Spinal Weapons - February Update

[Chas]

Spinals are basically only characterised by damage and tonnage (damage/ton); cost, power, etc. are low enough to be ignored.

PAs are always better than mesons, that needs to change if we want to see mesons in action.
Fusion bays have the same damage/ton and the same range (w tech upgrade), yet fewer disadvantages.

I'm not sure if spinals are even good weapons, ships with spinals are easily countered by frigates with bays or fighters, so I do not think spinals are overpowered.

This is what I'm looking to address there. Mesons need to have a non-linear curve of performance to cross over into particle spinal territory. Fusions should get nerfed by on going improvements in dampers at higher tech levels (the spinal was better at TL12 if you recall), if they are not the spinals there should still be preferable later on when Fusions get the advantages. -40% weight for the spinal moves things back in the particle spinal's favour. The -45% and +1D gives the mesons a real boost, with the ultra big spinals having specific and different advantages... again, options, not one superior solution.

Still thinking a bit about the cost of mesons though.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

With +1DD, do you mean ( 2DD/7500 ) tons or ( 1DD/7500 ton + 1DD )? The first is a too large step at a single TL, the second is too good for small spinals.

 

[Chas]

With +1DD, do you mean ( 2DD/7500 ) tons or ( 1DD/7500 ton + 1DD )? The first is a too large step at a single TL, the second is too good for small spinals.

I meant you get 1DD damage increase to 2DD to give 3DD, and yes it is significant at low levels. But 2DD is the minimum which is always over shadowed by the particle - it never gets used. The actual cost of the meson is never justified when screens can also counter act it.

It is a valid point though, the scaling of the add on should be adjusted as a uniform add on, I missed the mark there. How about this. Let's stagger it.

At +2TL the damage multiplier becomes 1150 hull points (+15% damage)
At +3TL the damage multiplier becomes 1300 hull points (+30% damage)

 

[Chas]

I'll get the actual full matrix up here in this post for reference. There'll likely need a tweak or two yet, heh.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What is interesting is Effectiveness = Damage / ton. It is easier raise Effectiveness by smoothly lower tonnage, rather than fiddle with 1DD.

Lower the tonnage of Mesons by 20% / TL and Particle by 10% / TL. Particle will be more effective at lower TL, meson at higher TL.

 

[Chas]

What is interesting is Effectiveness = Damage / ton. It is easier raise Effectiveness by smoothly lower tonnage, rather than fiddle with 1DD.

Lower the tonnage of Mesons by 20% / TL and Particle by 10% / TL. Particle will be more effective at lower TL, meson at higher TL.

I've got the mesons at 15% vs 10%. I didn't want to get too carried away. But let me get this table up and see how it matches...

 

[Nerhesi]

Not convinced we should fiddle with anything except perhaps Meson Weight. Although Matt asked for increased weight on Mesons.

Id actually go with the following direction:

If we want spinals to be more powerful, we have to watch out we're not making smaller ships more powerful because they dont need it. Therefore allow for larger spinals by increasing the maximum size. But that is it. No touching the weight or giving free extra damage by TL. But simply raise the caps to 12DD and 10DD and 8DD(for Mesons and Particle and Rail Gun for example). This allows bigger spinals on bigger ships, not more damage spinals on smaller ships.

 

[Chas]

Well, here it goes. Thoughts? I wanted to see this to get a clear picture of what's happening. Even with the TL increase in damage the meson only goes above 2x the particle at TL15, at TL14, they're about even which means from my intended design point of view I think that bit is correct. Whether it justifies the 2x price cost through out is another story when screens can impact the meson. I'm tempted to drop messons down to the same cost as particles at least. The weight difference is a killer when you think what else is being packed into a non-meson ship. The particle accelerator ship is killing the meson on secondary weapons included in the mix.

 

[Chas]

Not convinced we should fiddle with anything except perhaps Meson Weight. Although Matt asked for increased weight on Mesons.

Id actually go with the following direction:

If we want spinals to be more powerful, we have to watch out we're not making smaller ships more powerful because they dont need it. Therefore allow for larger spinals by increasing the maximum size. But that is it. No touching the weight or giving free extra damage by TL. But simply raise the caps to 12DD and 10DD and 8DD(for Mesons and Particle and Rail Gun for example). This allows bigger spinals on bigger ships, not more damage spinals on smaller ships.

Simply increasing the maximum size doesn't work per AnotherDilbert's dodge example. And if you look at that table above, there is nothing particularly about making small ships with more power. Given the extra secondary weaponry that is going into particle accelerator ships, even with the superior weight reduction I've put in for mesons, they're barely getting ahead of the curve.

Yes, a flat weight reduction of the mesons is required if we don't want to touch other things. But I would like to keep the sliding non-linear progression of the mesons vs. the particle. And the dodge bonus provides a reward for building big, not making more small ships, provides tactical options, and provides a counter towards the big ship hull bonus for the spinals.
I like the overkill feature for the extra range. Something different to put on the tactics table. We want interesting decisions.

I'd also like to be more comfortable with knowing what the final meson screen/shield solution is going to be on a fleet scale...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm sorry, Chas, but you make my head hurt. You are changing all variables at the same time, where you only need to change one variable.

Effectiveness = Damage / tonnage.

To increase effectiveness with TL make the spinals smaller, don't change anything else. Especially do not change damage that we use in combat: 1DD is simple, 1DD - 14% is not simple.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not convinced we should fiddle with anything except perhaps Meson Weight. Although Matt asked for increased weight on Mesons.

Mesons are already always worse than Particle. Mesons should be lighter.

Id actually go with the following direction:

If we want spinals to be more powerful, we have to watch out we're not making smaller ships more powerful because they dont need it. Therefore allow for larger spinals by increasing the maximum size. But that is it. No touching the weight or giving free extra damage by TL. But simply raise the caps to 12DD and 10DD and 8DD(for Mesons and Particle and Rail Gun for example). This allows bigger spinals on bigger ships, not more damage spinals on smaller ships.

What is the problem if someone wants to build a humongous 1000DD spinal? The ship carrying it will too large and too expensive to be effective. We no not need a cap on the size at all.

A TL15 meson should be better than a TL12 meson. the simplest way to make that happen is to make the TL15 lighter. It makes small ships and large ships equally much better and does not change the balance between them.

 

[Nerhesi]

Mesons are already always worse than Particle. Mesons should be lighter.

This is based on your assumption that the target is packing enough screens to defend against Meson? On their own they're more than double the weight, for at best 45% more damage. Which is not efficient, but is a massive increase in DPR & DPS (Damage per round).

What is the problem if someone wants to build a humongous 1000DD spinal? The ship carrying it will too large and too expensive to be effective. We no not need a cap on the size at all.
A TL15 meson should be better than a TL12 meson. the simplest way to make that happen is to make the TL15 lighter. It makes small ships and large ships equally much better and does not change the balance between them.

I dont think we disagree on anything here (infact, that is the way I designed the system as it is now) - except for higher caps. I dont think we have the freedom to allow a gigantic Spinal. The only impact is that such a spinal can then, for example, 1-shot a battleship. I was under the impression that largest "1-shottable" thing was to be a cruiser or so.

If that is a change in direction then perhaps maybe we should allow it - although keep in mind it does keep improving the battle-rider as it makes more and more sense to pack that larger allowable spinal into the smallest ship possible. So if we had X doing Y damage. By opening it up we are allowing 2X doing 2Y, 3X doing 3Y etc...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Meson: 1DD / 7500 dT ≈ 0.46 D / dT
Particle: 1DD *55% / 3500 dT ≈ 0.55 D / dT

Meson does less damage per dT weapon ≈ per dT ship ≈ per GCr.
Meson might be stopped by screens, Particle cannot.
Particle available at lower TL, so gets better TL bonus at any given TL, except at TL15.
So Meson is always a worse weapon, not desirable.

So a steeper TL discount for Meson would make it a worse weapon at TL12, but a better weapon at TL15.

 

[Nerhesi]

Meson: 1DD / 7500 dT ≈ 0.46 D / dT
Particle: 1DD *55% / 3500 dT ≈ 0.55 D / dT

Meson does less damage per dT weapon ≈ per dT ship ≈ per GCr.
Meson might be stopped by screens, Particle cannot.
Particle available at lower TL, so gets better TL bonus at any given TL, except at TL15.
So Meson is always a worse weapon, not desirable.

So a steeper TL discount for Meson would make it a worse weapon at TL12, but a better weapon at TL15.

Thanks for the clarity (I edited my post above). I blame Matt he added 500 tons per DD to my initial amount! Hah - Matt - meet the bus that just ran you over!

No no, in all seriousness - this is a very good point anotherdilbert. We should look at reducing over-all tonnage and cost for Meson. I think this would be cleaner and simpler than reducing/increasing the TL effectiveness by Spinal type

 

[Chas]

I agree we should keep this simple and one step at a time, and that the weight and costs of the meson's need to come down... a lot. Just to get parity between the two types.

We need to keep in mind
a) any weight difference between a particle accelerator and a meson is going to be filled with secondary weapons, which tilts the firepower equation more in favor of the particle accelerator
b) the impact of meson screens. The ship with meson screens and a particle accelerator does not need to eliminate meson damage, it only needs to remove enough meson damage that it now has the upper hand, and quite easily achieved


Let's start here and see where we get. But we should not look at this as the end of the process. We do have other issues to consider:
1) The range
2) The fact that meson screen progression is not linear. These do get better over TL.
3) the fact we're suggesting big ships get a serious increase in hull points, while small ships aren't. The hull damage is not linear and we need to see where we have actually ended up
4) The dodge issue on massed combat of small craft - this needed to be revisited at the end to check what is happening with combination of these new factors

 

[Nerhesi]

Not following.

How is Meson screen effect not linear? They are 2D x effect each and their weight is 10% reduced by TL level.

As hull points increase being an issue - I disagree but would rather not delve into that conversation because we will end up at square one. These are not purely spinal issues and hence should not factor into the discussion. They adversely affect all weapons equally. Yes bigger ships will live longer - against both spinal and non-spinal damage. Spinal damage will still kill them twice as fast as non-spinal damage.

As for range - I'm not sure how this got in there, but there is now a specific reference regarding using basic TL level weapon increases (like Accurate, Long Range, resilient, High Yield, etc) on Spinal weapons as well. It says as per referee discretion (I really hate statements like this), so what does that actually mean for 3I settings? Are authors and future books free to allow these improvements to offical-design spinals?

 

[Chas]

Not following.

How is Meson screen effect not linear? They are 2D x effect each and their weight is 10% reduced by TL level.

I meant non-linear vs spinals, they currently get a +30% max decrease, spinals currently run on a different TL weight scale.

As hull points increase being an issue - I disagree but would rather not delve into that conversation because we will end up at square one. These are not purely spinal issues and hence should not factor into the discussion. They adversely affect all weapons equally. Yes bigger ships will live longer - against both spinal and non-spinal damage. Spinal damage will still kill them twice as fast as non-spinal damage.

Quite happy to put this on the back burner, just want to make sure we do actually go and build a big ship and fight it and see the results before declaring the job done and having Matt lock the rules on us which is quite likely to happen very shortly.

As for range - I'm not sure how this got in there, but there is now a specific reference regarding using basic TL level weapon increases (like Accurate, Long Range, resilient, High Yield, etc) on Spinal weapons as well. It says as per referee discretion (I really hate statements like this), so what does that actually mean for 3I settings? Are authors and future books free to allow these improvements to offical-design spinals?

I think they should word this a little stronger saying Mongoose products or the 3rd Imperium canon material will be made for spinals without the TL being applied. This would be correct right?

 

[Nerhesi]

Not following.

How is Meson screen effect not linear? They are 2D x effect each and their weight is 10% reduced by TL level.

I meant non-linear vs spinals, they currently get a +30% max decrease, spinals currently run on a different TL weight scale.

As hull points increase being an issue - I disagree but would rather not delve into that conversation because we will end up at square one. These are not purely spinal issues and hence should not factor into the discussion. They adversely affect all weapons equally. Yes bigger ships will live longer - against both spinal and non-spinal damage. Spinal damage will still kill them twice as fast as non-spinal damage.

Quite happy to put this on the back burner, just want to make sure we do actually go and build a big ship and fight it and see the results before declaring the job done and having Matt lock the rules on us which is quite likely to happen very shortly.

As for range - I'm not sure how this got in there, but there is now a specific reference regarding using basic TL level weapon increases (like Accurate, Long Range, resilient, High Yield, etc) on Spinal weapons as well. It says as per referee discretion (I really hate statements like this), so what does that actually mean for 3I settings? Are authors and future books free to allow these improvements to offical-design spinals?

I think they should word this a little stronger saying Mongoose products or the 3rd Imperium canon material will be made for spinals without the TL being applied. This would be correct right?

Agreed on all points

 

[Chas]

Been working through this and trying to see a reasoned rationale for getting a good distance between spinals, the particles and mesons, like Matt asked for and the current design issues.

I think I have it, in the sense we can say particle accelerators are for those ships that need to be sure of doing damage on a one to one situation, mesons carry the bigger punch but are susceptible to screens however they will be the optimum choice for fleet battles where multiple ships can be expecting to fire on one target (fleet battles will always be about complete destruction of one unit vs. harm to many). The screens will be overwhelmed and the bigger damage of the mesons bites hard. The pack hunting strike cruiser have mesons. The far ranging cruising cruisers carry particles. In this circumstance we can allow the mesons a very high damage to tonnage ratio.

Right now base:
Particles are 1 ton = .67 hull point TL 11
Mesons are 1 ton = .47 hull points TL12

Now here, as long as the meson screens are feasible, rather than drop the weight of the mesons, we should lift the firepower of the mesons/ton up to above particles, because the meson is going to get seriously crimped by screens. As mentioned in the particle vs. meson ship situation, the screens of the particle ship only has to drop the meson down below the particle + secondary weapons damage ratio to win. Right now the particle is winning - without even bringing screens into the picture!

If we double the damage of the mesons in the current weight, it might look horrendous, but could be workable. The tonnage of the mesons is very high. This simple brings us to a position where:
1 ton meson = .93 hull point
playing against
1 ton particle = .67 hull point.
Assuming the defending ship has effective screens, you could easily find the attacking meson damage efficiency dropping below the particle.

By looking at the current table if we say for mesons the Base Size is 7500 tons = +2DD we could have a workable system with a large difference in the way the different spinals appear to work.

The issue is meson screens need to play ball. You guys have looked at these far more than I have. Could you recapture your key recommendations here and see what number of screens are necessary to pull a 2DD damage down below a .67 hull point/ton ratio? Thanks! From what I've seen this is quite doable. Maybe too easy and we need to put the meson damage up even more.

While we assume mesons are for multiple ship encounters, there still should be an opportunity for a fight if two individual ships meet without serious investment in defence by the non-meson ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think your logic is entirely correct.

To degrade 3500 meson damage would require 125 screens at 1250 dT (& MCr2500) [assuming 8+ and Gunner+5]. That sounds very good, but the screen can only stop one attack. You use the screens as a reaction before the attack roll, so roughly half the time the screens are wasted on a miss. Meson screens are economically marginal against mesons, and worthless against other weapons.

I think you are on the right track, but you boost the mesons a bit to much, remember that the particles are do less damage / dT at higher TL because of armour. If we boost screens you are in the right ballpark.

So, to go with your suggestion (as I have seen already suggested on this board):
Allow screens to be used several times per round by using more power and gunners. Each use requires a few gunners and the base amount of power.
This will boost the effectiveness of larger spinals, and hence larger ships.