Beth said: OK maybe we're just the weirdest FT players in the universe and
we'd get
our butts kicked as soon as we cross the straight < all too possible;) >...but
so far when people have tried the first option above against me their fire
hasn't been as effective as they expected because its too split to damage all
the ships they want as much as they want. Whereas when they tried the second
option they got rid of their first 'big' target and a few escorts but the
second 'big' target was untouched coming into the next round. Either way the
next time I ran into them they had at least some
weapons with multiple arcs suggesting that 1-arc alone did make them
feel safe. But like I said maybe that's just the way we play, feel free to
join in with Tom and I in a years time and you can hand me my head on a plate
;)
============
Are you guys wierd? If this were America (rather than cyberspace), I'd try to
excercise my 5th amendment rights with regard to such a question.:)
Your comment about the fire being too split to damage all their desired
targets is interesting. Mostly in my experience (we typically run fleets that
give each player about the equivalent of a DN or BDN, and two or three
cruisers and typically 2-3 players per side) the targetting would mostly
fall on 2-4 ships per turn - which if you have wings would be a goodly
part of one wing. So we'd just obliterate these ships.... Our policy is a ship
that doesn't survive to shoot was a poor investment of points.
In general, I should also comment that none of us sits still for pincer
attacks. I tend to wait till the pincers are at their widest then go full
throttle at one pincer. So usually when I am in close engagement with them
(all my guns at close range), they have the guns from the target pincer in
close range and those from the non-target pincer either out of range or
at longer (hence less effectual) range. A good time to do this is the turn
before the pincer starts cutting in... when their vector is still outward.
My comments about multi-arcs of course don't apply to bricks. If you're
flying a brick, you'd best have some multi-arc because you don't have
much of a manoevre envelope to throw your opponents tactics (such as a pincer)
into disarray.
Beth, I think the way to test this (down the road) would be for me and Chris
to create "limited arc" versions of a mid thrust fleet (NAC?) and you and
those who share your view to fight us using standard multi-arc NAC. In
theory, we'll have forces of the same mass (and probably roughly the same
point values) whose only distinction is the weapon layout. Fight this two or
three games and we should have a good idea of the value of the extra arcs.
Note, BTW, I didn't say have NO guns with more than 1 arc. Secondaries tend to
have 3 arcs. But your primaries only need 1 or at most 2 arcs on MD4 ships.
I look forward to meeting you over a gaming table (even if it is a virtual
one). Sometime you have a chance, drop me a mail off-list
(tomb@bitheads.com).:)
And Chris, it's nice to have someone of roughly like mind.... even if he is a
Reb! *grin*
:)
From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@bitheads.com>
(Sound effects: gauntlet clanging on the deck):
> Beth, I think the way to test this (down the road) would be for
and you and
> those who share your view to fight us using standard multi-arc
Fight this two or
> three games and we should have a good idea of the value of the
Secondaries tend
> to have 3 arcs. But your primaries only need 1 or at most 2
I'm up for that. Beth, you (and your second) build the fleet;
we'll take the single-arc version of whatever you build. We can
rework the designs here or you can have some third party do it.
> And Chris, it's nice to have someone of roughly like mind....
even if he is
> a Reb! *grin*
(mildly) I'm not a Rebel--I'm just in a Southerner in favor of
observing the constitutional precedence of State over Federal government, and
individuals over the State government. Now, I
grant you that involves opposing the big-government monolithic
Federal doctrine instituted about 140 years ago--but I'm the one
who's acting in accordance with the Constitution, therefore if anyone is
rebelling against legitimate authority, it's the
Northern Aggressor government. (Yeeeeeeee-haaa!)
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:02:44 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@bitheads.com>
And the West Coast expatriate scratches his head wondering what they are
talking about... Long live the shoulda been/coulda been Bear Flag
Republic! <grin>
Even though I don't do FT (the third dimension is a stretch for yours truly)
let me know if this takes place anywhere near Saint Louis, MO, USA, (my
current place of exile) 'cause this I'd like to see!
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 16:30:10 -0500 devans@uneb.edu writes:
SO close. Currently I try not to be gone overnight. This upsets my bosses who
think I should 'want' to go to D.C. regularly to meet with my 'peers' in the
Intelligence community. Gack! Imagery Analysts (them) and Regional Analysts
(us) mix like oil and water, or maybe gasoline and lit matches is more like
it.
With both adults in the family working (and the bankruptcy still in
process (and painful - I think the only people who can lose their jobs
for bankruptcy are us INTEL slaves (I means employees, of course...) because
of the clearance issue)) and two kids in school (one with a TON of multiple
therapy appointments) I try to stick local (at least until all the dust
settles and we can save up some money.)
> Anyway, what makes you think FT'ers compehend in three dimensions?
Hmmm, since I haven't read the rules, how do handle 'altitude' if not in 3D?
> By the way, as Megan, the model for my never-to-be-completed FT story,
Columbia is another "So close..." Maybe in a few years (but then at 50 that
can only work so long...)
> ***
BTW, I like the signature.
> >Anyway, what makes you think FT'ers compehend in three
if not in
> 3D?
Ignore it and it goes away.
This actually works reasonably well--since altitude is not
significant in open space the way it is in atmosphere. No difference between
climbing, diving, and turning; no worries about running into the ground or
your aircraft's ceiling; if your vessel loses power, you don't (usually) have
to worry about crashing.
There are some places where it causes problems but those are usually the
operational scale. On the tactical scale, the extra realism of 3D isn't worth
the aggravation of setting to rods and
adjustable-altitude trays, figuring out 3D movement, etc. YMMV,
of course.
G'day guys,
> Are you guys wierd? If this were America (rather than cyberspace), I'd
:)
Most likely and we don't have anything like your 5th amendment (or if we do
they're keeping damn quiet about it) so honesty is probably the best policy;)
> Your comment about the fire being too split to damage all their
We usually play about 2500 points per player (usually only 1-2 players
per
side) so you often see a couple of big guys (BB - SDN sized) per fleet,
with the rest mostly cruisers, though a few DDs or FFs are usually hiding
in there too. We also see only a few ships targeted a turn - either the
missile boats or big buys usually - so when the 'usual' targets are
split between groups you can see them wince (as they end up picking off
secondary things or over killing the primary one)
> In general, I should also comment that none of us sits still for
The guys here don't sit still either and it's taken a while to get pincer
width and swaying with the target down pat (the first few attempts were less
than satisfactory... OK attrocious), but I'm getting better at it now just
took a bit of practice.
> Beth, I think the way to test this (down the road) would be for me and
Sounds OK to me, though to be honest I have no familiarity with NAC ships
at all - of the published stuff I've played a little NSL and ESU, but
the vast majority has been FSE or alien stuff. On the other hand if I went
with
Laserlight's idea of me pick a fleet then you do a 1-arc version I
wouldn't want to pick something you didn't feel comfortable with either so
which fleets have you played the most? If we can't find common ground I'm
happy to play NAC... I'll just have to get some practice in first.... me in
training now there's an amusing vision;)
Oh and if anybody else is still listening to this thread.... I need a
second... any volunteers to come to the aid of a mai... wenc... lady in
need? ;)
> Note, BTW, I didn't say have NO guns with more than 1 arc. Secondaries
I'd figured that's what you meant by the end of it all;)
> I look forward to meeting you over a gaming table (even if it is a
Will do.
Cheers
Beth
Beth said:
> Sounds OK to me, though to be honest I have no familiarity with
NAC, NSL, or ESU--I don't think FSE is feasible.
> Oh and if anybody else is still listening to this thread.... I
lady in
> need? ;)
You left the "h" off "wench"; I can't figure out what the "mai" is ("maiden"?
No, that can't be right...). You might qualify as a damsel, though.
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:24:47 +1000, Beth Fulton
<beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> Most likely and we don't have anything like your 5th amendment (or if
Well, Tom is Canadian and WE don't have any ammendments to our constitution so
I don't know what he's talking about! *L* But, we do have a right against
self-incrimination, which is the same thing, and I believe Australia
does too.
> We also see only a few ships targeted a turn - either the
I thought that was what you were getting at in your discussions. FT runs into
a sort of "Ogre" like situation. In Ogre, do you go after the treads of the
vehicle or the weapons. In FT, do you take out all the small ships first, or
do you take out the big ships. Taking out small ships is easier and eliminates
"platforms". Taking out big ships takes a lot longer, and for much of that
time the bigger ships are usually close to 100% effective. But with small
ships, it's easier to get "overkill". Destroying a 4 hull box escort with a
roll of 8 damage points is annoying.
I guess the point is that there is an optimum path for taking out ships. If
you have two pincers and both have all available targets in firing arc, they
can destroy ships in the optimum order. If you don't have all of your
opponent's ships in firing arc, you have to destroy what you can and it's
often suboptimum.
To get to Tom's comment, sure if a fleet attacks in two pincers the limited
fire arc fleet can just jump on one of the two wings. The problem is that if
your optimum plan is to destroy all the escorts in one fleet, you can only
destroy all the escorts in the one wing. Then, you have to start working on
the bigger ships. Meanwhile, the other fleet is free to hit the limited arc
fleet in an optimum manner.
FT is luck based to a fair degree, but picking an optimum order for destroying
your opponents swings the odds in your favour. I noticed, though, watching the
FT tournament how few people looked for an optimum path of destruction.
> The guys here don't sit still either and it's taken a while to get
> less than satisfactory... OK attrocious), but I'm getting better at it
How are you at countering pincers? I would guess that the best plan is to
pounce on one wing while it is out of support range from the other wing. I
guess that's where the spacing, size, and speed of the pincer is so critical.
Get it wrong and you end up with two unsupported fleets, with one getting
destroyed before the other can support.
> Oh and if anybody else is still listening to this thread.... I need a
> need? ;)
*L* I would, but I don't have the spare time or the requisite experience. *L*
> --- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
...
> Oh and if anybody else is still listening to this
...
> >I look forward to meeting you over a gaming table
Beth, Is this a design it yourself or a FTFB
genaric? I would prefer the DIY.
Need a second, that's my calling! I may be number 2, but I'll try harder.
(And by the way, I would be careful with that
"...Lady in need." line. It could lead to a
lot of trouble with those who have an overactive imagination. ".)
:-)
Bye for now,
G'day Allan,
> Well, Tom is Canadian and WE don't have
Are we sure we ever know what he's talking about........Tom..... now be
friendly Tom... it was a joke... Tom put that phone down it took months to get
the marks off the wall from the last Narn bat
Squad visit!!!;P
> How are you at countering pincers?
At present I'd say I'd have the theory in place (after watching others do it
and thinking about ways around their tactics), but I've had very little
practice.
> I would guess that the best plan is to
Yep, this is easier if they take their time setting the pincer up (so you
can preempt it) or if you can hold them off for longer so they mis-step
themselves and end up less as a pincer and more of a mess.... another good
option is getting them to fly half the pincer into an orbiting moon... now
that hurts!!!!
> I guess that's where the spacing, size,
All too true!
Have fun
Beth
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:01:13 -0700 (PUT) John Learn
> <john_to_Learn@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip chivalry stuff> <grin>
> (And by the way, I would be careful with that
By definition War gamers are over imaginative. Good thing this media doesn't
require visuals....
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:50:07 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> >Anyway, what makes you think FT'ers compehend in three
Maybe I wil have to look at the FT rules (like I need another
scale/genre
of figures to start buying...) <grin>