weapons being at ranges
where they're effective while others will be at less optimal ranges. In my
experience it is very easy to end up manoeuvring to optimize the range for one
particular weapon type throughout the battle (even if you don't do it
on purpose) - which of course favours that particular weapon type in the
comparison over the others. (You get exactly the same problem if you put
several different weapon types on a single ship, of course.)
So... were you aware of this problem with different optimal ranges for the
various weapons and took pains to give each weapon in turn a "fair deal" in
your manoeuvring, or is there any risk that you unintentionally favoured
some weapon types over others by using tight-formation mixed-weapon
squadrons in the test battles?
Regards,