The GZG Digest V2 #2129

2 posts ยท Aug 9 2004 to Aug 9 2004

From: DOCAgren@a...

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:33:47 EDT

Subject: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #2129

In a message dated 8/9/04 1:00:43 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:

<< Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:33:28 +0200

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

Subject: Re: Would like FeedBack on these 2 FT systems

Back from the holidays again:

> ***

> >And the Second is:

> >AA Battery from More Thrust Book

> >What in FT(2.5) should the mass/point cost be

> [quoted text omitted]

> A bit more powerful than the B4; I'd suggest MASS ~10 for cost

> (Without the burn-out it'd be nearly as powerful as a B*5*.)

> [quoted text omitted]

> Signing off for a week now,

> ***

> [quoted text omitted]

> Bummer; I was wondering if the difference is the larger fire arcs or

> something I missed.

Good point; above I had assumed that DOC was going to use the FT/FB

60-degree arcs. With a 90-degree fire arcs the AA would be a bit bigger

still (about half an arc's worth of bigger :-/ )

The main reason why the AA is more powerful than the B4 is that it has 18mu

range bands instead of 12mu ones, so the number of beam dice it can fire at

each range are:

Range: B4 AA B5

0-6             4       4       5

6-12            4       4       5

12-18           3       4       4

18-24           3       3       4

24-30           2       3       3

30-36           2       3       3

36-42           1       2       2

42-48           1       2       2

48-54           -       2       1

54-60           -       -       1

IOW, without the burnout the AA is clearly stronger than the B4 but not

quite as powerful as the B5. The burnout reduces the value of the weapon

(46% chance of burning out at range 0-18, 14% at range 18-36 and 3% at

range 36-54), but it is still a pretty powerful long-range weapons and

ships large enough to carry these things tend to have enough DCPs to get

them back in working order relatively quickly so it isn't quite as bad as

it looks.

Doug, did this answer your questions?

/Oerjan

oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.

What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."

- -Hen3ry >>

Well now U no raised a few questions with me...

Yes I was going with the FB1 firearcs.

But I beleive the old AA beam batteries couldn't be fixed in the field so if U
loose the AA battery to burnout then it is out until U can disengage and try
to fix it then. So I'm not really sure with the burnouts rates that It should
be any mass bigger then a B4. Now if U allow the burnout to be fixed in the
field, or not having the burnout chance. I can see the extra mass for this.
But not being able to fix the guns if burned out, not taken out in a
threshold, can be the different in a battle between a Winner and a Loser.

Or I am i looking at this wrong? If so please tell me how?

Have a Good One,

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:27:38 +0200

Subject: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #2129

> DOC Agren wrote:

> Well now U no raised a few questions with me...

The only types of systems damage which are listed as being impossible for
Damage Control Parties to repair are hits inflicted by Needle Beams or 'other
"selective" weaponry' (eg. Needle Missiles). An AA burnout is obviously not a
Needle Beam hit, and while you could argue that it is "selective weaponry" I
must say that I'd rate that as a rather strained
interpretation of "selective weaponry" :-/ But yes, if you treat the
burn-out as being irrepairable the value of the weapon goes down a bit
further.

Regards,