From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:03:10 -0500
Subject: Re: HBW. My input +
> From Greame: > I don't think they are balanced with p-torps for this reason: By Schoon's method that's not true, since the emitter limits the total engergy that can be thrown. > So my solution (for what its worth) > BE's I like this - I've always been a fan of a single emitter cost and rating. However, it's too cheap to buy extra arcs. Should be 2/6 > BPS's Lopsided mass/cost, I think. Make mass= classx2, cost = mass*3 > (ie one ptorp = 4mass 12pts) By this figuring, HBW class 1 is 4 mass & 12 points also, plus extra arcs are more expensive > Hit/damage. That's interesting, but needs to be costed. > SSD notes I (still) like the EFSB method, but it (still) depends on total cost balance > P-torps are less vulnerable too threshold checks than HBW's. HBW's on "Double damage" is, I think not an accurate way of putting it. It depends on the size of the generator (alone in your case) and the emitter (in Schoon's case). > From Tom: > According to the standards that some are complaining about concerning > bzzt. wrong. the roll for beams is a roll to hit. it's also a roll to I just love semantics. > the issue raised is not of the lack of a roll to hit, it's the lack of The statistical impact of autohit at 0-6" vs. Hit on 2+ is one damage point. You're arguing for an average damage of 2.5 rather than 3.5 at 0-6" vs. unscreened, and overall reduction of HBW efficiency to below P-torp levels (unless you change cost etc...) for a weapon that is already less efficent than a p-torp between 12 and 30" (and less than half as efficient per die from 18-30"). The other caveats also don't make a compelling case to me. The small piece of game real estate that allows the autohit means you darn well _do_ have to not only guess placement your opponent's ship - to better than you do for an SM (6" radius vs 1/6 that pie slice), but (also unlike the SM) you have to maneuver your _ship_ into that position and face the proper way to be effective. And it of course puts you both at fingernail scratching distance, so neither of you is going to emerge from that encounter unscathed, regardless. I just can't see how the autohit can be so objectionable with the weapon's built-in limitations. > we've criticised the automatic hit, and suggested fixes - the 'always I recall the proposal, and my answer: > ... perhaps the range increment > Still don't like it. Still weaker and more expensive than Ptorps in To that I'll add: You don't average even one one point damage at that range until you can throw 6 dice. Compare that to Class 3 beams, of which which any _two_ can average 1 point out to 36" vs. even screen 2. Don't forget that screen 1 erases the furthest range band as currently conceived, and screen 2 erases the outer _2_ bands. OTOH I'd be quite willing to consider "1 always misses" (in effect 2+ hits from 0-12", then one worse each 6" range band) if "6 always scores at least 1 point". > we've criticised the fact that the capacitor takes two hits before I could take reduced mass and cost for this "feature," but why not _leave_ it (and keep the mass and cost) for the different flavor it gives the weapon? If my objection can be answered by a lower total cost, why can't yours be answered by a higher cost? If it can, then all we're really beating to death is the game feel of the weapon, With some (i.e. me, etc) wanting to stick closer to the EFSB version than others (Tom, etc). That boils down to simple Personal Taste (tm).