> Oerjan wrote:
TMF 61 NPV 209 Hull integrity 6 (Fragile)
Thrust-8
FTL FCS
1x B5-3 (AP/A/AS)
Ummm...if the Kra' vak just keep behind it and accelerate, it will have to
spend at least 3 out of 4 of its turns accelerating to stay ahead, thus
meaning it would only be able to fire one turn in 4. If it does turn to bring
the AP or AS arcs to bear this will give the kra'vak opportunities to cut the
"corner" and close the range slightly, thus forcing it to waste another turn
accelerating to stay ahead. On the other hand I may have missed something
obvious here, in which case never mind.
Regards,
> Matt Tope wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
...then the above ship only needs to make an 1-pt turn to bring the KV
ships back into its AP or AS arcs - unless the KV ship are flying almost
perpendicularly to the above ship's course (in which case they're not
closing the range) or they are already within K-gun range (in which case
the above ship has screwed up in a major way already).
With thrust-8 against the FB2 KV ships' thrust-6A, the above ship can
easily both wag its tail to keep the targets in sight and stay ahead of the
KV at the same time :-/
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
Understood. It does make for a great assualt ship, taking out forces guarding
planets or installations. They either run from it or it chips away at them
over a long battle and then take out or captures the target (or opens the way
for other ships of it's side to do so if they later warp in).
The main issue though was cost balancing between the different weapon systems
as well as an earlier discusion about drive types and cinematic vs. vector
movement, which unfortunately has little to do with campaign or strategic
issues.
Kevin Walker
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Eric Foley wrote:
> In the end, fast sniper vessels such as this only really work in a
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> Understood. It does make for a great assualt ship, taking out forces
How? You come to raid my infrastructure and win once. Once this victory is
spread through the fleet, the next time you come to one of my
systems, I don't go out to meet you, but rather stay at the objective and wait
for you to come to me. Because you have to enter a certain range of the target
(for your weapon) and I can detect your STL approach
into the system, I can position myself to force you to engage me before
reaching the target, at which point my K-guns smash your fragile hull
and your stern-chaser armament does squat for you.
> The main issue though was cost balancing between the different weapon
No, it does. The previous discussion has revealed that the cost balancing is
only correct as written for Cinematic play on larger
tables. On average size tables, the costing over-rates the larger
batteries, and vector appears to need some more tweaking to balance right.
Holding up examples that work in very specific situations (like this ship) but
not in general, common situations, and then extrapolating general conclusions
from the results is not correct. In critical analysis, this is called a "straw
man argument".
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Eric Foley wrote:
> project a few military objectives that would otherwise rein in the
Exactly.
J
> How? You come to raid my infrastructure and win once. Once this
This assumes you have enough ships to cover every objective, which is not a
luxury that most commanders have.
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 08:38 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> How? You come to raid my infrastructure and win once. Once this
> certain range of the target (for your weapon) and I can detect your
If one can out range and out accelerate the defenders and they have to stay
around to guard a resource, the attacker has a winning situation. Either the
defender leaves the resource undefended, attempts to engage the attacker
(which happens at the attackers whim), or the attacker simply picks the
defender to pieces at range. Not fun for the defender for certain.
> No, it does. The previous discussion has revealed that the cost
Average sized tables is a bit of a opinionated factor. What is average? 4 by 6
is common, so is 6 by 8. There is a big difference in area between the two
(double). I've played on 16 by 6 foot surfaces and then again on 4 by 4 and
many others to boot.
If your primary focus in balancing weapons with vector based movement on a 4
by 6 foot surface is your focal issue, then whether big beam weapons are worth
the cost is not as critical as on a larger playing surface. With limited
space, the smaller beam weapons are more likely to be in range. So thus it
makes sense to have multiples of them. Nothing really lost is there?
In trying to balance point costs, there is always going to be some areas where
the point costs on different systems (read as ranges and arcs) will be more or
less significant. Factoring mainly for the smaller playing surfaces leaves the
points issue out of sync for larger play areas, ones which find more use for
long ranged weapons. Since larger batteries have less use on smaller playing
areas, it makes sense that they'd be more of a focus for those playing under
those conditions, unless the larger beam weapons were more cost efficient. But
if the larger ones are more cost efficient in that situation they are a
give'me on larger battle areas. I prefer factoring for larger surfaces (in
this case) since smaller surfaces have less of a reason to
use the larger beam weapons. In my past design and play-test
experiences this is usually a better way to go as it works better in general
for a wider range of applications.
These examples are not meant to be general conclusions, but illustrations of
why costs have to be factored the way they were. This type of factoring is not
a "straw man" as it is hardly imaginary. The issue of high class beam weapons
being king of the battle area came up
years ago and has been factored into current play-testing. When the
costs of larger beam weapons were smaller, I witnessed most designs involving
beam weapons consisting of cramming as many class A beams was the way to go in
most cases (if you wanted more arcs then sometimes the
smaller class B and Cs were okay or 3 class Bs had more dice at 0-12
MUs than did 2 class As).
I'm a little surprised that with your reference to critical thinking
that you've determined what is the typical playing area. Your
preferred or available space may be for you and your
friends/associates, but that does not mean it is such for all of us. I
realize a number of other game systems typically use a 4 by 6 table. IIRC,
this playing area has become more popular in the past decade.
However, that said - a point system for a game meant to be played on
whatever is available needs to take as many factors as possible into
consideration. I feel the system we've had input on has the best overall
considerations for a variety of playing areas.
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Eric Foley wrote:
> of sense, or in special situations such as commerce raiding where
> once your enemy stops being stupid and develops a countermeasure. It
> wins one-off games where you don't think a little outside the box
Raiders are a fairly common factor in war. A high speed (the long ranged
weapon is a bonus) ship that works in small numbers or alone, keeping the
enemy forces pinned in protecting valuable resources has happened a fair
amount in past conflicts. In fact, bombers during wars of the past 70 years
took on this role in a round about way. Raiding of this type helps to keep the
enemies production lower, make the situation more of an unknown for the enemy,
and limits the ability of the enemy to concentrate their forces into large
fleets or into massive and ungodly huge vessels.
This type of ship is hardly more specialized than some other ships proposed to
this list in the pursuit of balancing the cost system. But that is hardly
important to the ongoing debate. Sniper vessels, while not a mainline fleet
design, do come up in play whether as larger
ships, or as smaller escort and raider types - used to take out smaller
ships before they can fire and to destroyed crippled vessels without forcing
allied line fleet units to break formation to go hunting the cripples down.
The examples given of how effective they can be in certain situations are
important. By suggesting there main weapons should essentially cost less is
paramount to supporting them further, or permitting easier access to the same
systems for less specialized vessels that in turn can do some similar things
while still accomplishing their primary roles. This leads us dangerously close
to the stituation that happened with beam weapons orginally.
> Stiltman wrote:
> However, there are a great many assumptions in play that stretch (my)
Sure. A very large floating table is the best Full Thrust approximation of
deep space you can get, after all.
> 2. Moreover, you also need a strategic environment in which it is
Nope. As I wrote when I described this ship's tactics, if the KV don't chase
it it'll just flit around their formations. It can for example fly
beside them, parallell to their course - that's why it has an 180-degree
fire arc, after all - and wear them down anyway. Unless of course they
go somewhere where it can't keep up with them, eg. into the middle of a
fighter screen <g>
Of course, if you're really worried about the KV not wanting to chase you you
can always increase the size of this ship to TMF 73 (hull integrity
7)
to be able to fit an all-arc B5 instead of the 3-arc one in the sample
design :-)
> The main problem I have with designs that take this sort of methodology
This particular problem is solved by assuming that you can intercept the
enemy far enough away from the fixed point you want to defend <shrug>
It all depends on how far out from the target you can leave FTL in your
particular background, really - if you can drop out of (and enter) hyper
space right on top of the planet then this long-range fencer is useless,
but if the hyper limit is far from the planet it can be quite effective.
Note that "right on top of the planet" essentially means "inside the weapon
range of the planetary defences". 'Course, if the enemy is able to drop out of
hyper that close, then the planetary defences probably won't have time
to do much good either :-/
> The only scenario where the idea works is one in which your opponent
Such as eg. when he is approaching the fixed point he wants to attack from
wherever he dropped out of hyper, or moving from his secure planetary defences
out to the hyper limit... <g>
> Over a long term strategic view, a starfaring power that devoted any
<chuckle> I build a few medium cruisers as fencers; you have to attach a
couple of light carriers (or a few fencers of your own) to every task force,
convoy and patrol you want to be safe from my fencers. Which of us
do you think has to spend the most resources? :-)
It's basically the old commerce raider doctrine again... and commerce raiders
have historically been very effective indeed for tying up huge
amounts of enemy naval assets :-) It won't win the war by itself, but it
most certainly can shift the balance of the war.
Kind regards,
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:38:04 -0500, Jared Hilal writes:
> guarding planets or installations. They either run from it or it
> they later warp in).
> reaching the target, at which point my K-guns smash your fragile hull
Because I stop when my weapons are in range of your ships (and yours aren't in
range of me) and start destroying your ships. You have the option of either
running, trying to attack me, or sitting there getting killed. If I out range
you and I'm faster than you, there's little you can do to catch me. I'll
control the range of the engagement, and keep it open enough you can't
respond.
> The main issue though was cost balancing between the different weapon
> systems as well as an earlier discusion about drive types and
Ships like this work fairly well in a wide range of engagements. They're just
boring as hell to play.:) In real life air battles, the planes with longer
range missiles probably get to do a bunch more damage than the ones with
shorter range missiles. if they had an unlimited number of longer range
missiles, why would they ever suffer any loses?
The same is probably true for a modern navy. With nice long range missiles,
its hard to imagine modern US warships taking loses from WWII era ships,
unless they scenario somehow traps the modern ships. The modern ships have
better range, better speed (well, mostly), etc. If the WWII ships can surprise
the moderns in a constricted environment (a river, a small bay, etc) then they
can do a fair amount of damage. But without that forcing function, the moderns
are just plain going to win.
If the shorter ranged full thrust ships can arrange an ambush (hide on the
moon, or in a freakishly dense asteroid belt), then they can possibly do
enough damage before the faster and longer range ships pull away to even the
fight.
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Eric Foley wrote:
> of sense, or in special situations such as commerce raiding where
> once your enemy stops being stupid and develops a countermeasure. It
> wins one-off games where you don't think a little outside the box
Its a tactic with few shortcomings. Fighters definitely, or other faster
ships. If you don't have the space to give up while you retreat and snipe,
that would be an issue. But space is big. really really big. If the jump
horizon is a reasonable distance away from
the planet, you should have quiet a bit of time/distance to give up as
a buffer.
But all this doesn't really effect how much fun YOU have from the game, does
it? If you don't fight these style of battles, who cares? If you think B3's
and B4's are overpriced, give them a house rule price break. FT tries to be as
generic as it can be, but there are always going to be breaks in the system.
If you play at slow speeds (< 6mu a turn) life is very different than if
you're off playing rocket rangers ( > 24 mu a turn). Ships movement in vector
will tend to be more predictable than ship movement in cinematic, etc.
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> If one can out range and out accelerate the defenders and they have to
> stay around to guard a resource, the attacker has a winning
> or the attacker simply picks the defender to pieces at range. Not fun
> for the defender for certain.
However, in the described situation, with the specified ships, the "attacker
has to make a pass and then shoot as he leaves (ala light cavalry archers). As
he approaches, that gives the KV a chance to get off a shot, and any hit is
going to be at least crippling, if not fatal to the Fragile raider.
> No, it does. The previous discussion has revealed that the cost
But in terms of range, the difference is much less. A B3 still covers
half of a 6x8, and a K-gun about 1/3. As for Average, you admit that
4x6 is "common" (I take that to mean more than half of cases) and if you
add 6x8, then I guess it's probably more than 75%. As for my opinion, I
asked how many people usually play on a surface as large as O.O.'s (c. 80 MU x
120 MU), and you are the second person to answer, but you didn't
say what your usual play area is, only the extremes of your experience.
Therefore I have evidence of 2 people (and one maybe) who play on large
tables. Not a lot.
> If your primary focus in balancing weapons with vector based movement
For the fifth (5th) time:
I. Do. Not. Play. Vector.
I would like to play vector again, but most of my group doesn't like it.
My "primary focus" was to a simple statement that, IMNSHO, B4+ are
overpriced compared to B# and less. As it turns out, O.O. explained how
this is true for medium sized tables, but that the usefulness of B4+
increases dramatically if the play area is larger (or you use cm on a 4x6 or
6x8).
< snip>
> These examples are not meant to be general conclusions, but
The example of a human T8 or T8A ship with a single B5 bearing into the aft
three arcs is not a straw man? What are you smoking?
> The issue of high class beam weapons being king of the battle area
In the real world, these were called "dreadnought battleships", and some
were really ridiculous, like the American
classes with 5 or 6 twin 12-inch turrets (making the ship really long),
or the French class with quadruple 16-inch turrets (to save dwt from
having more but smaller turrets). The term "Dreadnought" refers to a
battleship or battleship-cruiser (latter termed a battlecruiser) armed
only with guns of the largest caliber (originally 12") and possibly a number
of small secondaries (3", 5" or 6") for use against small ships
like MTBs and DDs. "Super-dreadnought" refers to dreadnoughts with a
main battery of 13.5" or 14" guns or (latter) larger.
The arms race of 1905-1922 was to see who could build the most powerful
* all big gun * battleships.
> (if you wanted more arcs then sometimes the smaller class B and Cs
Unfortunately for your argument, at <12 MU; 3x class B = 6 dice, and 2x class
A = 6 dice, and both = 6 mass.
J
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> It's basically the old commerce raider doctrine again... and commerce
> amounts of enemy naval assets :-) It won't win the war by itself, but
Exactly, just like the Bismark and Graf Spee.
Sarcasm mode Off.
J
> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:03 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> If one can out range and out accelerate the defenders and they have
> Not fun for the defender for certain.
> off a shot, and any hit is going to be at least crippling, if not
If you outrange the weapons of the enemy and can out maneuver them,
thre is no need to enter their weapon ranges - thus no chance of being
crippled or even hurt unless they surprise you by some mean or you make a
mistake tactically.
> Average sized tables is a bit of a opinionated factor. What is
> half of a 6x8, and a K-gun about 1/3. As for Average, you admit that
> O.O.'s (c. 80 MU x 120 MU), and you are the second person to answer,
> who play on large tables. Not a lot.
I mentioned that both 4x6 and 6x8 are common sizes. Common does not
alway equal average! Common can indicate something less than 50% and
there can be several sizes that are all common. My usual playing surfaces have
been 4x6, 4x8, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x16 with 6x8 and 4x8 being the most common. If
one uses CMs instead of inches the playing area becomes 120x180 MUs for a 4x6
area. Just a thought.
> If your primary focus in balancing weapons with vector based movement
> on a 4 by 6 foot surface is your focal issue, then whether big beam
Same thing holds true with cinematic to. If your playing area tends to enforce
closer ranges there is less incentive to mount larger beam weapons in your
ships. Why have them if part of their cost is factored towards the longer
ranges when it's much less useful in this situation. Smaller beam weapons in
greater numbers generate more dice at the
shorter ranges - thus there is little reason to have the bigger weapons
if the long range gets you little to nothing for the cost (regardless of the
cost, unless it is less than multiple smaller weapons that total to the same
damage potential).
> The example of a human T8 or T8A ship with a single B5 bearing into
Now you are starting to get deeming. I'm attempting to keep the discussion
level headed. I would appreciate it if you left out the snipes and vitriolic
commentary as it does nothing to prove your point and only pushes one to feel
that you may feel you are on the loosing side of the aurgument. Why is the T8
(either type) and B5 armed ship a straw man. It is not as limited as you
believe, at least in my experience with custom built ships. Besides, you can
increase the size of the ship and add more B5s to it and it stays just as
dangerous. There is nothing rare or false about players staying at extreme
range when the designed ships allow, using their weapons to damage the
opponent while the opponent does not have the range to fire back. This has
happened with B4 armed ships, B3 armed ships, and Phalons against KVs several
times that I can recall, including some online battles (although there were
fleets and some ships got into closer ranges due to the number of vessels on
each side...and shear boredom that can happen when dancing at extreme ranges
and the turns taking a week or more each).
> The issue of high class beam weapons being king of the battle area
> beams was the way to go in most cases
> from having more but smaller turrets). The term "Dreadnought" refers
This has little to do with what I stated above. The real world "dreadnaught
battleships", while interesting, has little to do with the mechanics of what I
mentioned with the earlier beam inbalance. I was pointing out the beam costing
issues and the problems we had with it about 5 or more years ago as an
illustration of what happens if large beams are too cheap and can equal or
exceed the damage potential of multiple same cost and size smaller beams.
> (if you wanted more arcs then sometimes the smaller class B and Cs
This does not invalidate my point. At 12-24 MUs the 2xA had 4 dice
while the 3xB had 3. Thus the 2xA were always equal to or better than the same
cost 3xB beams at any range. Which would you take?
> From: Kevin Walker <sage@chartermi.net>
This is a trick question, yes?
VBG
BIF
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:03 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> As for my opinion, I asked how many people usually play on a surface
> to answer, but you didn't say what your usual play area is, only the
> there can be several sizes that are all common. My usual playing
As I pointed out in a reply to Mr.Ohlson, in the original FT2, it says flat
out that the rules consider 4' x 6' and MU of 1" to be "average". Since I have
seen nothing in MT, FB1 or FB2 amending that statement, I consider it to still
hold true.
< snip >
> The example of a human T8 or T8A ship with a single B5 bearing into
You are correct. I was replying to several posts one after the other, some of
the others tweaked me the wrong way, and I allowed it to carry over to you.
I am sorry.
> There is nothing rare or false about players staying at extreme range
This is a much better explanation than the small example ship presented
earlier.
> including some online battles (although there were fleets and some
What do online battles have to do with it? Are they available to review
somewhere? If so, where?
> The issue of high class beam weapons being king of the battle area
> came up years ago and has been factored into current play-testing.
> designs involving beam weapons consisting of cramming as many class
< snip description of real-world "all big gun" dreadnought battleships >
> This has little to do with what I stated above. The real world
> of multiple same cost and size smaller beams.
It seems to me that you were saying that "designs involving beam weapons
consisting of cramming as many class A beams was the way to go in most cases"
was somehow wrong or unfair. I just thought to remind you that this actually
was accepted practice and sound philosophy for 40 years.
> (if you wanted more arcs then sometimes the smaller class B and Cs
But it seemed that you were trying to say that at short range the smaller
batteries were more advantageous. I just pointed out that under
the FT/MT designs (you used class A, B & C, rather than 3, 2 & 1), there
was no advantage to the smaller weapons, as your example was 0-12 MU, I
used the same range.
> At 12-24 MUs the 2xA had 4 dice while the 3xB had 3. Thus the 2xA
And this seems to be the opposite of what you said in the section I had quoted
above.
> Which would you take?
As I am trying to design a "centerline big gun supported by B3 (capital)
or B2 (cruiser)" force for a campaign (as naval designer for another player
who likes campaigns but not ship designing) and was looking for advice for a
tweak to the big beam problem... I think the answer is
self-evident.
J
> The issue of high class beam weapons being king of
In the real world, these were called "dreadnought battleships", and some were
really ridiculous, like the American
classes with 5 or 6 twin 12-inch turrets (making the
ship really long),
or the French class with quadruple 16-inch turrets (to
save dwt from having more but smaller turrets). The term "Dreadnought" refers
to a
battleship or battleship-cruiser (latter termed a
battlecruiser) armed only with guns of the largest caliber (originally 12")
and possibly a number of small secondaries (3", 5" or 6") for use against
small ships
like MTBs and DDs. "Super-dreadnought" refers to
dreadnoughts with a main battery of 13.5" or 14" guns or (latter) larger.
The arms race of 1905-1922 was to see who could build
the most powerful * all big gun * battleships.
The problem is that people design for the "rules" and not for the conditions.
They are so busy trying to design the "best" ship as far as the rules that
they forget that endurence, reliability and other factors that were not
written into the rules (simulation) should have an impact on the design. Some
"ideas" of how to include this would be:
-Ships on duty with the fleet can take hull hits
(actually they stress their hulls) depending on what is their mission. Any
repair dock can repair this damage but over time ships will be forced to be
serviced with weaker hulled ships requiring more down time.
-The maximum acceleration of a ship is dependent
on the condition of their hull. A ship that has
lost 1/3 of it's hull can accelerate at only 2/3
of it's maximum speed or else take a chance at more hull damage (over stressed
the hull).
-Ships which are running at reduced power or
are stealthy (scout ships for example) are detected at shorter ranges. That
battleship that did not accelerate and has it's weapons powered down may not
be detected till it's in close enough to fire (the turn after it powers up).
The arms race of 1905 - 1922 was more then just guns.
The second generation dreadnought battleship brought in the all or nothing
armor and the third generation dreadnought battleship ( came out in the 1930s)
brought in improved compartmentation. By the 1930s all battleships had between
6 to 10 guns of 14" to 16" with a few odd ships (German: 11" on Scharnhorst
class, Japan: 18" on Yamoto class). Each navy had interacted with the threat
from the others.