Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

8 posts ยท Jul 7 2000 to Jul 13 2000

From: Imre A. Szabo <ias@s...>

Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:13:38 -0400

Subject: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

I multilplied the Probability of a hit by 3.5 (average roll on 1d6) to get
this table.

Range Average Damage
0-6           2.33
7-12        1.75
13-18        1.17
19-24        0.583

The table below is average damage for Sa'Vasku strenght 3 beam shots. Note
that the actual average damage is a little bit higher then listed
because I only included the probablity of one re-roll...  Note this
means average damage for a 1.5 d6 at 13 to 24 mu range...

Range	     No Screens        Level 1	      Level 2
0-12                2.22                1.83            1.33
13-24              1.17                0.917           0.67

I'm not too impressed by what it says about lance pods...

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:53:05 -0400

Subject: RE: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> -----Original Message-----

Imre, Your analysis of the Lance Pod was helpful, but did not address the
strength of the Lance Pod...its ability to do 1 point of damage to armor and
the rest
to hull (ala K-Gun). However, with your damage example, this would
amount to only 1 or 2 points of damage to the hull and 1 to armor (not a great
advantage).

I also was not overly impressed with Lance Pods.
They are a poor man's K-Gun:
                Class-1 K-Gun     Lance Pod
Damage:     1d6 	    1d6
Extra Dmg: 1:6 for x2 None
Mass:       2               3 + 1 per pod fired
Cost:       8               9 + 2 per pod fired
Range: 30" 24"
To Hit: 6" RB start at 2+   6" RB start at 3+
Dmg to Firer: None 1

So, it costs more, masses more, less damage, less arcs, less range, less
to-hit probability, reduces the ability to use other systems (uses
power) and damages the ship firing it. Quite a bargain. The advantage the pod
system has is that it can NOT use the lance pods, firing leech or interceptor
pods instead.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:23 +0200

Subject: Re: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> I multilplied the Probability of a hit by 3.5 (average roll on 1d6) to

Unless you're only ever shooting at very fragile targets, you've
underestimated the contribution of the re-rolls. Correct table follows
below.

> Note that the actual average damage is a little bit higher then listed

Correct table is:

Range	     No Screens        Level 1	      Level 2
0-12                2.4                 1.9                1.4
13-24              1.2                  0.95            0.7

> I'm not too impressed by what it says about lance pods...

It says "Only use them against heavily screened targets at range 18 or less"
<g> It doesn't hurt if the targets are armoured as well as screened, of
course.

> Brian K. Bell wrote:

> I also was not overly impressed with Lance Pods. They are a poor

No, they're the *Sa'Vasku's* K-gun equivalent.

> Class-1 K-Gun Lance Pod

Um? Brian, re-read the K-gun rules. The K1 has a base damage of *1*,
not 1d6. Its average damage per hit is 1.17 pts, ie. 1/3 the average
damage of a Lance Pod hit, so for the same damage you need to compare 3 K1s to
a single Lance Pod:

Mass            6       6+1 per pod fired
Cost:           30        21 + 3 per pod fired

since you also need 3 Mass of power generators to power the Pod Launcher. The
cost also includes the base cost of the hull, since that gets important as
soon as the systems aren't exactly the same size, but doesn't include the cost
of engines.

A simpler comparison is with the single-arc K2, since this has the same
fire arc as the Lance Pod (the values in brackets below are the K2 values
adjusted to the same average damage per hit, ie. multiplied by
2.67/3.5 = 1.3125):
:
K2 Lance Pod Average damage 2.67 3.5
Mass                    3 (3.94)             6+1 per pod fired
Cost                    15 (19.69)           21 + 3 per pod fired

The K2 is quite a bit a more cost-effective than the Pod Launcher in
its anti-ship mode, which is appropriate since it is much less flexible
than the Pod Launcher.

> Range: 30" 24"

Correct.

> Dmg to Firer: None 1

The last bit is, I believe, caused by people thinking of all of the biomass as
equivalent to "hull boxes" only. IMO a more appropriate way
is to think of part of the biomass - about 3 boxes per Pod Launcher -
as a scattergun battery or a salvo missile magazine which happens to be
capable of absorbing hull damage in an emergency :-/

Regards,

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:09:23 GMT

Subject: RE: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> From: Imre A. Szabo [SMTP:ias@sprintmail.com]

There was a lot of discussion on the design/playtest list about SV pod
launchers. Both OO and my opinion was that the Leech pod was so much better
that it would
be the only one used. Then Jon de-Grossified the Leech pod to the
version that made it into FB2. I still think it's far more useful, but the
Lance pod will at times be useful in its own right (eg when you're 2 pts off a
threshold at long range). For myself I've never had occasion to use the Lance,
it's been leeches only. "Putting on the Curse" is what we call it. Get 4 hits
on a cruiser, then ignore it: pretty soon it will go away.

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:29:28 -0400

Subject: Re: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> At 20:37 2000-07-10 +0200, you wrote:

Sorry Oerjan and list. I have been FAR too distracted.

To Do List: 1. Fix Lurker Mode Drive 2. Install saftey switch on comment
buttton. Saftey switch should engage

brain and do a manditory reexamination of rules before disingaging.

Thanks (again) for catching my mistake, Oerjan. :-)

---

From: Imre A. Szabo <ias@s...>

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:49:10 -0400

Subject: Re: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Unless you're only ever shooting at very fragile targets, you've

I wasn't that far off... But thanks for the corrected table. It only makes
lance pods look even worse... The biggest problem with lance pods is that most
ships don't have enough armor for amor penetration to be of significant use...
Against NSL ships they are of marginal value. They're really only good for
shooting NAC carriers. Why? NAC carriers have level two screens, lots of armor
and weak hull...

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 06:58:53 +0200

Subject: Re: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> I wasn't that far off... But thanks for the corrected table. It

The following FB1 ships have "enough armour" for the armour penetration to be
significant on average die rolls:

NAC: Vandenburg, Excalibur, Inflexible, Ark Royal
NSL: All except the Falke, possibly the Waldburg/M, and the Szent
Istvan and bigger
ESU: Warsaw, Beijing/B, Voroshilev

I believe there are at least 17 ships with "enough armour" in FB2 as
well :-/

If you roll a "6" just about any armour heavier than 1 box is enough for the
penetration to be significant, but you can't count on that all the time <g>

Of course, against "most ships" the Sa'Vasku have quite a few other weapon
options <shrug>

Regards,

From: Imre A. Szabo <ias@s...>

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:54:15 -0400

Subject: Re: Sa'Vasku Lance Pod Effectiveness

The problem is that with the poor accuracy, expenditure of hull, and power
cost, must ships aren't good targets. My rule of thumb is does the the ship
have more armor then the top row of boxes. Why? Because to significantly
degrade a ships performance, you have to knock it down at least two rows. For
this purpose, the average damage for Lance Pods is 3
1/3 per hit, not 3.5.  Why?  Because all damage rolls of 1 are going to
be completely stopped by armor. This means there are only 9 ships in FB 1 that
Lance Pods are effective on. They aren't effective on the other 49 warships...

IAS

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Imre A. Szabo wrote: