> Dean Gundberg
Ah, the point that I didn't see because it wasn't said explicitly.
Okay, +2 per hull box is too much.
I'll just design 3-row "war" ships from now on. It does make the game
go faster as there is one less threshold check to make per ship.
> [quoted text omitted]
> From: Oerjan Ohlson >
Said explicitly again. Sorry I didn't catch it with all the numbers from
previous posts.
> >What Steve has done is take his ships that had 4 rows of hull
Same configuration except for hull. Close enough to be the same to me.
> Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships -
Excuse me.
> >I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
Thanks for the insult. I run rings around Steve when it comes to
movement. But movement doesn't out do firepower. Sometimes I make a mistake in
movement orders, sometimes Steve does. It it just more costly for me to make a
movement mistake since Steve's ships have better arcs. Also, pulse torpedo and
rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while class-3 beams and
long-range pulsers have a maximum range of 36. It's amazing
how often I'm in the 30-36 range band so I'm getting hits, lots
of hits as Steve rolls so well, while I hit nothing. Steve's superior
"tactics" in this case is in ship design, not movement. Part of the problem is
the small table space we play on. I'm going to amend that this Monday by
putting 3 tables together
instead of 2; even if I have to throw out some card-playing kiddies
who aren't buying anything (it is MY store we're playing in, after all
:);
and we're being used as free baby-sitting by some cheap adults :( ).
> OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
Steve used to have single screens on his capital ships. But with my continued
use of rail guns and pulse torpedoes has caused him to remove the screen. His
designs were new to me. Time to go back to mixed PT and beam
designs (which most of my Star Trek-designs have anyway).
Or fighters. Lots of fighters. Buckets of fighters.:)
Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
carriers even cheaper? Not that they have much hull anyway, but it is still a
reduction in cost.
> Glen wrote:
started
> the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
I messed up the design I gave (the numbers are correct, the systems are
wrong). His capital ships have a lot more armor than 6.
I could ping all day with class-1 rail guns and barely get past the
armor.
Believe me, I've tried with a all class-1 rail gun designed ship; but
then
it becomes a shooting roll-lots-of-dice game and I lose that
automatically to Steve. I should have gotten the correct information of his
designs the last time we played, but didn't.
Glen
> Dean Gundberg
Ah, the point that I didn't see because it wasn't said explicitly.
Okay, +2 per hull box is too much.
I'll just design 3-row "war" ships from now on. It does make the game
go faster as there is one less threshold check to make per ship.
> [quoted text omitted]
> From: Oerjan Ohlson >
Said explicitly again. Sorry I didn't catch it with all the numbers from
previous posts.
> >What Steve has done is take his ships that had 4 rows of hull
Same configuration except for hull. Close enough to be the same to me.
> Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships -
Excuse me.
> >I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
Thanks for the insult. I run rings around Steve when it comes to
movement. But movement doesn't out do firepower. Sometimes I make a mistake in
movement orders, sometimes Steve does. It it just more costly for me to make a
movement mistake since Steve's ships have better arcs. Also, pulse torpedo and
rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while class-3 beams and
long-range pulsers have a maximum range of 36. It's amazing
how often I'm in the 30-36 range band so I'm getting hits, lots
of hits as Steve rolls so well, while I hit nothing. Steve's superior
"tactics" in this case is in ship design, not movement. Part of the problem is
the small table space we play on. I'm going to amend that this Monday by
putting 3 tables together
instead of 2; even if I have to throw out some card-playing kiddies
who aren't buying anything (it is MY store we're playing in, after all
:);
and we're being used as free baby-sitting by some cheap adults :( ).
> OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
Steve used to have single screens on his capital ships. But with my continued
use of rail guns and pulse torpedoes has caused him to remove the screen. His
designs were new to me. Time to go back to mixed PT and beam
designs (which most of my Star Trek-designs have anyway).
Or fighters. Lots of fighters. Buckets of fighters.:)
Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
carriers even cheaper? Not that they have much hull anyway, but it is still a
reduction in cost.
> Glen wrote:
started
> the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
I messed up the design I gave (the numbers are correct, the systems are
wrong). His capital ships have a lot more armor than 6.
I could ping all day with class-1 rail guns and barely get past the
armor.
Believe me, I've tried with a all class-1 rail gun designed ship; but
then
it becomes a shooting roll-lots-of-dice game and I lose that
automatically to Steve. I should have gotten the correct information of his
designs the last time we played, but didn't.
Glen
> Dean Gundberg
Ah, the point that I didn't see because it wasn't said explicitly.
Okay, +2 per hull box is too much.
I'll just design 3-row "war" ships from now on. It does make the game
go faster as there is one less threshold check to make per ship.
> [quoted text omitted]
> From: Oerjan Ohlson >
Said explicitly again. Sorry I didn't catch it with all the numbers from
previous posts.
> >What Steve has done is take his ships that had 4 rows of hull
Same configuration except for hull. Close enough to be the same to me.
> Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships -
Excuse me.
> >I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
Thanks for the insult. I run rings around Steve when it comes to
movement. But movement doesn't out do firepower. Sometimes I make a mistake in
movement orders, sometimes Steve does. It it just more costly for me to make a
movement mistake since Steve's ships have better arcs. Also, pulse torpedo and
rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while class-3 beams and
long-range pulsers have a maximum range of 36. It's amazing
how often I'm in the 30-36 range band so I'm getting hits, lots
of hits as Steve rolls so well, while I hit nothing. Steve's superior
"tactics" in this case is in ship design, not movement. Part of the problem is
the small table space we play on. I'm going to amend that this Monday by
putting 3 tables together
instead of 2; even if I have to throw out some card-playing kiddies
who aren't buying anything (it is MY store we're playing in, after all
:);
and we're being used as free baby-sitting by some cheap adults :( ).
> OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
Steve used to have single screens on his capital ships. But with my continued
use of rail guns and pulse torpedoes has caused him to remove the screen. His
designs were new to me. Time to go back to mixed PT and beam
designs (which most of my Star Trek-designs have anyway).
Or fighters. Lots of fighters. Buckets of fighters.:)
Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
carriers even cheaper? Not that they have much hull anyway, but it is still a
reduction in cost.
> Glen wrote:
started
> the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
I messed up the design I gave (the numbers are correct, the systems are
wrong). His capital ships have a lot more armor than 6.
I could ping all day with class-1 rail guns and barely get past the
armor.
Believe me, I've tried with a all class-1 rail gun designed ship; but
then
it becomes a shooting roll-lots-of-dice game and I lose that
automatically to Steve. I should have gotten the correct information of his
designs the last time we played, but didn't.
Glen
> On 13 Jun 2004 at 13:27, bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
How many soap bubble carriers have as many as 6 hull boxes? If a ship uses
less than 6 hull boxes it can't pay for them as using 6 rows. This is not
stated as such in the UNSC beta rules but has been confirmed as the intention
since. This means that ships with small hulls (3 or fewer boxes) must pay for
them with the 3 row costs. For the classic small soap bubble (mass 12, FTL,
thrust 2, hull 1, 1 hanger bay) this means that the cost actually goes up.
> > Sorry for asking this, but could one of the reasons for your
Not an insult, just a question. And there are different aspects of tactics:
calculating own movement, predicting enemy movement, relative movement (ie
gaining range and position), choosing firing order, allocating firepower. You
may be better at one, while he is better at another. And "ability to roll
sixes at will" is a good tactical
ability too ;-)
> Part of the problem is the small table space we play on.
Yeah, that can do it--particularly if you go for Thrust 4 or 6 ships
and he has Thrust 2 That speed doesn't help you if you don't have room to use
it, and it can mean that you're heavily outgunned. (Or,
if you have Islamic Fed, you're heavily out-hulled).
Try using NSL while he takes ESU or IF.
> Glen Bailey wrote:
> >How can they be "the exact same design" if the hull configuration is
Same configuration except for hull, but when that "except for hull" makes them
behave quite differently from one another on the gaming table I can't consider
them to be "the same". If they *behave* differently, then in my
eyes at least they *are* different.
> >Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships - or
Statement of fact. If you had played around enough with 4-row ships
and/or
looked closely at the options the 4-row hulls already give you, then you
would have noticed that your suggested hull costs were making the 3x18 ship
more expensive than the more powerful 4x18 ship before Dean and I pointed it
out to you.
> >>I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
As several others have already commented this was intended as a question, not
as an insult.
> I run rings around Steve when it comes to movement. But movement
Running rings around the enemy is not the same thing as "better tactics"
when the ring-running results in your own force getting defeated
piecemeal (which seems to be what happened in this battle), nor when it lands
you outside your own weapons' range but inside the enemy's. Movement is only
*part* of "tactics", not *all* of it.
> Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve does.
It
> it just more costly for me to make a movement mistake since Steve's
And your house rules allowing unrestricted A-arc fire don't help you any
either...
> Also, pulse torpedo and rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while
Er... Glen, how exactly do you end up at range 30-36 if not through a
combination of your movement and Steve's movement?
> >OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
And his lack of screens contributed to your defeat by increasing his armament.
> Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
Yep; all the way up to about.8333... pts cheaper per fighter group for a
TMF 60+ soapbubble carrier (since you need at least 6 hull boxes to use
a
6-row hull). The "classic" TMF 12 single-bay soapbubble OTOH gets one
point *more* expensive, since it must pay 3 pts for its single hull box rather
than just 2.
> >>I didn't fire the class-1 rail guns at Steve's BB as it was wasting
started
> >the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
> wrong).
OK.
Regards,