On Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:16 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> [SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] wrote:
Thanks, how would I do that (check my connection?)
> Since I didn't have anything that big on the table, you're telling me
No, I can't see the pictures because UK/Finland connection won't
let me. All I got was a nice picture of a groin and a bucket full of die and
it stopped... forever.
> > o Use a virtual system (i know...)
Yes, which I know you don't like.
> Results in ungainly clumps, as I've found out. Not always, but when
Which I haven't seen, anyway my cm games averaged 5 ships per side.
> > o Use a bigger playing area
Some folks use the floor.
> Hmmm... this might actually work... I'm just wondering how I could
Use a bigger base, er no you can't clump as well...
> > o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad
It'll work.
> Cm works better for movement (the aforementioned happens only after
Weapons
> with 6cm short range get especially nasty.
Having longer weapon ranges solves this, I don't think it screws balance as
everyone has the same factor and it stops the
fly-by out of range problem.
> Another argument against cm scale is that it's so bloody small.
Is not chunky like an inch.
> With this in mind, I've come to the following conclusion:
I Agree, silly for a board game.
> Thus a speed cap is in order. This might be a constant for all ships
Yep, I agree this is plausible. PSB can be G forces etc.
> AND... the number of ships needs to be limited. Every time we had a
20+ Play virtually then :-)
sincerely
> > o Use a bigger playing area
I was about to pipe in, I've used the floor more times than I care to count.
Kitchen has been used a few times, dining area (when I've cleared out all the
extraneous stuff that tends to pile up in there;), and the hallway (such as it
is) a couple times (hey, Aaron!!).
I don't have a table of any significant size to use to begin to think about
using. Largest I have is a little card table...tad small for
miniatures gaming ;-)
Mk
Cutting short and straight to the chase...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Tim Jones wrote:
> Thanks, how would I do that (check my connection?)
Try some other sites in Finland. Run traceroute. www.clinet.fi and www.dna.fi
are upstream from me.
anjara.dna.fi is a parallel machine -- if you get much
better response from there, *then* it might be something I can influence.
> Which I haven't seen, anyway my cm games averaged 5 ships per side.
Yeah, that size battles work much better (whatever the scale).
> Some folks use the floor.
My floor is actually more cluttered. I'm not a poor student anymore, so I can
afford furniture.
> > > o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad
I think it will result in one of two things:
a) The damage is too small to be a deterrant and nothing really changes b)
Some people start building dedicated ramships, and ramming with wounded
vessels as a standard procedure
Btw: Has anyone seen someone try out the "FTL-out suicide bombers"
strategy? I.e. take Mass 2, Thr8, FTL ships, start at max speeds
towards enemy. Order FTL out. Watch the enemy suffer. Mega-lame, but I
think it could work in a competition.
> Having longer weapon ranges solves this, I don't think it screws
Maybe "screws" is a bit too strong word. I mean it changes the balance Jon put
into the game, and it needs to be explored whether the new balance is
enjoyable.
> 20+ Play virtually then :-)
I just don't see having friends around for gaming and then crowding around a
computer screen...
Actually, as long as we played set scenarios, or smallish (1000pts or less)
battles, everything was fine. It's when we started the campaign that people
had a tendency to stick their fleets together for a "major showdown".
> > > o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad
Change the damage potential by increasing it?
Set victory conditions such that if they DO ram they lose points or something.
Or the first person to ram loses. Or something.
> Btw: Has anyone seen someone try out the "FTL-out suicide bombers"
Happened in one of my PBeM games. Bonehead Maneuver. I've outlawed it since
then.
Mk
[BIG SNIP]
> Thus a speed cap is in order. This might be a constant for all ships
If you want a semi-plausible PSB reason for speed capping, why not use
the
one that Weber uses in the Honor Harrington novels - strength of
particle shielding. At higher than a certain velocity, a ship's shielding
can't cope with the density of particles, micrometeorites etc that it will be
running into. This could give rise to warships having higher allowed maximums
than merchants, etc.
Please note:
1) This is probably total PSB for the sort of speeds we're actually talking
about, but what the heck?
2) This is NOT an "Official Rules Suggestion" - just an idea for those
of you who WANT to cap speed for whatever reason.
In message <01BCF5DC.2BAE1350@Tim.Jones@smallworld.co.uk>
> Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 20, 1997 9:16 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
Floor is often the best bet for large battles, the only problem is the
increased risk of stepping on models...
> > Cm works better for movement (the aforementioned happens only after
Weapons
> > with 6cm short range get especially nasty.
Use cm for movement, inches for firing.
> > Another argument against cm scale is that it's so bloody small.
Actually I like the inch for wargaming. I'd never use it for real world
applications, but as a wargame unit it's just the right size.
> > With this in mind, I've come to the following conclusion:
Why? Play with a fixed war zone, and rule that ships that leave the play area
never come back. Practicality then limits the speed of ships, since if you
travel too fast, you're out of the battle.
This way, you don't need artificial limits (or PSB).
> > AND... the number of ships needs to be limited. Every time we had a
We normally find that lots of small ships die early on, so the large fleet
tends to become a small fleet within a few turns...
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, People who actually *do* things with their lives -
> next time, on Geraldo! wrote:
> >Btw: Has anyone seen someone try out the "FTL-out suicide bombers"
I played a game where micro carriers were allowed. 24 mass 12 micro carriers
all carrying Attack fighters. Half unloaded at the beginning of the game then
accelerated towards the enemy fleet and FTL'd when they got close, then the
first wave of attack fighters swept through, then the second wave of carriers
launched and accelerated, FTL'd then the last wave of attack fighters, then
the carriers that didn't ahve an FTL target the first time had swung around
and made another pass. The carriers won with 5 carriers left and 12 squadrons
of fighters still viable. Definitely a cheese thing to do. Culdn't do much
about it unless you specifically bann this tactic since the opponent a) still
had viable FTL ships on the board b) the fighters had a place to rearm and
recover the pilots.
But I feel that such cheese tactics should not be allowed to become a regular
part of the game.
--Binhan
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Btw: Has anyone seen someone try out the "FTL-out suicide bombers"
I tried something similar that isn't quite that lame. Was somewhat scenario
specific. A Mass 6, Thr8w/3submunitions packs. Pre-plot FTL entry,
location and turn. Try to jump into the middle of enemy fleet, pop off sub
packs, FTL outta there. We played it two different ways.
Pre-plot before set up,
standard deviation. Pre-plot during first turn orders, catastrophic
deviation.
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Binhan Lin wrote:
[Clip]
Intellectually rewarding to see it could work as I suspected.
> But I feel that such cheese tactics should not be allowed to become a
Essentially, it's a bug. The FTL-effect table is wrong, the guy doing
the jump should suffer worse than people around him. More like he dies and
people around are slightly displaced.
But this goes to show how even a small bug in the system can and will be
exploited in an extremely competetive environment.
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Why? Play with a fixed war zone, and rule that ships that
Space is, by definition, limitless. By requiring ships to stay on the board
you are imposing an artificial limit, which IMHO is even more ridiculous than
speed caps.
"Sorry, you just can't fly past Pluto without FTL."
Mikko
You must have an awfully large playing area! ;-)
Gil
> Murphy's Laws of Combat #63
> ----------
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.971124102748.11603A-100000@swob.dna.fi>
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
I'd go the other way, and say speed caps are more ridiculous than area caps.
If you're playing on a limitless area (a moving table, changing scales, or a
really big hall), then I can't see much reason for needing speed caps.
I'd say both are unwanted limitations, but since we normally have to play with
the first, keeping all the capping there makes more sense.
Of course, if someone's got a really good idea on getting around the problem
of finite play areas, I'd love to hear it.
> "Sorry, you just can't fly past Pluto without FTL."
"Sorry, you just can't fly faster than 30km/s or the giant
space hamster will eat you."
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Haun, Gilles, SSG wrote:
> You must have an awfully large playing area! ;-)
I don't see your point.
The smaller the table, the more ridiculous it is to require the ships to stay
on it.
Mikko -
It's called 'a joke'.
> ----------
Sean -
I thought it meant that the giant hamster wheel's engine belt broke!
;-)
Gil Murphy's Laws of Combat # 25
Never draw fire -
> it irritates everyone around you!
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
Message text written by INTERNET:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
"I'd go the other way, and say speed caps are more ridiculous than area caps.
If you're playing on a limitless area (a moving table, changing scales, or a
really big hall), then I can't see much reason for needing speed caps."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
The problem with moving tables is that if your fleet splits into pockets of
battles, the battles can move in different directions. You generally cannot
"slide" the table 2 different directions at once.
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> I'd go the other way, and say speed caps are more ridiculous
In case you missed it, let me refresh our collective memories how this little
debate started: I had found out that fast ships tend to fly off the table
really fast if they want to capitalize their speed advantage. Moving the table
is
- Often impossible, as Brian Bell generously pointed out
- A pain in the butt I do not enjoy in the least
I already tried changing to cm-scale, which our group disliked (hence
the subject of this post) and list members already refused to pay for a new
gaming room, so...
Given the two remaining choices, I still think speed caps are more realistic.
> I'd say both are unwanted limitations, but since we normally
It's certainly a lot less fuss, if your players with the fast ships don't mind
being tactically castrated.
> > "Sorry, you just can't fly past Pluto without FTL."
This isn't really a fair comparison. FT doesn't have a stated scale (I'm
going to ignore the rambling in MT, as I'm willing to bet a unit of local
currency that Jon never really calculated what all he said implies), we
don't know if a speed of 1 is 10km/s or 0.1c or whatever.
Pluto, OTOH, is a point in space. I think it is safe to say that whatever the
scale in FT is supposed be, flying past a planet is not out of the question.
There *is* a speed cap as far as we understand physics: c. And should we
conquer that limit, that's what the FTL drive is there for. However, we
haven't found a limit to space yet.
To arrive at a compromise, actually I do think an area limit could work.
It just shouldn't be tied to an artificial concept like the table -- it
should be tied to sensor ranges. I.e. if you fly significantly past maximum
sensor ranges from all opposing ships, it is reasonable to break
off the engagement.
However, the max. sensor range of 54" (?) would require a table far larger
than what I have.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
This sounds very reasonable. If you were using cm instead, it would also be
manageable.
> On 26 Nov 1997, David Maslen wrote:
> This sounds very reasonable. If you were using cm instead, it would
Yes, but cms have other problems... and doing the cm for move, inch for firing
shuffle doesn't work either, as sensor range is more of a function of fire
combat.
Mikko, Perhaps it is time for an additional questions? 1) How large is the
available playing surface? (Forgive me is I have misssed this information from
a prior message.) 2) Does your group allow a ship to turn both direction
during a single movement phase?
A possible solution to the problem might be to create a
non-standead measuring device for use in the game. One move point
equal to 20MM might be a good place to start. Just a thought.
Another possible solution would be to change the thrust/turn
ratio to something like: A ship may use half of its thrust PLUS ONE for
turning.
Bye for now,
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.971126085937.21890A-100000@swob.dna.fi>
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> little debate started: I had found out that fast ships tend to fly off
> the table really fast if they want to capitalize their speed
Okay (and yes, I did miss it). To add my 2p to this - I
don't consider a thrust 8 ship to have a speed advantage, but to have an
acceleration advantage. Generally, such ships don't fly that much faster than
my low thrust ships, they just accelerate a lot more often.
> Moving the table is
We're a tight fisted lot...:)
> Given the two remaining choices, I still think speed caps are more
Okay then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> > I'd say both are unwanted limitations, but since we normally
What sort of speed capping are you thinking of? Presumably it would be some
multiple of the ship's thrust?
If it's four times the thrust, then it's not going to make much difference. My
thrust 8 ships rarely go above a speed of 16. OTOH, my thrust 4 dreadnaughts
tend to fly around at
10+, a limit of x2 or x3 is going to be most unwanted.
Because of the way the movement system works, low thrust ships are more
manouevrable at high speeds. Capping their speeds to a low value will cripple
them (IMO).
Anyway, to repeat a point you made earlier...
> I had found out that fast ships tend to fly off the table
You can either:
a) Limit the play area, which forces them to keep their speed down so they
don't fly off.
b) Limit their speed, which forces them to keep their speed down so they don't
fly off.
In both cases you're restricting fast ships. In the latter, you've also got to
cope with what happens when ships go off
the table. With a few ships this is easy. With 100+ ships
and fighter groups, it's not worth it.
We tend to play with large fleets btw... (which may explain why I'm
approaching the problem from a different direction to you).
> > > "Sorry, you just can't fly past Pluto without FTL."
It also wasn't a serious comparison (hence the reference to giant space
hamsters).
[...]
> accelerate all the way. Hit the table at 18 (we allow starting speed of
'10+thrust' as starting speed? Huh. Well...what about setting the
starting speed to be 8 for everyone? We generally have starting speeds between
6 and 10, tops.
Mk
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> What sort of speed capping are you thinking of? Presumably it
I haven't tested it yet... either relative to thrust, or some constant. If
constant, probably high enough that slower ships never reach it during
practical play.
> If it's four times the thrust, then it's not going to make
Well, I must so our experiences are vastly different. I've seen on table
speeds of 50+ (and it was a good, solid tactic too -- if it wasn't such
a bloody pain I'd use it every time when I have a 8 vs. 2 speed advantage and
need to deliver a close range strike). Missile boats regularly accelerate all
the way. Hit the table at 18 (we allow starting speed of
10+thrust), accelerate all the way and they're off the board on the
second turn. In fact, anyone going below 16 better be going 0 (to utilize the
"0
speed spin" loophole).
> Because of the way the movement system works, low thrust ships
Would you care to elaborate? I find this statement highly confusing. The
angles they can turn are exactly the same, but the turning radius goes up.
> b) Limit their speed, which forces them to keep their
No. By observing the speed cap, they *won't* fly *too far* off the table.
Really cuts down those "fly-by at 100 and then turn around 1000" away
for another pass" tactics too.
> In both cases you're restricting fast ships. In the latter,
We've been playing a lot of campaign games, which means punishing those spent
missile boats is a big deal. Letting them get away simply flying off the table
wouldn't cut it anyway.
> We tend to play with large fleets btw... (which may explain
I'll just disagree with you, but the larger the fleet is, the sillier I find
it not splintering into separate engagements drifting off the various table
edges.
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, People who actually *do* things with their lives -
> next time, on Geraldo! wrote:
> '10+thrust' as starting speed? Huh. Well...what about setting the
Slow ships are dead ducks for missile salvoes. Anyway, it just wouldn't work.
If I have T8 missile ships (or somethign similar) and I feel you've limited
the table entry speed too low, I'll just give the following orders on the
first turn:
4L4 or 4R4
And I will not move one single inch closer to you. Then I'll just boost away,
gather speed, sweep around and enter table when I feel like it.
Which results in the "off the table" problem on the first turn instead of the
second.
> '10+thrust' as starting speed? Huh. Well...what about setting the
> work.
Redesign your fleets to include anti-missile ships. And yes, it can and
does work.
> If I have T8 missile ships (or somethign similar) and I feel you've
> away, gather speed, sweep around and enter table when I feel like it.
Ya know, Mikko, you've got a situation there, and a number of people have put
forth a greater number of suggested reasonable solutions, however contrived,
to resolve the situation. But you shoot them all down for one reason or
another. Me, I would say any ship leaving the table is either considered a
'mission kill' for the other side, or may not return to the playing field for
1d6 turns, 2d6 if this is abused too often. Period. Don't know what else we
can do to help you here.
Mk
> From MK;
> Me, I would say any ship leaving the table is either
Don't
> know what else we can do to help you here.
You know, I really like this d6 idea, keeps it nice and simple, and gives you
enough of an incentive not to run off the table edge. Perhaps the player can
choose to be off the board for an extra few turns on top of that, and get to
choose where it comes back on on that table edge? An attempt to simulate the
Captain making some course adjustments on the way back in. Or would that
unbalance things?
We tend to fudge things a bit here and there if a ship is an inch or two off,
but then accuracy is generally not our strong point at 04:00 in the
morning...... But I agree that a large board is essential for escort size
ships to come into their own. Ha ven't tried CM scale though, must give it a
go.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.971128000352.31801A-100000@swob.dna.fi>
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
What I mean is, you can change your expected position a lot more when going
fast. A 2 point turn at speed 4 will only put you a couple of inches away from
your 'expected' position, whereas at speed 20 it puts you half a table away.
> > b) Limit their speed, which forces them to keep their
Okay, I thought you were trying to reduce the chance of ships going off the
table altogether.
> > In both cases you're restricting fast ships. In the latter,
Unless they're non-FTL, they should be able to just FTL out
anyway.
> > We tend to play with large fleets btw... (which may explain
I tend to prefer to concentrate my firepower.
If, as you say above, you're quite happy with ships going off the table, and
you just want to limit how far they go off the table, then speed caps are
better.
If (as in my case) you don't like ships going off the table at all, because of
the hassle it involves, then I still maintain that area caps are best.
Warning, I am a newbie without the books handy, so I may make some obvious
mistakes.
Um, why not just have two maps with different scales? Have the main battle
scale and a 10x scale for strategic maneuvering?
I'm a big fan of having a small squadron of ships 'pin' the enemy at
extreme scanner range, while a fleet with lots of one-shot weapons
closes at really high speed.
On re-entering the main battle map there will be some positional
error of course, but as long as you aren't doing it cloaked that isn't a
problem.
I think that as long as part of your fleet stays in contact with the enemy
fleet you shouldn't be penalized for a legitemate design.
However, there are a number of things to make missile ships less effective.
Cloaks are kind of amusing. A missile ship spends 10 turns building up a speed
that will take it through the engagement window as fast as possible and your
fleet cloaks for the one phase it is in range. Your enemy has spent 50% of his
expenses on tenders and missile boats and when he fires off all his missiles
in a devastating volley all of his missiles lose lock because you spent about
10-20% of your expenses on cloaking devices!
Or, you allow long range beam weapons to fire 'en passant'. The defending
fleets AA and A batteries should be able to fire before you close to point
blank missile range. I've done some damage calculation and noticed that unless
a missile is fired at fairly close range it does less average damage than the
hull that launched it can take. This means that while the missile boats can do
damage and theoretically get away, they can't hold the field and they can't
actually kill an equal point cost fleet.
If the missile boats have no place to get more missiles because their bases
are all wiped out, that is their problem.
Another idea: Versus a ship which comes from beyond sensor range in one turn,
ECM can generate bogies equal to the defending ship's fire control.
Instead of an expendable 20+ point decoy, you use the ECM and Fire
Control to generate temporary bogies.
Here is an example of how it might work, ( I forget the exact ECM rules) Ships
with no points spent on ECM can't do this, multiple the ECM rating by the
number of committed Fire Control and you get the number of bogies vs missiles
only. These bogies last as long as the ECM and Fire Control is committed, and
as the bogies are
scanned there is a battle-long reduction in the number of generated
bogies. The bogies don't work versus beam weapons because the ECM requires
time to decoy the missiles off target.
Big ships become suddenly really hard targets unless you take the time to scan
the bogies down.
After a while, ships which stick around get a much more solid fix and the ECM
bogies will become less effective.
Another way to deal with missile boats doing this, even in a campaign game, is
to have a bunch of 2 mass and 4 mass Missile Boat Interceptors
with C-beams, B-beams and ADAFs which go after the Missile Boats.
After the 'Eggshells with Sledgehammers' battle is resolved...
I have another reason for prefering large map boards. While the book says AA
batteries can only be mounted on Capital ships, I have a Cruiser design that
takes advantage of them beautifully:
Parthian Cruisers: These cruisers have AA batteries broadsides.
Mass 36 10 2 Port Arc AA batteries 2 Superior Sensors 3 Shield level 1 3 3
PDAF, or 1 ADAF
Thrust 8 and: Mass 30 10 2 Port Arc AA batteries 2 Superior Sensors 3 Cloaking
Device
Naturally, these aren't going around unsupported by other ships which cover
their weak spots.
The tactics these guys would use would be to engage at extreme range and keep
the enemy fleet in their 8 (or it their 4?). Whichever, they can roll to make
it appropriate. They attempt to keep the range between 36" and 54" for as long
as possible.
With such tactics, if the enemy fleet splits up in an attempt to intercept or
get past the Parthian Cruisers the likelihood of drifting off the map becomes
huge.
In a campaign game, it should require a technological development to be able
to mount AA batteries on cruisers. It would be hideously expensive to put
thrust 8 on Battlecruisers just to
do this, but a thrust-8 Battlecruiser with thrust-8 Escorts
and Cruisers with anti-missile and anti-fighter defenses would
be a very interesting unit. Put nothing but AA batteries and a little PDAF on
the Battlecruiser and more versatile armaments on the cruisers and escorts.
Basically, design the force to either snipe, or to hit and run, in
no circumstances hang around in A-battery range of Dreadnoughts
for very long! If outgunned in the AA department, the fleet either runs away,
or closes rapidly for missiles and submunitions targetted at the enemy ships
with AA batteries.
Naturally, I have many devious plans of my own in case I ever meet a fleet of
such composition...:):):)
Michael Sandy, Welcome, it is always nice to see yet another devious mind at
work. FT is very genaric in nature and requires good humor and common sense to
make it work when one gets down to the fine details.
Dual maps - I like it. This could be used to solve Mikkos
scale problem (maybe).
Missile boats - I think I'll sit this one out, I personally do not
consider the missile fleet concept to be a real threat.
Pathan - At 8 O'clock would be best. Remember: Michael Left Port.
Bye for now
David, The 1D6 idea has merit, but dont stop the fudge, it keeps the game at a
lower level of intensity.
By for now,
> Missile boats - I think I'll sit this one out, I personally do not
John, There are quite a few players who can prove you wrong.
> Jonathan Davis wrote:
The only tactic I have seen used is the 'one salvo- all or nothing'
firing. Keep the missiles bunched together, its a sure kill if
they hit. This leads to a certain amount of distain on my part. The people I
game with do not play in a limited area, we will
slide the mat or use another if necessary. I will normally
enguage at speed 20 and try to be broadside at a range of 15
to 25 inches when things get interesting. All of my capital
combat ships (In the current campaign) are thrust 5. (Cruisers are thrust 6,
and escorts are thrust 8) I am defending and must choose my enguagements
rather carefully. I quite often play on the short side of the point scale and
so being defeated is not new to me, I just try to make it Reeeaaalllly
difficult on the other side.
Bye for now, the real world is calling.
> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, John Leary wrote:
> to 25 inches when things get interesting. All of my capital
Lemme guess: You round "points available for turning" UP, don't you?
Personally, I've never seen a capital ship with thrust higher than 4. They
just get too bloody expensive.
And, this is just me, but as long as FT does not define any roundings, I will
round all figures to the disadvantage of whoever initiated the action that
requires rounding (i.e. the ship's owner if it's a design rounding, the
attacker if it's a damage rounding etc.).
Any other way, I'd just get swamped with weaseled optimized designs --
AND hurt the players who are too busy to design their own ships even more.
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> What I mean is, you can change your expected position a
Ok. Not exactly what I understand by maneuverability, but I get your point.
> Unless they're non-FTL, they should be able to just FTL out
Well, it was a non-FTL campaign, so you have a point there. True FTL
ships won't be vulnerable for more than 1-2 turns after making an attack
pass. Kind of kills any idea of pursuit (which isn't fun, but something I can
live with).
> I tend to prefer to concentrate my firepower.
This is true for heavies, but small ships have to manouver to get a good
shot without being blasted out of space.
> If, as you say above, you're quite happy with ships going
Agreed. Different goals, different methods.
Some general thoughts: Unlimited speeds offer untold tactical possibilities,
especially when you're targeting an unmoving object (like
a station). Ludicrous attack pass speeds not only make some weapons (missiles,
fighters) nearly unusable, but they also make interception of
attackers very hard. Not to mention that the only way to play
three-digit
speeds is on paper or computer.
I find it insulting to one's intelligence to set up a certain tactical
parameters (unlimited speed) then to defuse it with poorly thought out
limitations ("you can't use it that way, cuz it's no fun").
Rather than trying to address each issue as they crop up, developing n+1
separate rules to deal with the situations (often also poorly thought out and
resulting in myriad *new* loopholes), I'd prefer a simple rule to handle all
situations. Namely, top speeds.
> David Petterson writes:
Well, that actually hasn't ever cropped up in our games. The mere threat
of being off-table and out of play for up to 6 turns has provided
sufficient incentive to *not* go off the table (though I have fudged if the
ship was
going off the table just a wee little bit when I've run games at cons -
as long as the ship in question could *easily* get back on the table again
next turn! but that's a judgement call I make as a ref, not a mutual player).
As for having Captains chose where they will enter again, that could get
tricky, and I think, detract from the incentive to not go off the table.
Think this way: you have a high-mass low-maneuverability ship who just
'happens' to drift off the table. You roll a d6 and it comes up '1'. Oh,
so you think, you'll just spend a few extra turns off-table, then appear
directly *behind* the enemy A half-dozen A-batts (or AA-batts, or
whatever) up the butt without effective response essentially gives you free
shots.
Yeah, I can see the 'extra turns to come in where you want' being abused
unless you slap some serious limitations on it.
For me, my feeling would be to have the ship return to the table at the same
spot it went off, at the same speed, heading perpendicular to the edge of the
table, should a ship go off the edge of the playing field.
Contrived? Yes, most definitely. But unless you're doing a floating-map
enviroment, this should give incentive for players to stay on the table, and
in the battle.
My other thought, and one I have enforced before, is the 'mission kill' idea.
If a ship leaves early, they are counted for victory pts to the enemy, and
they disengage, not to return (now if your ship is heavily wounded, this is
not necessarily a *bad* thing; outright kills ought to be worth just a little
more than 'mission kills' in my book)
Mk