Oerjan, your statistics are lying to you.
How often do you USE the weapons at any given range?
I bet a lot more at ranges of 13-18 then 1-6. What is
the most common range of "knife fights?" Of "zoom & boom" tactics? Ranges when
weapons are actually fired should be considered, HEAVILY CONSIDERED, for
statistical analysis.
The Graser-1 has a larger margin of maneuvering error
than 4x Beam-1s. It really should be compared to a
Beam-2 + Beam-1. (all having 6 arcs)
I started keeping a record of our battles today. Have I mentioned I hate
taking notes? I stopped after the 3rd round of weapon firing. This is what
happened.
My Kra'Vak-style ship fired its K-guns and hit with
every one (I got lucky): 1x class-4 (doubled) + 2x class-3
(1 doubled) + 2x class-1 for a total of 19 damage, got
a double threshold. (take that you graser-laden enemy
ship! :) ). Then 3x class-1 Grasers fired from another
ship: 26 damage (a few rerolls). I did not need to keep any more notes to know
an overpowered weapon for
its mass (the Graser-1, more specifically, the 6-arc
Graser-1).
Second battle, after double rerolls from a Graser-1
(6 dice total), we immediately made a house rule: Grasers do not get rerolls.
The weapon became tolerable after that, but still any chance someone
could modify a ship it was for a 6-arc Graser-1
and every many-Graser-armed ship was a priority
target (although Kra'Vak-styled ships that were
actually pointing big K-guns at a target were up
there in priority if it hadn't fired yet).
Now, the Grasers didn't always hit, just like every other weapon in the game
(don't talk to me about
Kguns at point blank range: twice I fired 2x class-5
Kguns at targets within 6" and each time one of the rolls was a one *grrrr*).
A point: A Steve
ship at 4x class-1 Beams. When they did get
a chance to fire they missed 90% of the time
and were pretty much a non-factor.
But not the 3x Graser-1s that
were also aboard. They did badly at times, there were more of them, but in the
battle they also got to fire more often
(that 13-18 range band is very important).
Yes, it is a matter of die rolls, but the Graser-1 was
the most feared weapon in the game.
Now the Graser-1 is not the be-all of weapon
choices. I have a ship design with 1x Graser-2 (F,FP,FS),
2x Graser-1 (F,FP,AP), 2x Graser-1 (F,FS,AS), and
1x Graser-1 (all). It had to pull out of the battle due
to damage (it was the priority target of the enemy) and when it could return
it had a problem with range, mostly
due to the overabundance of Graser-1s. But as a
secondary weapon the Graser-1 is a superior choice
over many others (IMO).
I still stand by my previous recommendation that the
mass of the Graser-1 needs to increase.
Sorry I didn't take notes. Did I mentioned I hate taking notes?
Glen
> I started keeping a record of our battles today.
-snip-
> Then 3x class-1 Grasers fired from another
OK, but did you note what the beam to-hit rolls were and what the damage
rolls were? That it the type of records we would like to really see how the
weapon is performing and if average rolls are causing all the damage.
> Second battle, after double rerolls from a Graser-1
How many Graser 1's? What were all the rolls?
> Sorry I didn't take notes. Did I mentioned I hate
Yeah, it can be a pain. It works best if an extra person takes notes while
others play. How about taking notes of just Graser rolls, to-hits and
damage? (Range would be nice too if you could spend the extra effort. Wait,
arc,
yup arc too would be cool.......... ;-)
Note that the comparison notes of 4xb-1, grasers & p-torps was mine; and
my
math is very off-the-cuff (I'm lazy in that regard).
The 13-18 band IS optimal range for the graser-1. Beams are better at
0-12
MU and also at 19-24 MU. If you can sprint inside range 12 or maneouvre
outside range 18, most other weapons will consistantly average more damage.
As a house rule, increase the masses of the Graser-1 to 3/4/5 mass each
and see if that makes you happier. If I could actually get some games in, I'd
be trying both to see if there's a significant difference in performance.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----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.
> Second battle, after double rerolls from a Graser-1
If I recall correctly, in that instance 3 Graser-1s fired,
one missed, one rolled a 5, the last rolled a 6. Then there were 2 more sixes
for a total of 7 damage dice. We rolled it, marked the damage, and pretty much
decided the battle was over. First salvo and the game was decided (lots of
maneuvering first before firing happened).
That's when we applied the "no-reroll" house
rule for Grasers, we re-rolled damage
as 3 dice, and continued playing. We (4) were all much happier with that house
rule.
Now I remember the other thing I wanted to say: We fought 4 battles today. The
winners
of 3 were the ones with the most Graser-1s,
the other was a draw (we chased each other around the board twice and decided
it was enough:)). Coincidence? Or my bad luck since I didn't win a single
time?
Then there's the "my salvo will wreck your ship to pieces" said by Steve AND
myself when we traded salvos at a range of 5 in another game. He had
initiative, fired
6x class-1 railguns, 4x class-1 beams, 3x class-1
grasers, and didn't threshold me (3 hull from it). Then
I fired with 2x class-5 rail guns and 2x class-1
rail guns and rolled a 1 to hit on one of the class-5s
(but doubled up the other one), no threshold. We joked about that exchange for
the rest of the day.:)
> After all, you're not the one who'll have to defend
Convince me of what? Steve doesn't roll them at will. Just happens to roll
lots of 5s and 6s over 1s and 2s. The only good side effect of this is that
his current
designs make use of lots of class-1 rail guns so he
doesn't get good results on the rerolls.:)
About games ruined? I can't help it that I roll 1s too much. I do this when I
roll the ability scores of my D&D characters, also. Now when I played Star
Fleet Battles the dice turned on me. *sigh*
But I'm a terror when it comes to diceless games.:D (before you say it...I
hate chess)
Hmm, is diceless Full Thrust feasible?:D:D:D:D
Glen
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:58:36 -0500 <bail9672@bellsouth.net> writes:
<snip>
> Hmm, is diceless Full Thrust feasible? :D :D :D :D
Dare I say it? Yes!
One word.
Chits.
Which also is a pet peeve of some people, hence the attempts to replace
chits with 'die rolls and tables' (which other people hate.) War
gamers, they are never happy.
Gracias,
But surely one of the major strengths of FT (and most other GZG rules)
is that the die rolls generally *don't* need tables - memorise a few
simple mechanisms (such as the standard beam mechanic) and you can play just
from the ship data sheets (or, as my mistyping almost had it there,
'sh*t data sheeps' !) without recourse to look-up tables etc.
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:58:36 -0500 <bail9672@bellsouth.net> writes:
> Tony Francis wrote:
is
> that the die rolls generally *don't* need tables - memorise a few
"sh*t data sheeps"...ya know, Tony, I don't remember seeing you in
Laserlight's Sheep game at ECC this year...
;-)
Mk
> bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> Sorry I didn't take notes. Did I mentioned I hate
I know what you mean. It takes a *lot* of time from a game to keep proper
notes about what's what vs. just playing and enjoying. You've got a small
taste of what all (or many) of us playtesters do on a regular basis (I think
for some of us we've done it so much that it's almost second nature, and
we don't remember *how* to have just a simple, straight-up,
*fun* game - that's where FTJava comes in handy for me! :-)
> >>> After all, you're not the one who'll have to defend
So Steve's got the whole Teske Field thing going for him. That
will screw and skew any and all systems. ;-)
> About games ruined? I can't help it that I roll 1s too
***
> Sorry I didn't take notes. Did I mentioned I hate
I know what you mean. It takes a *lot* of time from a game to keep proper
notes about what's what vs. just playing and enjoying.
***
You can go a long way by the design of the play sheeps, er, sheets, to make
recording easier, and even 'insistant', but I found that you can lead a gamer
to paper, but you can't always make him write. In my case, though, it was
during campaign games rather than playtests.
Damn, Indy, you've got me doing it. ;->=
You know, of course, SOMEONE is going to ask exactly what was the data
scatological...
The_Beast
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Taking the FB1 Beams and PTLs as a basis for systems priced for 1, 3,
and 5 or 6 arcs, shouldn't 3 arcs be +50% and 5/6 arcs be +100%?
J
> Indy wrote:
There were microsheeps for the computer, though. And RAM.
> Laserlight wrote:
I didn't mean to goat you into replying, LL. ;-)
Mk
> Indy wrote:
> Laserlight wrote:
Ewe really shouldn't rise to the bait...
> Indy wrote:
> Laserlight wrote:
"I didn't mean to goat ewe into replying", surely?
Feel terribly sheepish for starting all this...
> agoodall@att.net wrote:
> Glen wrote:
> Glen wrote:
> Oerjan, your statistics are lying to you.
Oh, man, I can not _wait_ for the reply...
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:17:18PM +0000, Matt Tope wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:17:18PM +0000, Matt Tope wrote:
Just "Protect and Survive". Here, Matt, there's plenty of room in the bunker,
and it's rated for 2000psi overpressure...
R
> Feel terribly sheepish for starting all this ...
I did warn you about people flocking to the opportunity!
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
Oh, wool is me!
Mk
> agoodall@att.net wrote:
Pretty much an invitation for a nuclear weapon to be dropped, ain't it?
(8-)
JGH
Stop! Just stop!
All this sheep talk is making my brain feel fuzzy.
nick
[quoted original message omitted]
> Nicholas Caldwell wrote:
> Stop! Just stop!
... woolly ...
> fuzzy.
Where's the Narn Bat Squad when you want it? ARRRRRUGH!!!!
(8-)
JGH
> Nicholas Caldwell wrote:
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Where's the Narn Bat Squad when you want it? ARRRRRUGH!!!!
Narn Baa Squad, surely?
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Lachlan Atcliffe wrote:
> Jerry Han wrote:
They're going to give out wooly good bleatings, I herd.
Full thrust as a Card Game? I think I rather be hit by those Graser 1's...
Andrew Apter Wizzard Software Corp. Deerfield Beach, FL offices
(954) 571-4188Â Â Â Â (954) 571-4163 FAX
 http://www.wizzardsoftware.com
[quoted original message omitted]
Oerjan it is not your statistics. Steve's Ship use Improbability and Glen's
use Bad News Drive.
Andrew Apter Wizzard Software Corp. Deerfield Beach, FL offices
(954) 571-4188Â Â Â Â (954) 571-4163 FAX
 http://www.wizzardsoftware.com
[quoted original message omitted]
Squad, Hell we need at least a battalion! Call them from their usual OP by LL!
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:56:03 -0500 Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com> writes:
Make that a Regiment... A mere battalion is insufficient...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:14:52 +0000 Lachlan Atcliffe
> <u1m87@ugm.keele.ac.uk> writes:
NO, A Brigade!
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:19:01 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
You will get your own personalized B... Force.
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:28:48 -0500 Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
Nonsense. It will certainly suffice if they send a baa-ttalion.
I suppose that's better that a Baaa-ttlecruiser going at RAM-ming
speed...
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----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.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Let's not talk about Narn warsheeps.
Or the Centauri salesman with a wool clippersheeps.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
PS: this is getting really, really, really silly...
> -----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.
> Nicholas Caldwell wrote:
> Stop! Just stop!
I gave you a chance to back out, and you saw the disclaimer, you knew there
could be permanent effects. Baa.
Appropriate, since I started all this nonsensical bleating!
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> NO, A Brigade!
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 08:41 pm, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
... make
... the hurting
...stop...
> On Friday 19 March 2004 10:58 am, John Leary wrote:
You know, there's "twisting the knife in the wound", and there's "securing the
tang of the blade in a power-drill and spinning it at a speed that can
only be referred to as the frappe setting on a blender".
I'm pretty sure that the above is an example of the latter.
Evil, pure evil... *grin*
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns -- he should be drawn and
quoted."
-- Fred Allen
--- FlakMagnet72 <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com>
wrote:
> On Thursday 18 March 2004 08:41 pm, Robertson,
You spelled it wrong, it's...Herding... Make the herding stop.
Baaaad joke!
Bye for now,
STOP IT!
Or at least change the subject line to "more Grazer observations", so I can
killfile that part of the thread... I can't reply to Glen's posts when I'm
ROFLMAO from all the sheep jokes flying around!
***
You spelled it wrong, it's...Herding... Make the herding stop.
Baaaad joke!
***
I was going to start with a 'but in golden days of the empire, a hundred
thousand shepherds, each with a flock of thousands, would...' and then I
realized I'd get that spanking I so richly deserved, and requested.
Is this going back to the SGII scenerios anytime soon?
The_Beast
Apologies for the late reply on this one. I accidentally sent it to my work
address instead of to the list :-(
> Glen wrote:
> Oerjan, your statistics are lying to you.
But of course :-) You know which the three types of lies are, don't you?
<G>
> How often do you USE the weapons at any given range?
Correct; range 0-6 is the least commonly used range band. However,
firing
at range 18-24 is even more common than at range 12-18, firing at range
6-12 nearly as common, and then there are all the 24+ shots as well.
Which is why your earlier statement about the G1 being superior to the
P-torp "except for range" is meaningless: you *can't* ignore range the
P-torp's longer range in the G1-vs-P-torp comparison. Particularly not
when you also claim that the *G1's* range advantage over the B1 makes damage
comparisons between those two weapons invalid :-/
> What is the most common range of "knife fights?" Of "zoom & boom"
For knife fights, 6-12. For Boom'n'Zoom, 24+ with occasional firing
passes at shorter ranges.
> Ranges when weapons are actually fired should be considered, HEAVILY
Correct. Which is precisely why I for the past five years or so (started
when the FB2 playtesting began in earnest) have recorded the firing ranges and
damage inflicted for every shot fired in every playtest battle I've run; in
most of them I've also recorded which arc the shots were fired and how long
each weapon survived before it was knocked out. As Dean, Indy et al. have
already said it's a chore if you do it by hand; if OTOH you play
FTJava PBEM battles you get most of the record-keeping 'for free' though
it takes some extra work to sort out the data.
> The Graser-1 has a larger margin of maneuvering error than 4x Beam-1s.
5x B1, not 4x; otherwise you're ignoring the Graser's higher per-Mass
cost.
Of course the G1 has a larger margin of manoeuvring error than the B1s; that's
why the 5x B1s' average damage is about 40% higher than the G1's
(and a lot more consistent - far smaller risk of a complete miss, but
not the same potential for the occasional massive hit either). Same with the
G1-vs-B2 comparison and G1-vs-P-torp comparisons; the B2's and P-torp's
respective margins of manoeuvring error are even larger than the G1's,
which is why the G1 is allowed to outgun the them on a per-cost basis at
the ranges the G1 can reach.
> It really should be compared to a Beam-2 + Beam-1. (all having 6 arcs)
Due to the Graser's higher per-Mass cost it should be compared to 1xB2-6
+
*2*x B1-6.
> I started keeping a record of our battles today.
Good.
> Have I mentioned I hate taking notes?
Tough. Yes, I know it is a chore, but it really is necessary in playtesting
to sort out impressions from dry facts :-(
> I stopped after the 3rd round of weapon firing.
Unless the firing also stopped at that point, doing this sounds like rather
poor playtesting - if you stop recording when the data supports your
previous opinion, you risk suppressing any data which could weaken your
position!
> This is what happened.
Getting "a few rerolls" on 3 beam dice means that the Grasers got pretty
lucky too - you need at least 5d6 to roll 26, and 26 on 5d6 is itself
quite
lucky. Without knowing the range for the K-gun shots (obviously 18mu or
less, but that doesn't say much) it is hard to say who was luckiest :-/
> I did not need to keep any more notes to know an overpowered weapon
In other words you stopped taking notes as soon as the data seemed to
confirm your opinion :-(
> Now, the Grasers didn't always hit,
And how often did they miss? With unscreened targets it should be about 50% of
the time; but with Steve rolling higher than average I wouldn't be surprised
if the number of misses was lower than expected.
Regards,