[FT] Battlefield set-up

6 posts ยท Oct 13 2003 to Oct 13 2003

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:03:18 -0400

Subject: [FT] Battlefield set-up

This is purely about cinematic FT. A few months ago, I wrote offlist:

> 2. Battlefield Set up

One of the comments was:
> would like it even better if you could split the fleet into

And it appears, from other comments that I've heard, that "Mass your
forces into one big fist and bash away" is a favored tactic.   I can
see why that would be efficient and popular, as splitting your forces invites
defeat in detail. But are there tactics for which you would enter the board
with your forces split?

("Split" here means "separated by at least 12mu and maneuvering separately".
I'm not talking about contrived scenarios ("your squadrons will rendezvous at
Point X, but you find a BadGuy squadron
already there"), and I'm not talking about operational-level reasons
("Squadron A raids Mars, squadron B attacks shipping, squadron C attacks Titan
naval base"), I'm talking about setting your ships on the table.)

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:00:32 +0200

Subject: Re: [FT] Battlefield set-up

> Laserlight wrote:

[Only in Cinematic]

> One of the comments was:

Yes, definitely. On a large table, if I split up and you form your
non-KV
force into one big fist the only way for you to stop me parking at least

half of my fleet in your (A) arc is to bring your entire fleet to a full

stop to spin in place... which either gives me a very good hit prob for any
missiles (or, god forbid, waveguns/nova cannon) I have, or results in a
Mexican stand-off where you lose if you attempt to move.

KV can turn around fast enough to keep their (A) arcs clear, though :-)

Later,

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:39:24 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Battlefield set-up

> But are there tactics for which you would

OO said: >Yes, definitely.

Okay, so how about: a) divide your fleet into squadrons
b) use the formula above to determine initiative for set-up purposes
(use an unmodified d6 vs d6 roll off to break any ties) c) place your
squadrons on the table in order from lowest to highest initiative (ie a
merchant with Thrust 1 and no sensors will set up first; Admiral Vorkosigan
with Thrust 8, Superior Sensor ships will set up last). d) [tentative] You
can't set up within X distance (60mu?) of the enemy but
you can shift the map to accomodate--eg if that merchant sets up 5mu
from the end of the table and Adm Vorkosigan wants to set up behind him, just
move the merchant 60 mu forward.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:31:32 +0200

Subject: Re: [FT] Battlefield set-up

> Laserlight wrote:

> Admiral Vorkosigan with Thrust 8, Superior Sensor ships will set up

Admiral Vorkosigan *always* sets up last, completely independent of what

equipment he has; *unless* the enemy commander is a certain other badly
shot-up cripple with a six-legged cat familiar...

(BTW, did you mean Admiral *Vorkosigan*, or his son Admiral *Naismith*?
;-) )

> d) [tentative] You can't set up within X distance (60mu?) of the enemy

Looks OK to me, but I'll need to play it to be sure.

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:41:39 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] Battlefield set-up

> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:31:32PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> shot-up cripple with a six-legged cat familiar...

Ah, you mean a treecat admiral with its empathic slave...

> Looks OK to me, but I'll need to play it to be sure.

I have some similar squadron-scale setup rules which I'm working on at
present; mostly they determine ranges and relative facings.

R

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:03:37 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Battlefield set-up

> (BTW, did you mean Admiral *Vorkosigan*, or his son Admiral *Naismith*?
;-

Vorkosigan. Naismith would let Tung do it.

> d) [tentative] You can't set up within X distance (60mu?) of the enemy

Probably "step 1: mark your position on the map; step 2: lay it out on the
table"