Meson Kill Stats

[skyth]

Someone was talking about a battle with a lot of Meson guns being a very bloody slaughter on both sides...I was curious, so I crunched the numbers for J and T Meson guns vs a 9 Meson screen and various configs.

J guns:

Long range 4.63% Pen hit base, Short Range is 11.57%.

Config's that change that: (Long then short range)

1 3.34% 8.36%
2 4.24% 10.61%
3 4.5% 11.25%
7 1.93% 4.82%
9 2.70% 6.75%

T Guns:

Long Range 13.89% Pen hit base. Short Range is 34.72%.

Configs that change that: (Long then short range)

1 13.50% 33.76%
7 11.57% 28.94%
9 12.73% 31.83%

Since all battle start at long range, with all T guns, you are getting at best about 1 in 8 kills. J guns (More common I would believe) are about 1 in 20.

Granted, this is assuming factor 9 Meson screens but that would seem to be a good thing to have on a ship if you can.

Of course, the biggest issue is not the lethality of Mesons, but rather the ineffectiveness of anything else. I think armor and computer difference should only count for 1/2 DM's, not full DM's. That would make a lot more guns actually useful since the only things that can hurt AV 15 with a decent meson screen are Spinal mounts, Nuclear missiles (And those are pretty much limited to factor 9 ones) and pulse lasers.

 

[The Oz]

I did these same calculations a long time ago for HG2, and I didn't keep the math, just the results. I can redo the math, if needed.

As I figured it out, two identical TL-15 ships, each 75ktons in size, with f-T meson spinals, mod9/fib computers, Agility-6, config-1, and f-9 meson screens, had a 32% chance of a penetrating hit at long range, and a 55% chance of a penetrating hit at short range.

Once a hit was achieved, I looked at the chances for a killing result on the Damage Tables, including the chances of Critical Hits.

Damage Assumptions: A Ship Vaporized hit, Fuel Tanks Shattered hit, Maneuver Drive Disabled hit, Power Plant Disabled hit, Spinal Mount/Fire Control Out hit, two Bridge Destroyed or two Computer Destroyed hits is an effective kill.

Chance of an effective kill: 16.38% per roll on the Internal Explosion table.

A spinal meson gun gets one extra damage roll for each size bigger than factor-9, which gives a factor-T 19 rolls. Since you have a 16.38% chance of a kill per roll, and lots of rolls, the chance of a kill is almost certain, once you get a penetrating hit.

Even the much smaller f-J meson gun (beloved by meson sled designers) still has a very good chance of penetrating the defenses and produces more than enough damage rolls to ensure a mission kill.

 

[skyth]

My calculations didn't include any target size modifiers.

 

[skyth]

My calculations didn't include any target size modifiers.

HG definitely has the incentive to keep your ships smaller though (I usually max out my front-line designs at 50-60ktons. I perfer 25-30ktons, but it's hard to get a T gun on something that small that isn't a battlerider (I do have a 25kton T gun battle rider though)

 

[flykiller]

My calculations didn't include any target size modifiers.

ya gots to include those, man.

small modifiers make a big difference at the upper end of 2d6. for example, if 10+ is needed to hit, and this is raised to 11+, the number of hits has been reduced by 50%.

 

[dccarles]

At TL 15, the meson-N is significantly more efficient than the smaller J, because it hits and penetrates more often for only a very small increase in power and size. I myself prefer to keep my meson sleds <20k, so there's a +0 modifier to hit, even at the expense of armour.

Meson screens-9 are very expensive in power - they require 1.8 power plant factors to run. So many designers skimp on meson screens (the Plankwell has agility-5 and meson screen-3 - talk about a recipe for disaster) because of this, but at TL 15 it isn't the problem it is at TLs 12-14.

Here's my attempt at a TL 15 meson sled, with factor-N meson gun:

Ship: Gushmege
Class: World
Type: Light Cruiser
Architect: Third Imperium
Tech Level: 15

USP
         CL-K146EJ3-697900-900N9-0 MCr 18,813.450 19 KTons
Bat Bear             3     5  19   Crew: 202
Bat                  3     5  19   TL: 15

Cargo: 438.500 Frozen Watch Fuel: 6,460.000 EP: 2,660.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 20
Craft: 4 x 50T Various small craft
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Backups: 2 x Model/9fib Computers 2 x Factor 9 Nuclear Dampers 2 x Factor 7 Meson Screens

Architects Fee: MCr 188.135   Cost in Quantity: MCr 15,050.760

Note that jump fuel only gives a range of two parsecs; the ship has drop tanks semi-permanently attached in peacetime (for jump-3.) Note the high power plant factor, necessitated by (relatively, for its size) power-hungry spinal mount.

--Devin

 

[Bob Weaver]

Of course, the biggest issue is not the lethality of Mesons, but rather the ineffectiveness of anything else. I think armor and computer difference should only count for 1/2 DM's, not full DM's. That would make a lot more guns actually useful since the only things that can hurt AV 15 with a decent meson screen are Spinal mounts, Nuclear missiles (And those are pretty much limited to factor 9 ones) and pulse lasers.

That has always been my biggest gripe with HG2. Every modification or house rule I have made has to do with trying to tone down the overwhelming power of meson guns or improving the capability of other weapons. I have tried the "meson screens count as armor" variant that I found on this board somewhere, and found that works to bring MG's more in line with the rest of the arsenal.

Cheers,

Bob W.

 

[The Oz]

That has always been my biggest gripe with HG2. Every modification or house rule I have made has to do with trying to tone down the overwhelming power of meson guns or improving the capability of other weapons. I have tried the "meson screens count as armor" variant that I found on this board somewhere, and found that works to bring MG's more in line with the rest of the arsenal.

Cheers,

Bob W.

Sigg and I came up with that, based on the concept of meson screens from FF&S.

Where I've always thought that HG2 missed the boat was in not giving larger ships a better ability to absorb damage and keep fighting. It doesn't matter if that 6-G drive is installed in a 200kton BB or a 1kton DE, it can only take 6 hits before it's gone. That was one of the major house rules Sigg and I evolved (he did most of it) to give battleships more value in HG2.

 

[flykiller]

Here's my attempt at a TL 15 meson sled, with factor-N meson gun:

looks good on offense, but the low armor rating means it quickly will get beaten down by nukes. and fighters will absolutely eat it up.

That was one of the major house rules Sigg and I evolved (he did most of it) to give battleships more value in HG2.

how did you solve that problem? I did it by making weapons damage an absolute dton value, hence a factor 9 laser would break a scout ship in half but that same damage would have little effect on a battleship.

 

[Bob Weaver]

looks good on offense, but the low armor rating means it quickly will get beaten down by nukes. and fighters will absolutely eat it up.


how did you solve that problem? I did it by making weapons damage an absolute dton value, hence a factor 9 laser would break a scout ship in half but that same damage would have little effect on a battleship.

Would you both describe your house rules in more detail? And thanks Sigg and Oz for the meson screen as armor rule.

Bob W.

 

[The Oz]

Would you both describe your house rules in more detail? And thanks Sigg and Oz for the meson screen as armor rule.

Bob W.

I can't find the file on my computer, but the thread should be in the archives here on CotI somewhere.

The basic idea was that ship systems (drives and powerplant, fuel, bridges, crew) had to take more hits before they lost a HG rating point. We based the increase on the HG "to-hit" size modifiers: ships of size 0 lost everything with a single hit, size 1-9 lost one HG rating point per hit, size A-K needed two hits before the system lost a rating point, and so on and so on.

We thought that you could keep track of how many hits a given system had taken by using tally marks just below the system rating on the USP, and when enough hits were taken to reduce the system you changed that and erased the tally marks to start over again.

 

[dccarles]

looks good on offense, but the low armor rating means it quickly will get beaten down by nukes. and fighters will absolutely eat it up.

Try it. Look at the roll to penetrate factor-9 nuclear dampers: 12+ for factor-7 missiles. Even with small craft bridges, factor-9 computers and a rules hack allowing fighters to fire as one big fac-7 battery, it will require 129.6 shots (at ten fighters per shot) to land, on average, one penetrating hit at long range, assuming the ship doesn't fire anything except the nuclear dampers in self-defense.

It is much more vulnerable to missile bays: 14.4 fac-9 missile bays are required for one penetrating hit. Every bay weapon you carry, though, has to be moved, armoured, fuelled, jumped, powered, and crewed. Excessive secondary weaponry is one of the primary causes of battleship bloat.

I selected the armour rating for a very specific purpose: have a look at the damage tables. The last crew hit on the Radiation Damage Table is at 7, and the lowest you can roll with factor-6 armour is 8. Hmm. And the last maneuver hit on the Surface Explosion Table is at 12, requiring either a nuclear missile hit (hard to achieve with aforementioned dampers) or a spinal particle accelerator. So it's highly unlikely the ship will take anything but fuel and weapon hits, except from an overwhelming nuclear missile attack.

The ship's real weakness is its jump fuel capacity. It's only capable of jump-2 on internal fuel, and strategically, that means it's not really capable of independent operations. It's a fleet attrition unit.

--Devin

 

[flykiller]

... have a look at the damage tables.

(pull out my dog-earred copy of hg2 that I've been consulting for twenty years now ....) (do I have a life or what?)

assuming hg2, tech 15, fighters <100dtons, M6, model 9, using triple non-nuke missile turrets (easy to do), 100 fighters ('bout half the dtonnage of the sled in question), long-range initial salvo, vs the sled in question, we find the following hit distribution:

...
14 weapon-1 (0.23 hits)
15 weapon-1 (0.46 hits)
16 fuel-1 (0.69 hits)
17 weapon-1 (0.93 hits)
18 weapon-1 (1.16 hits)
19 fuel-1 (1.38 hits)
20 weapon-1 (1.16 hits)
21 weapon-1 (0.93 hits)
...

for a total of 4.87 weapons hits and 2.07 fuel hits, per round, avg. meanwhile the sled will be able to eliminate approximately 3 of the fighters in question, per round. where this will wind up is obvious - the sled will have no recourse but to jump away immediately while it still can. this scenario assumes a "one-on-one" engagement - a scenario involving, say, 6 sleds and 600 fighters will result in 1 sled being de-weaponed and de-jump-fueled per round as the fighters concentrate on each sled in turn.

Every bay weapon you carry, though, has to be moved, armoured, fuelled, jumped, powered, and crewed. Excessive secondary weaponry is one of the primary causes of battleship bloat.

on a 20k dton ship, 20 factor 9 50 dton missile bays are .06 of the total ship. this does not constitute bloat. in any case a warship's purpose is to carry weapons.

I selected the armour rating for a very specific purpose: have a look at the damage tables. The last crew hit on the Radiation Damage Table is at 7, and the lowest you can roll with factor-6 armour is 8. Hmm.

hmm. nukes do not get a -6 on the radiation damage table. unless you mean against a spinal particle accelerator, in which case half of the sled's weapons factors will be swept off with a single hit, not to mention any extra critical hits that occur because of the sled's low armor rating.

the sled's real weakness is its vulnerability. it just isn't armored enough. it's an attrition unit alright, it will be attritted in short order.

 

[dccarles]

(pull out my dog-earred copy of hg2 that I've been consulting for twenty years now ....) (do I have a life or what?)

Same here

assuming hg2, tech 15, fighters <100dtons, M6, model 9, using triple non-nuke missile turrets (easy to do), 100 fighters ('bout half the dtonnage of the sled in question), long-range initial salvo, vs the sled in question, we find the following hit distribution:

Here's the smallest, cheapest fighter I could design with a fac-9 computer and small craft bridge. (I'm not using capacitor-powered fighters, or counting the cost of a carrier.):

Ship: ---
Class: Khriaaf
Type: Fighter
Architect: Third Imperium
Tech Level: 15

USP
         F-0406N91-000000-00003-0 MCr 203.000 75 Tons
Bat Bear                       1   Crew: 1
Bat                            1   TL: 15

Cargo: 0.250 Fuel: 16.500 EP: 16.500 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops

Architects Fee: MCr 2.030   Cost in Quantity: MCr 162.400

Hitting the cruiser on 11+ (one fighter at fac-3), we find 12 fighters necessary for an average of one hit/round. (36 fighters would be necessary at fac-7.) The cruiser's (token) missile defenses will stop 7.77 hits, giving an average of 105.33 fighters necessary for one penetrating hit, on average, per round, at a cost of MCr17,106.133.

scenario involving, say, 6 sleds and 600 fighters will result in 1 sled being de-weaponed and de-jump-fueled per round as the fighters concentrate on each sled in turn.

Fighters concentrating their fire would be more effective; as more and more wings joined the fight, the relative effectiveness of one cruiser's missile defenses would decline. A much more cost-effective way to take the ship down would be 1000-2000-ton frigates armed with missile bays. (70% of the cost of the fighter above is its computer, not counting the 12 tons of power plant required to keep it running!)

on a 20k dton ship, 20 factor 9 50 dton missile bays are .06 of the total ship. this does not constitute bloat. in any case a warship's purpose is to carry weapons.

In and of itself, 5% of a ship is a fair bit. It could be, well, 5 armour factors at TL 15. Not only that, but a 20 kton ship with 20 missile bays will have no other weapons, period: bay weapons take up ten hardpoints.

But here is the rub: removing 5% of a ship does not make your ship 5% smaller. Depending upon other factors, removing that 5% can reduce the size of your ship from 5-20%. (Try it with High Guard Shipyard: the more you have spent in fuel, engineering, and armour, the bigger a difference removing one ton makes.)

Warships carry weapons, but they should concentrate on the most effective weapons. Which means spinal mounts, with secondary weapons to provide point defense and scare off cheapie fighter attacks.

the sled's real weakness is its vulnerability. it just isn't armored enough. it's an attrition unit alright, it will be attritted in short order.

High Guard is a game, as much as anything, of rock-paper-scissors. Meson sleds are designed mainly for Trillion Credit Squadron tournaments, where they're facing a limited number of enemy pilots. In a more realistic situation, they'd be escorted by frigates and accompanied by a carrier.

--Devin

 

[flykiller]

The cruiser's (token) missile defenses will stop 7.77 hits, ....

(snort) you're right.

... as more and more wings joined the fight, the relative effectiveness of one cruiser's missile defenses would decline.

which is where I screwed up. I'm so used to dealing with fleet actions rather than element actions that I no longer think of them. in single actions active ship defenses play a role, but on the line they're almost worthless, so I neglect them.

A much more cost-effective way to take the ship down would be 1000-2000-ton frigates armed with missile bays.

I studied this heavily at one point. this approach is combat-effective at tech 12/13, iffy at 14, and at 15 the advantage shifts slightly against it - they cannot destroy a major warship but they themselves can be destroyed regularly.

(70% of the cost of the fighter above is its computer, not counting the 12 tons of power plant required to keep it running!)

cost-to-build is only one measure of cost effectiveness. another is survivability. cheap ships that don't come home are more expensive than expensive ships that do. effective fighters cost a lot, but they can only be engaged individually and taken out individually. they also can be replaced much quicker than capital ships of equal dtonnage. how this figures into any game depends on the game.

 

[dccarles]

which is where I screwed up. I'm so used to dealing with fleet actions rather than element actions that I no longer think of them. in single actions active ship defenses play a role, but on the line they're almost worthless, so I neglect them.

I find they tend to force the opponent to concentrate their secondary fire, rather than scrubbing away at the whole line for weapon hits.

I studied this heavily at one point. this approach is combat-effective at tech 12/13, iffy at 14, and at 15 the advantage shifts slightly against it - they cannot destroy a major warship but they themselves can be destroyed regularly.

True - killing a bay-armed frigate with a spinal mount is much more efficient than using that spinal mount to snipe at fighters. Most of my ship designs are TL 11-13, and I find <2000 ton missile-armed frigates one of the most effective fighter defenses. Even unarmoured, they're hard for fighters to kill.

cost-to-build is only one measure of cost effectiveness. another is survivability. cheap ships that don't come home are more expensive than expensive ships that do. effective fighters cost a lot, but they can only be engaged individually and taken out individually. they also can be replaced much quicker than capital ships of equal dtonnage. how this figures into any game depends on the game.

Definitely; however, non-penetrating surface damage does not destroy ships. You can get mission kills with fuel hits, or force a disengagement, but it's not a decisive victory by any means - it's faster to repair a ship than rebuild a destroyed fighter.

FWIW, I've posted a breakdown of the High Guard damage tables. I find it useful when designing ships, and I often pre-calculate out missile defenses.

--Devin

 

[Fersboo]

Pardon my ignorance, but is HG2 the 1980 edition of HG or is there really a HG2 printed at a later date?

 

[far-trader]

Pardon my ignorance, but is HG2 the 1980 edition of HG or is there really a HG2 printed at a later date?

The references to HG2 are to the changed version of HG copyright 1980. Before that there was what is commonly referred to as HG1 which was copyright 1979. (afaik, mine are anyway)

The ship design features and combat are significantly different while the character creation is identical.

Hope that clears it up

 

[dccarles]

Pardon my ignorance, but is HG2 the 1980 edition of HG or is there really a HG2 printed at a later date?

The former, I believe. I've never seen the first ed of High Guard, though.

--Devin

 

[Fersboo]

Thanks Far-Trader and dccharles (dc metro?). I'm getting the hang of the lingo and didn't want to assume I understood the difference b/w HG1 & HG2. I recently purchased the cd from FFE and wanted to ensure that when I joined a discussion or asked questions I was on the correct version.