John has done even more K gun analysis than I did, and came up with the wonderful idea of using 11 K-1s in place of 2 K-5s. The average damage from the smaller guns is 30% less, but K-1 shoot all round to exactly the same range, so the opportunities actually to do that damage are much better.
I suggested that the logical corollary was to leave the housings for the K-5s in place so that the opponent would assume he was facing a much more powerful and focussed ship, and then blow him apart with your 30% reduced firepower just when he thought he was invulnerable.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(65)
-
▼
April
(41)
- And the same thoughts, but not in gibberish
- News from the sector
- When the UNSC gets around to naming ships
- One little link
- Minor rule clarification
- Continuing news from our conflict correspondents
- Paying visits to planets; a revised etiquette guide
- One way to deal with Savasku
- The growing threat of conflict in the region
- 20% off for army surplus
- We have met the enemy and he is you
- System Defences; a superficial analysis
- The inverse Q ship
- K-gun ballistics, the detail
- Charted routes and interdiction
- Re-roll damage
- Repair
- The Average Taxpayer has just died OR K-Gun ballis...
- Leading by example
- New race
- Drive-by shootings; how the rules constrain them
- But I don't like it that way OR it seemed like a g...
- Windshield wipers
- Economic turn clarification Revised
- Left over money
- Combat Repair
- Focus
- Savasku, and the need to start every day with a he...
- Logistics ships
- Oceanic Union Defence Forces and the Islamic Feder...
- Bugging out; when bad things happen to inept people
- Travel to distant exotic suns, meet interesting pe...
- Allies
- Gentlemen, start your engines
- Grasers; simplified cost benefit analysis
- Big versus small
- Turns. The ugly, expensive option
- UNSC ships
- After Action thoughts; four way battle of 10 April 07
- The Campaign Rules Proper
- Introduction
-
▼
April
(41)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment