Arcs in vector

Milady Beth,

Whereas my respect for your judgement is boundless, I stipulate a points of
disagreement.

> From my observations of the KV vs human multi-arc fleet under vector, I
1) the KV don't have to worry about the human ability to fight better close in
(similarly the humans don't often get this advantage) because good KV tactics
will usually ensure a few decent rounds of closing fire (generally,
as the KV, I manoevre to keep range at 20-30, and with higher thrust
than most humans and KV vector movement rules, I have little trouble). The
humans won't like that.

I believe a human fleet built with one arc heavies and 2-3 arc
secondaries
would routinely (not in every case) whump the 3+ arc mains/ 4-6 arc
secondary human fleets I've seen. They have a more limited tactical envelope,
but that doesn't matter if the tactics are effective.

Against someone who can fly speed 30+ in vector with accuracy and
precision, I'd have some concerns. But I believe that I could routinely smoke
slower opponents (with strictly average dice) due to the higher throw weight
and my ability to put the guns on target.

With the KV, this is particularly pronounced due to their better manouvre
drives. But even with a human MD4 I believe (since it only costs 1 to turn the
ship as much as you want) I can mostly arrange to end up facing my targets
until I get very close.

Maybe I just fly really well, or maybe my opponents aren't inventive enough.
But Full Thrust has demonstrated to me that it is: 1) The fist, while not the
only formation, is valid in many cases. It allows concentrated Area Defence,
concentrated firepower (and thus you can reduce enemy formations very
effectively), and it means an enemy that wants to be in range of one of your
ships is often in range of many. Mutual support, overwatch, whatever. It's all
there. Area effect weapons are rough
on formations, but since few people use waveguns/nova cannons (and prior
to the Phalons coming out, that was about it), it is a good general purpose
formation. 2) Ships that (in vector) focus on too many arcs waste points that
translate to fewer dice thrown at the enemy. It doesn't matter that you could
attack enemies on all sides if you're destroyed during the closing actions. 3)
A good pilot with a decent thrust can use oblique manouvres and the ability to
rotate to face cheaply to be where they need to be with guns pointed in the
right direction. If the enemy tries splitting up to split your fire, you focus
your formation on the few enemy ships you can bear on, annihilate them, and
the next round, annihilate a few others. They probably can't do as much damage
to you (they're spread out usually over more than one range band) and you
defeat them in detail. If they are very manouvreable but stay bunched up, then
you have a bit of a problem. But again, good tactics will keep them at enough
range such that you can keep them in arc (sometimes this is harder, but it is
what you try to achieve).
        4) Because you concentrate fire on a few CL-->BC class ships per
turn (pick the ship with the worst combination of defences and highest
Firepower/Mass ratio), until they are all gone (during fleet
engagements), if you can't bear on all of them, that's not a problem. You
didn't want to. You target them because many of them have weapons that don't
do damage until Range 24 (or not much anyway) and aren't really dangerous till
range
12-18.
If your larger fleet guns can kill them before that range, then those points
go before they threaten or damage your ships. Escorts get a low priority
because they can usually be popped (popcorn) as an afterthought or with a
spare weapon. They aren't very threatening. BBs+ aren't usually the
first targets because it takes a lot of fire to kill them, and their guns
probably will fire. So get rid of some dangerous ships before they are
dangerous, then worry about the big boys (shoot escorts as situation permits)
later. So
the arc restriction isn't hugely important - when you're firing at the
big boys, they move slow. You kill early the manouverable, hard hitting units
(cruisers, battlecruisers, some fast BB designs). So then maintaining arc on
the remaining forces is easier.

Oerjan once said that in vector (I'm making up numbers, he'll fill in the ones
he believes I'm sure), a second arc is worth (say) 20%, a third arc maybe 10%,
and beyond that are almost insignificant. (A three arc weapon is nearly as
good as a 6 arc weapon with vector turn rules!). I was just wondering what
numbers he would have attached. The point was the
multi-arc
costings are for cinematic and vector (because it allows faster turns)
provides less of a penalty to smaller arc weapons and thus the cost for more
arcs should be less.

I'll gladly take a DIY human fleet with restricted arcs and more throw
weight (dice) vs. a multi-arc human fleet identical in most other
respects in a PBeM if there is interest in putting my theorems to the test.
I'll even
just take NAC ships from the fleet book vs my re-engineered vector NAC
(same mass of weapons, more limited arcs, more dice concentrated in the
limited arcs). I believe that with anything thrust 4 or better, it makes a
large amount of sense to concentrate your fire down a limited range of arcs.
Cheaper cost, more effective.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input!

While vector makes the differences more dramatic, I think in general it can
be considered a sound maxim of ship-to-ship weapons placement that the
more maneuverable you are, the fewer arcs you need to have on your weapons. I
think that goes for cinematic just as much as vector. Slower ships will still
probably have more "throw weight" simply because the extra mass not spent on
drives won't be completely taken up merely by adding extra weapon arcs.
However, they'll also be more vulnerable to placed weapons due to the fact
that they just plain can't dodge them as well, so they'd better be good at
translating that greater throw weight and durability into results.

G'day Tom,

> Whereas my respect for your judgement is boundless, I stipulate a

This must be the politest way I've ever heard a disagreement commence;)

> 1) the KV don't have to worry about the human ability to fight better

Even with the FSE I'd be happy to have you site at 20-30", with the NSL
or
ESU I'd probably be even happier to be honest - or do you only roll 1s
for comms checks;)

> I believe a human fleet built with one arc heavies and 2-3 arc

While I wouldn't state it quite so strongly I would agree that ships with
the odd 1-arc but mostly 3-arcs are getting more out of their money for
their arcs than ships with lots of big weapons with 4+ arcs. The 4+ arcs

aren't all that necessary though the odd one to ping anyone who does manage to
get in behind you can be helpful.

> With the KV, this is particularly pronounced due to their better

I don't doubt it Tom, but that's where the opponent has to start using
their noggin too - they have to respond to your capabilities as much as
they're maximising their own.

> 1) The fist, while not the only formation, is valid in many

However you shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking it thus becomes the

only option. Try two balls instead, each has at least some measure of the
security and support you mentioned above, but it also keeps the 1-arc
opponents guessing. Against a 3-arc opponent I'd probably stick with
"the fist" unless there was some other (say area effect) reason to opt for
something else.

> 2) Ships that (in vector) focus on too many arcs waste points

True, but I had (maybe mistakenly) assumed that the argument was 1-arc
was worth such and such and that the other arcs weren't worth much at all.
Whereas I'd say up to 3arcs is as important as their cost suggests, above that
more arcs can be helpful though not always necessary (and yes I
personally wouldn't buy many 6 arc class 3+).

> 3) A good pilot with a decent thrust can use oblique manouvres

Assuming you/your weapons survive that long.

> They probably can't do as much damage to you (they're spread

Not if they do it well - something for them to aim for is truly
coordinated efforts.

> But again, good >tactics will keep them at enough range

They're probably thinking the same thing about coordinating those wings
;)

> 4) Because you concentrate fire on a few CL-->BC class ships per

I think the NSL for one may have a few words to make about that assertion;)

> If your larger fleet guns can kill them before that range, then those

I'm guessing now that you mean 1-arc-ers in general and not the KV (the
KV limited range not really fitting with this statement).

> Escorts get a low priority because they can usually be popped

You make strong points Tom and you've obviously thought about it a fair bit,
but it almost feels like you've forgotten the other guy is working just as
hard from his end to make sure you don't get the chance to do all this stuff
with impunity.

If the argument here is over "1-arc wonders" vs anything with 2+ arcs on

their weapons then I just don't agree that the extra arcs aren't worth it
given all the freedom they hand you. If you mean "limited arcs" in that all
guns have less than 3-arcs, though they have a higher than average
number
of 1-arcs on board then I'd be more inclined to treat you as a normal
fleet
and just exploit your 1-arc weakness when an opportunity arises.

> Oerjan once said that in vector (I'm making up numbers, he'll fill in

Maybe for 4-6 arcs on the big guns, but up to 3arcs I really don't think

so. On the flip side what does Oerjan think the extra arcs are worth in
cinematic?

> I'll gladly take a DIY human fleet with restricted arcs and more throw

Give me 12 months to finish my thesis and you're on!;)

Cheers

Beth