Particle spinal always superior?

[AnotherDilbert]

Particle always does more damage per ton of weapon even if the target is heavily armoured.
Particle is immune to screens.

E.g. 7500 tons of meson does 3500 damage.
7000 tons of Particle does 7000 * ( 1 - 3% * 15 ) = 7000 * 55% = 3850 damage.

 

[Nerhesi]

Particle is 8DD max vs 45% armour reduction.

Meson is 10DD max vs 0% armour reduction.

Yes Particle is always more efficient - but given the 3rd Imperium ship size and the limit of 1 Spinal, space is not necessarily the issue. It is imperative that screens are not too weak or powerful against Mesons though (hence the other topic).

 

[Chas]

There is another point here : when Nehersi first did the table, he had this capped off at different top limits. Without the cap these scale indefinitely at the same levels. I'd already said previously that Meson's wanted some sort of sliding scale just like the original rule books, so they become more effective with TL and we see some 'movement' in the optimization curve. Having movement in the scaleing is important or you get stuck in rules straight jackets which is affecting other parts of the play as well.

 

[Nerhesi]

They're still capped at different limits chas - if thats what you're getting at. They're just displayed differently.. Max weight is 10x for Meson, 8x for Particle and 7x for Railgun

 

[Chas]

Ah right, got it, thanks.

I think the sliding scale in favor of the meson and heavier weights should still be there though... so we do see some Meson's coming into play other than just the super smashers and the dreadnought has a place.

As mentioned this perfectly even scale only favors more small spinals, not making a big one.

 

[Nerhesi]

Well, it favours big spinals because of the limit on spinals by ship in 3I (1 spinal). So you'd always be looking for the biggest spinal possible.

The downside is over-kill against smaller ships of course, but that is why it is even more beneficial to have a bigger ship - allowing to mount that top spinal and a variety of other weapons, so you can choose what to shoot that 10DD spinal at, or what to hit with 100 bays.

 

[Chas]

Well, it favours big spinals because of the limit on spinals by ship in 3I (1 spinal). So you'd always be looking for the biggest spinal possible.

The downside is over-kill against smaller ships of course, but that is why it is even more beneficial to have a bigger ship - allowing to mount that top spinal and a variety of other weapons, so you can choose what to shoot that 10DD spinal at, or what to hit with 100 bays.

Unfortunately I'm not sure it works like that, mate. When you start tacking on bays on top of your spinal, the small ship is building more of the same but now with the effective firepower of a spinal vs. the equivalent weight in bays, right? It becomes even more tilted to the swarm of smaller vessels that are primarily spinal armed.

300,000 tons of dreadnought of 1 big spinal (whatever it is) plus bays is going to loose vs. 20 x 15,000 ton cruisers I believe. This is the issue I mean with the straight linear weapon progression. Unless that crit hit table pulls the fight back towards the dreadnought...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Spinals are not magical ship killers, they are just attritional hull point scrapers, just like bays and turrets.
Spinal have questionable range, and bad to hit versus smaller ships.

The computer rules favour the ship firing one weapon at +5, rather than many weapons at +3.
Isn't the optimal energy ship a few hundred tons with a single meson bay?

 

[Chas]

Spinals are not magical ship killers, they are just attritional hull point scrapers, just like bays and turrets.
Spinal have questionable range, and bad to hit versus smaller ships.

The computer rules favour the ship firing one weapon at +5, rather than many weapons at +3.
Isn't the optimal energy ship a few hundred tons with a single meson bay?

The meson bay hasn't been part of the design factoring AnotherDilbert. It's a loose end from several revisions of High Guard iterations that needs tidying up as best I know. The spinal is supposed to be the be all and end all.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, so use a Fusion bay upteched with Long Range once or twice.
Still just as much damage from a ship a spinal can't hit.

 

[Chas]

Spinal = 2 DD for 5600 tons TL 15 = 7000 hull points - 45% = 3,850 hull points. {power = 2000}

Fusion bays = 2DD per hundred tons very high yield long range = 85 (?? need to check this average, heh) x 56 = 4760 hull points - 15 armor x 56 = 4760 - 840 = 3920 hull points {power = 80 x 56 = 4480}

The spinal is bit less but that is before any reduction of the nuclear damper for the fusion bay which could very well halve the damage shown there. Spinal has a clear advantage using very high yield, plus say long range. You could do double long range and high yield only as more usual and have the range bonus which is the usual usage of fusion bays. The impact of the nuclear damper needs more investigation. Actually the spinal should be doing more I think. There was a TL % change at the end which crimped this, originally it was running at 40% size reduction.

Spinal = 2DD for 6300 tons TL12 = 7000 hull points - 36% = 4480 hull points

Fusion Bay = Medium Range 2DD TL12 = 70 x 63 = 4410 - (63x12) = 4410 - 756 = 3654 hull points (before damping)

TL 12 advantage to spinal.

Though not as much as I was expecting to be honest at TL15, the rework has pulled it in a lot. I'm going to have another look at the damper.

 

[Nerhesi]

"Where the referee deems it appropriate, the same Advantage or Disadvantage can be applied more than once to a component."

I think we need to indicate that this doesn't apply to range or perhaps make long range 2 advantages. Given how important Range is... but for now, lets make the comparison based on.. I guess weight if what AnotherDilbert is going by?

2DD Particle Spinal (TL+3), 5,600 tons, 56 hardpoints, 7,000 avg damage vs 0 armour, 3,850 vs 15 armour. 2000 Power, 2000 MCr.
62 Fusion bays (TL+3 VL range and weight - 10%), 5580 tons, 62 hardpoints, 4,340 avg damage vs 0 armour, 3,410 vs 15 armour. 4,960 power, 3,472 MCr.

So spinals are better Damage, Weight, Hardpoint usage, Power usage, Cost
If you allow range modification twice, than fusion advantage is increased range.
Fusion is susceptible to screens (not accounted for here)

 

[Nerhesi]

OK, so use a Fusion bay upteched with Long Range once or twice.
Still just as much damage from a ship a spinal can't hit.

You're absolutely right.I think we have to look at the things that force "kiting" because this is really the same for any game with range bands.
It is not an issue of the weapon statistics or their range, it is an issue of the scenarios that give you no reason to close.

You're going a good job of bringing it to the forefront the issue of "Why dont I just use Particle beams 24/7" - you dont need to increase range and you just spend tech level bonuses on weight reduction (amazing) or accurate and such (great too).

It just isn't a Spinal only - issue. It is an every-weapon/paradigm issue. Perhaps at the end of the High-Guard capital combat section it can have 5 sample scenarios were they realistically focus on strategic objectives so that players aren't thinking that in every battle you have the option of just "kiting" from very long/distant range.

 

[Chas]

It's tricky because even in scenario's that you might think are where you have to stand and fight, such as defending a planet, the problem is that if you have to back off and snipe because that's all you can do, you'll continue doing it... you're certainly not going to allow yourself to get vapourized by a fire power superior enemy.

Worth a dedicated thread.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yup - but if My force sees you backing up and sniping, you must realise I will obliterate your space-station, highport and downport.

If I can't have it I will scuttle it. Now I'm still up one because I return back to where-ever I came from, and you're down <<insert the strategic thing that made me come to this place>>

Perhaps we discuss this under the new thread