> <Oerjan>[I'm] quite interested in seeing these calculations,
Finding that KV were consistently outclassed at equal points, even with
differing tactics, I was trying to balance out the KV vs human ships situation
at the smaller ship scales (Cruiser and below). I'd also seen (laserlight's?)
comments on a site on a 50% pts bias towards KV.
As a result I set up a spreadsheet to try and calculate reasonable weightings
based on weighted "most common range" groups and average damage at the range,
with some additional weighting due to armour. The KV results came out very
similar to those mentioned in FB2, which suggests they were calc'd in a
similar way, whilst the Beams didn't.
I'll comment the spreadsheet (.xls) and put it up on the site (by Weds
4th Dec). I haven't checked Pulse Torps or SMs yet - the latter are
*much* more complex. (Beware: as it's my own work-sheet, it's none too
pretty!)
> --- Tim Bancroft <tim@dragonhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I've run and won fights against K'V with even points.
Of course, that was with a force containing two P-torp
heavy designs in the capital ship class. (Hi,
Laserlight!). P-torps are a workable counter vs. K'V
weapons, as they are the only thing that can generate
_more_ damage per round (do the math!) than railguns.
Beam weapons are secondary weapons for anything bigger than a light cruiser,
anyway. IMHO.
I feel that missles would be useful, but only en masse. That's a hypothesis,
and an unproven one at that.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Yup. So, like any good naval architect faced with an opponent not dealt with
in doctrine, I refitted.:)
> > I've run and won fights against K'V with even
Try it in cinematic? Why would I want to do that? Who plays cinematic?
John
> > I've run and won fights against K'V with even
Me
> In vector. Try it in cinematic and see what
John
> Try it in cinematic? Why would I want to do that?
<g> The people who did the math and balanced the points...
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> John
Are you saying the K'V are more or less balanced in vector?
***
Are you saying the K'V are more or less balanced in vector?
***
Yeah, are you saying John won because his is the superior intellect?
Laugh, run away. *snicker*
The_Beast
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
You get carrier fleets:)
> John
An all those who never play cinematic thank you:) Nothing better then a one
arc wonder ship:)
> > below). I'd also seen (laserlight's?) comments on a site on a 50%
I don't recall making that comment but I do recall that the first experience
we had (hi, John!) with KV was rather disturbing for the Hu'Man.
> I've run and won fights against K'V with even points.
Thanks for your comments, Oerjan especially. If I can summarise:
1. Yes, there is a disparity in points/effectiveness on the low-level
Beams
vs K-Guns. This is more likely to show up at the low-level, small-ship
"vanilla" FB2 squadrons I am using, hence wiped-out KV squadrons (almost
irrespective of tactics).
..However...
2....the points do not necessarily work out well when using vector movement
anyway (which, as you correctly guessed, in some guise or another is the only
movement system I use).
I think I have a partial answer: just playtest and work out a relative points
factor for the smaller ships. As I like the movement prediction, I am loathe
to move back to cinematic.
btw, Whilst this is probably acedemic now but as you asked I uploaded the
work-spreadsheet with the simple range functions I used (which just
prove the above). It now has a link, which helps.
Have fun,
> Tim Bancroft wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Oerjan especially. If I can summarise:
Yes - but the big disparity in points/effectiveness is between the
single-arc HIGH-level beams (B3 and larger) and the K-guns, and there's
also a disparity between the small SHIP DESIGNS in FB1 and FB2 (the FB1 small
ships being designed more for independent operations than the FB2 KV small
ships are).
Furthermore, if you're facing mostly LOW-level beams (B1s and B2s) in
Vector, then you have the range advantage - and in Vector, you can
accellerate backwards at least as fast as they can accellerate forwards
(unless they've spent a lot of points to buy thrust-8, but in that case
you're likely to outgun them anyway). Don't let them close the range,
particularly not to range 12 or less.
> This is more likely to show up at the low-level, small-ship
In Vector the disparity is more likely to show up with *high*-level,
*large*-ship fleets; especially if the non-KV side uses custom-built
Vector ships instead of using the FB1 designs.
If your enemies use light *custom-built Vector* ships - frigates and
destroyers armed mostly or exclusively with single-arc P-torps and B3s,
and
things like that - then you are in trouble... but that's not the type of
enemies your previous posts seemed to suggest.
If you're constantly losing with FB2 KV ships against the light *FB1* human
designs in Vector, which is the impression I get from your previous posts,
then you're letting the humans get much too close much too fast - thanks
to their many B1s and B2s, and the wide arcs on the B3s, you have a serious
firepower advantage at range 24-30 and are reasonably well off at range
12-24 too - and you have the thrust ratings you need to take full
advantage of this.
> 2. ...the points do not necessarily work out well when using vector
<chuckle> "Just playtest", he says <g> The FB1 weapon masses and costs were
based on six years of gaming experience with FT2 and variants thereof;
we've only had the Vector movement system for four years so far... :-)
> btw, Whilst this is probably acedemic now but as you asked I uploaded
Thanks :-)
I haven't had time to look very closely at it yet, but even after a quick
glance I can confirm that your calculations aren't very similar at all to
the original FB calcs :-/
There are some oddities in particular which stand out:
* You round fractions much too early in your calculations. Rounding the
armour-weighted damage down from 0.40 to 0.00 and then using that 0.00
value to calculate what the weapon should cost... can give somewhat strange
results at times, like :-/
* You seem to have completely ignored that B4 batteries can inflict damage
outside range 36? IOW, you've set the range weight of the 36-48 range
band to zero for all your range functions. This is directly opposite to my
experience with Vector, where battles are almost invariably opened by shots
in the outermost range bands - no matter how far out those range bands
go. (And as you note in one of the annotations, damage inflicted at long range
can mean that shorter-ranged enemy weapons never get to fire at all...)
* The alternative mass ratings you gave for the human beams in the
HumanShipCalc spreadsheet seem to have used different range weight functions
for different beam sizes, or is this because of how you've priced
extra fire arcs and/or point defence capabilities? (The evaluations of
these features don't seem to be in the spreadsheet, though.)
* Your way of evaluating armour penetration appears to treat the armour as
unchanging throughout the entire battle, which the result that the B1 in
particular is valued to "zero" by three of your five range weight functions as
it only rarely is able to penetrate *intact* armour. However, the amount of
armour on a ship *isn't* constant as the ship takes damage... beam weapons in
particular tend to strip it away quite fast
indeed :-/
* You don't seem to have taken the K-guns' ability to ignore screens
(or,
conversely, the fact that beam weapons are degraded by screens) into account
in any way? (Probably because you don't use larger battles much,
but it is quite significant even against the level-1 screens on the NAC
and ESU cruisers.)
Later,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> That's because you aren't nearly radical enough. B2s are one of the
If you need point defence firepower and plan to keep the range longer than
12mu until after you've crippled the enemy with your concentrated
long-range firepower (and this is how fleets with massed single-arc
beams
should plan), use PDS instead. It has twice the point-defence firepower
of
the B1, and its lack of anti-ship firepower only matters if you fail to
keep the enemy at arm's length.
B1s are only really worthwhile if you need both the PD capability *and* the
close-range wide-arc anti-ship firepower.
> Belisarius, Maniakes, Cimbalongus, Constantine
So? Your small ships only have 1 FCS each, so they can only shoot at 1 ship
per turn. Decide which part of the enemy formation you want to shoot at when
you write your orders.
> Then you're letting them get too close to you - which isn't terribly
So you have to decide early which part of the enemy formation you want each of
your ships to shoot at.
> And as for letting them get close, maybe I'm doing something wrong,
Especially if they
> spend the first couple turns kicking their speed up to 12-20.
Each turn, a thrust-4A ship (ie., Advanced drives) has a circle with a
diameter of 8 mu in which it can end up. A thrust-4 ship (ie., human
drives) has a circle with a diameter of 6 mu plus one point 1 mu outside
this circle (the "full thrust ahead" point) where it could end up; and if it
moves to some of those points it'll have its (A) arc facing you so you
can probably discount them. For thrust-6A and thrust-6 ships the
diameter of the circle is 12 and 10 mu, respectively.
This means that in order to "hop" an entire 12-mu range band against
your wishes, the enemy needs converging vectors or an initial overtake speed.
Without either of those advantages thrust-6 ships can "jump" a 6mu band;
for thrust-4 ships even that is a challenge.
As you noted in an earlier post these converging vectors is part of your
standard game set-up - so the question is, why did your admiral allow
the enemy to build up that initial overtake speed (and thus gain an advantage
over your ships) before the battle proper commenced? Over-eager to
fight, or something?
> The St. Andrews and St. Theodores are only vulnerable to Human beam
If the second "those" refer exclusively to your KV hunters without any
modifications to their armament, yes. As you may have noted in my previous
post, I mentioned replacing a few (not all!) of their P-torps with B3-1s
to rectify this very deficiency.
> Have you ever tried to pit, say, a St.Andrew against a Virgin Mary?
Exactly. The Mary carries level-2 screens; the Andrew spends the
corresponding Mass on extra weapons and some extra damage boxes instead.
My point here is that the Marys' screens stop on average less incoming damage
than the corresponding Mass of weapons would inflict on the enemy
-
so in an evenly matched battle (or a battle where the NRE force is inferior),
the Andrews' weapons are a better buy than the Marys' screens. Being able to
destroy enemy weapons early on and thus prevent them from firing at all for
the rest of the fight is a rather more effective defence
than being able to deflect some of their shots throughout the battle :-/
> No protective measures are worthwhile against Kra'Vak. Only a moron
useful.
Armour is quite useful to keep Kra'Vak fighters and light K-guns (K2s
and K1s) from supporting their heavier weapons. However, the best passive
"protective measure" against them is a high hull integrity (like the Andrew
has), and the best *active* "protective measure" is to do unto them first
(which the Andrew is quite good at) :-/
> The only way (barring extreme luck with the dice) a Virgin Mary-class
The Mary class is intended to hunt *other human-tech ships*... and she
isn't all that well optimized for that task in Vector.
My point is that the *St. Andrews* - which is a human-tech ship - would,
after a minor modification to their armaments (ie., changing a few of the
P-torps for B3-1s to allow them to outgun Marys at *all* ranges), be
quite well suited to hunting ships of the *Mary* class in Vector.
Furthermore, after that slight modification the Andrew would also be better
suited to take down other types of human-tech ships (eg. Arabia-class
SDNs
or FSE capital) in Vector than the Mary is; and its Vector anti-KV
performance would improve as well.
So, sure - the Mary does the NRE more good in space than it does in
drydock... but if she runs into an Andrew-style human opponent, she's
bound for the drydock anyway (assuming that she survives the experience at
all,
that is) :-/
Later,