I've been giving Brendan Pratt's reactions to FB2 some thought, and I think he
has a point.
Basically, he has shown ways that both Phalons and SuVasku can get into short
range (12") either with little damage or giving as good or better than they
get. And has shown that the firepower they can generate at 12" is unbalancing.
Now any solution that we come up with must not change either in any
significant way, except to remove the grossossity, as in other ways they're
well balanced. It's also important to make very few changes in FB2, the best
would be only a few characters (not words or paragraphs).
So I propose the following:
SV Spicules take power from the D pool not the A pool ( as discussed)
SV Stingers take an additional 1 pt of power per die. So instead of
1-2-4-8 etc it's 1+1, 2+1, 4+1, 8+1 etc. This weakens them
insignificantly at long ranges ( 33 vs 32 PP) but halves their FP at Point
Blank range, so the big fellas do 15 dice instead of 30. This is still
comparable with most SDs. But no longer can a SV fleet sit at the edge of the
board and just overkill anything by making 1 move (1 turn of max move at 36"
then hit the opponent with 3x his Firepower)
Phalons do 1-2-4 instead of 1-2-6 dice with their pulsers. Again, this
makes
no change except at absolute point-blank range. The estimable OO at one
stage
had 1-2-4 but changed it as the result of mathematical analysis. I think
the original should stand as the result of playtesting.
I expect that in Vector, there are fewer firing opportunities at this short
range, so the balance is not greatly disturbed. In cinematic, where the
problem is, there is still no change except at under 12" for the Phalons, and
not that much for the SuVasku. (Yes, in vector there are still lots of 12"
ranges, but tend to be individual ships not 90% of a fleet in one turn. In
Vector Range is difficult to control, but relative bearing easy. In cinematic,
it's the reverse. But I digress.)
What it means is that the Phalons still have an advantage at short range, but
not an outrageous one. The SuVasku OTOH must make more use of their special
powers of movement, they can no longer just close to one opponent and shred it
with one salvo. Instead they must go for weak areas, and make more use of
their pod launchers at short range.
I'd like to see how this goes in playtesting. To those who see no problem, it
should make little difference. If you don't have a Phalon fleet armed with
nothing
but C-class Pulsers, it will make little or no difference. If your
SuVasku use their movement powers to zap behind an enemy to avoid counterfire
rather than just materialise next to their opponents En Masse and vape them
before they can return fire, then again there will be little effect. (eg at
36" it costs 5PP vs 4 PP per die). To those who see a big problem with Phalons
armed with nothing but S range
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] I am not sure that this is the case. Remember, if the SV
are using all of thier power to close, they have none left over for weapons or
defense. If they put power to weapons or defense, they have to reduce speed. A
Phalon under vapor shroud faces a
similar problem, it cannot fire, but is vulnerable to P-Torps
and Salvo Missiles. If they configure all of thier pulsers for close, their
opponents will keep thier distance and hit from long range.
> Now any solution that we come up with must not change either
then
> hit the opponent with 3x his Firepower)
[Bri] This is a MAJOR crimp in smaller SV ships. Take a
Fo'Sath'Ann. If it moves at what would be a normal thrust for a Human frigate
(6), this takes 3 power points leaving 3 If it put 1 into D for the spicule
and 2 into A for the Stinger you
get the equivilent of MD6, 1 PDS, 1 Class-1 Beam.
Now look at the Tacoma (same mass), convert 1 Class-2 to armor
and 1 Class-1 for the extra hull box. You end up with MD6,
1 PDS, 1 Class-2 Beam, and 1 Class-1 Beam. That is the Human
craft gets an extra Class-2 Beam for 1 point cost more than
the SV.
> Phalons do 1-2-4 instead of 1-2-6 dice with their pulsers. Again, this
[Bri] The big trade off for Pulsers set to close range and
Class-1 Beams is the PDS ability. Pulsers set at close range
still only get 1 die vs fighters in PDS mode.
Weapon Mass vs Ships vs Fighters/Missiles
3 Pulser (C6A) 12 18 dice 3 die (6 arc)
4 Pulser (C3A) 12 24 dice 4 die (3 arc)
6 Pulser (C1A) 12 36 dice 6 dice (1 arc)
12 Class-1 12 12 dice 12 dice (6 arc)
With your changes:
Weapon Mass vs Ships vs Fighters/Missiles
3 Pulser (C6A) 12 12 dice 3 die (6 arc)
4 Pulser (C3A) 12 16 dice 4 die (3 arc)
6 Pulser (C1A) 12 24 dice 6 dice (1 arc)
12 Class-1 12 12 dice 12 dice (6 arc)
And for every pulser set at close, that is one less to worry about at long
range. Conversely, if it is set at long, it greatly reduces the close
firepower.
> I expect that in Vector, there are fewer firing opportunities at this
But
> I
instead
> of
---------- End Original Message ------------
My comments marked by [Bri]
[quoted original message omitted]
Bell, Brian K wrote in reply to Alan Brain:
> I've been giving Brendan Pratt's reactions to FB2 some thought, and
What Brendan wrote about the SV was that they are able to sit at their own
table edge without maneuvering, putting all their power into the A pool. They
then outgun all enemies at all ranges, which is a problem. He did not write
that the Sa'Vasku can get into short range while simultaneously having
unbalancingly much firepower; that part of his posts treated the Phalons only.
[Snip. I agree with Brendan's SV worries, but also with Brian's
comments to Alan's suggestion regarding the Stinger nodes.]
On Phalons:
> Phalons do 1-2-4 instead of 1-2-6 dice with their pulsers. Again,
What Alan probably doesn't know is that this mathematical analysis was
preceeded by 18 playtest battles in July last year, featuring the 1-2-4
Pulsers. He does know (or at least has known) that it was followed up
by another 17 battles, this time using the 1-2-6 Pulser version, in
September and October :-/
Most of the July battles pitted near-identical Phalon fleets against
one another; the only differences between the fleets was the Pulser
configurations used. The ratio of M Pulsers to L Pulsers didn't seem to
matter very much, but the fleets with the larger number of Pulser-Cs
invariably lost. (Eight battles out of eight; in the other four
inter-Phalon battles both sides had the same number of Pulser-Cs but
different mixes of Ms and Ls.)
The last six July battles were against Human fleets (mostly FB1
designs, but also some all-P-torp custom ones). Here the Phalons were
completely massacred in the two battles where they had around half their
Pulsers in C configuration. The other four battles, featuring
Pulser mixes with up to one-third Pulser-Cs, saw two narrow Phalon
victories and two equally narrow Phalon defeats.
My conclusion from those battles was that the M and L Pulsers were reasonably
OK balanced both against one another and against the human
beams, but that the C version was much too weak - at least on our
table, which has a fair amount of space to evade in.
After these battles I did a maths analysis to try and get the Pulser-Cs
at least within shouting distance of the other two types (they were different
types back then, not just different configurations). This
resulted in the 1-2-6 version, which was then tested in the 17
September-October battles (which I reported on the playtest mailing
list when the FB2 work started up in earnest).
> [Bri] The big trade off for Pulsers set to close range and
Brian is on the right path, but misses three things. The first two
favour the Pulser but are IMO/E not that important, while the third
strongly favours the Class-1s.
* Each Pulser PD die is worth a bit more than two B1 PD dice; not only
does it kill on average twice as many fighters/missiles, but it is also
able to engage Plasma Balls and benefit from ADFC guidance - neither of
which the B1 can do, so the difference in PD ability isn't as large as
the above table suggests. The C1 entry should say "5-6 dice (6 arc)" in
the vs Fighters/Missiles column rather than "12 dice" :-/
* One Mass-4 system is somewhat easier to keep repaired than 4 Mass-1
systems when the ship starts taking threshold hits. 'Course,
Phalon-style ships usually don't have a lot of time in which to repair
stuff when they finally start taking thresholds checks! This feature is
a lot more important for stronger-hulled custom ships than for the
published weak-hulled Phalon ships.
* If two systems have different costs per mass, comparing the same Mass of
weapons doesn't tell you very much; instead you need to look at the effective
cost (ie., including weapon's proportion of the engines and basic hull
structure).
Let's compare the cost of one 6-arc Pulser-C (PC-6) with 6 Class-1
batteries (B1-6) for different thrust ratings (human/Phalon engines,
with FTL drives included):
Weapon: Vs ships: Vs fighters: Thrust: 2 4 6
1xPC-6 6 1 27.8 30 33
6xB1-6 6 "3" 29.6 33 37.5
The single Pulser has a somewhat higher average availability than the six B1s,
but IME that doesn't outweigh the better point defence firepower (and
targetting flexibility) of the B1s. The B1s cost 1.9, 3
or 4.5 points more than the PC-6 for the three thrust level, ie. 6-14%
of the weapons cost. Just for comparison, 1 PDS costs 4.9, 5.5 and 6.25 points
for the three thrust levels respectively.
With Alan's changes, I need to compare 1 PC-6 with 4 B1-6s instead:
Weapon: Vs ships: Vs fighters: Thrust: 2 4 6
1xPC-6 4 1 27.8 30 33
4xB1-6 4 "2" 19.8 22 25
The Class-1s still have the same anti-ship firepower and better
anti-fighter/missile firepower (though not as much better as before),
but they now only cost about 8 points (24-30%) *less* than the
Pulser-C. To me, this makes the Class-1s look very attractive compared
to the Pulser-C - "better firepower for three-quarters the price"
looks like a bargain.
Now, considering all the bad press the B1s have had over the five-six
years I've been on this list I get a distinct feeling that any system which
makes the B1s look like a bargain, well... it can't really be
*that* powerful :-/
Out of curiousity - would any of you arm your fleet exclusively or
almost exclusively with B1 batteries? If not, why not?
I've only discussed the *all-arc* Pulser-C above. This is because it
is, IME of course, the most powerful of the three. While it is larger
than the 3- and 1-arc versions, its extra Mass is nonetheless less than
the proportion of extra times the enemy come into its arc of fire :-/
Regards,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> What Brendan wrote about the SV was that they are able to sit at their
Correct. So we either have to a) Reduce them at short range
b) Remove their long-range capability
c) Decrease across the board.
I don't like c) as it remove flavour. I don't like b) cause that REALLY
removes flavour I don't like a) much for that matter, but it seems the easiest
to implement.
> [Snip. I agree with Brendan's SV worries, but also with Brian's
[Bri] This is a MAJOR crimp in smaller SV ships. Take a
Fo'Sath'Ann. If it moves at what would be a normal thrust for a Human frigate
(6), this takes 3 power points leaving 3 If it put 1 into D for the spicule
and 2 into A for the Stinger you
get the equivilent of MD6, 1 PDS, 1 Class-1 Beam.
Now look at the Tacoma (same mass), convert 1 Class-2 to armor
and 1 Class-1 for the extra hull box. You end up with MD6,
1 PDS, 1 Class-2 Beam, and 1 Class-1 Beam. That is the Human
craft gets an extra Class-2 Beam for 1 point cost more than
the SV.
The smallest of the SV ships becomes almost useless, unfortunately.
It would need a hull box/armour replaced by a 1 pt power source to
make it work at all. :-(
As for the Tacoma comparison above, the ability of a SV ship to
suddenly gain Thrust-12 is worth a fair bit too!
> On Phalons:
Hey, I missed the problem too. Worse, I should have campaigned for
1-2-4 which I preferred, but in the face of both your analysis and the
playtesting evidence, I honestly thought I hadn't got a leg to stand on.
> Most of the July battles pitted near-identical Phalon fleets against
I see no problem with this. If fighting other Phalons, don't tune your Pulsers
to close range. *shrug*
> The last six July battles were against Human fleets (mostly FB1
The problem is not with Mixed tuning ships. Setting half your pulsers to C
config means you fall between 2 stools. Make em ALL C class and see what
happens.
> My conclusion from those battles was that the M and L Pulsers were
I concur BTW...
> but that the C version was much too weak - at least on our
Quite a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, I would have done the same.
> After these battles I did a maths analysis to try and get the
> With Alan's changes, I need to compare 1 PC-6 with 4 B1-6s instead:
No, because of the repair problem. Basically, if you have exclusive B1s then
you have zero chance of repairing any significant loss, there are just too few
DCPs. Otherwise, Hell Yes! In a dogfight in
Cinematic, that all-round arc is worth 50% of the cost, especially
with Thrust-4 or less.
But against KV, this might change. Certainly the B2(All Arc) becomes
Alan had written that Brendan Pratt had...
> ...shown ways that both Phalons and SuVasku can
I read Brendan's post as showing that Phalons can get into short range if the
enemy doesn't know how to deal with them, or if the table is *very* cramped.
At least the first "if" is a rather big one. *IF* the
all-C Phalons manage to get close before they take serious losses they
can inflict massive damage, but the enemy usually only needs to stay out of
range for a turn or two in order to wear the Phalons down to a managable size.
Phalon ships die rather fast even when shrouded, and if they want to use their
PBLs they can't shroud either.
Alan also wrote, in reply to me:
> What Brendan wrote about the SV was that they are able to sit at
> Correct. So we either have to
A bit difficult to determine if "them" refers to SV, Phalons or both here. You
forgot the d) option though, which is:
d) Wait 'til the autumn and see if the players figure out proper tactics to
deal with them. This is the solution we "applied" to the SMs
during the initial furor after FB1 was published - you remember those
first 2-3 months when the players thought that SMs were horribly
overpowered?
The main reason I'm worried about the Sa'Vasku is that *I* still haven't
figured out how to fight the "sit still and load everything
into the A pool" tactic :-/ This one was a clean miss on my part.
In the Pulser case, I was quite fascinated when Stiltman wrote that the
Pulsers were much too weak for their cost only a couple of days before Brendan
Pratt wrote that the same Pulsers were much too *strong*... I
know how to deal with Phalons though, so I'm not worried about them -
but then I had a head start <g>
> [Bri] "This is a MAJOR crimp in smaller SV ships. Take a
(I assume the following is Alan's post:)
> The smallest of the SV ships becomes almost useless, unfortunately.
I'd say that the four or five smallest published SV designs become almost
useless. Even the Fo'Vur'Ath "DH" is able to match the firepower
of human FHs just over half its size and two-thirds its cost only by
not maneuvering or defending itself at all, using your suggestion.
I guess the main thing I don't like with your suggestion is that it
forces the SV to fight as long-range snipers exclusively - or, to view
it from the other direction, it forces their opponents to rely on fixed table
edges to defeat them since the SV will always attempt to stay
away - and they're far better at staying away than human sniper ships
:-(
> As for the Tacoma comparison above, the ability of a SV ship to
Thrust-12 is worth a fair bit if, but only if, you can actually do
something after maneuvering (other than run away, that is). If the enemy knows
that you have to fly straight ahead to be able to fire more
than a couple of dice at point-blank range, he's got a pretty good
chance of being right where you don't want him to be anyway.
> On Phalons:
You may have "missed" the problem. I saw the problem coming last
autumn, ran a number of test battles to check it out, and the C-heavy
and all-C fleets lost all of those battles hands down. What I missed
was to test them on small tables with fixed edges - with "small" I mean
48mu or less in width for 1500-2000 pt fleets, or 60mu or less wide for
5000 pt fleets.
I still don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think Brendan is
reacting to the Phalon weapons just like the general FT
community reacted to the SMs two years ago - ie., with an temporary
bout of panic before proper counter-tactics have been worked out.
> Most of the July battles pitted near-identical Phalon fleets against
With the 1-2-4 version it is a bit worse than that, I'm afraid:
"If fighting other Phalons, don't tune your Pulsers to C.
If fighting humans, don't tune your Pulsers to C.
If fighting Kra'Vak, don't tune your Pulsers to C."
I haven't fought enough Phalon-Sa'Vasku battles with heavy Pulser-C
loads to say for certain, but I find the above pattern somewhat
disturbing :-/
> The last six July battles were against Human fleets (mostly FB1
On the contrary. If mixed tuning gets better against all foes (except
possibly SV) the fewer Pulser-Cs it has, there is no reason to use the
Pulser-Cs at all. I consider this to be a balance problem.
> Setting half your pulsers to C config means you fall between 2 stools.
I fought four playtest battles with all-C fleets, two each in July and
October. What happened was that the non-C ships managed to stay outside
the Pulser-C range until the all-C force was reduced to a managable
size and finished them off after taking some losses. In one of the
October battles the all-C force didn't get a single shot off before it
was wiped out; in the three other battles it destroyed between 1/3 and
1/2 of the enemy fleet before dying.
Just for fun, we ran a 1500-point battle on a medium-sized fixed table
this afternoon using the GenCon UK Fleet Action set-up (see Paul
Radford's web page for details); the Phalon CVL fleet with all Pulsers set to
"C" against the NAC BDN fleet. The battle report is at the end of this post,
but the score (using the GCUK scoring system) was if we got it right NAC 2485,
Phalons 512 (which seems odd, because it should
only add up to 2995 points - I can't find the 2 errant ones :-( ), ie.
a rather impressive NAC victory. It was even more impressive to us, since it
is the first time since FB1 was published that we've seen a
vanilla FB1 NAC fleet defeat *anything* :-/
> Out of curiousity - would any of you arm your fleet exclusively or
OK. In my experience (ie., with higher speeds and more space in which
to maneuver) the all-round arc alone doesn't compensate for the 12mu
range even when the enemy doesn't deliberately keep the range open. If the
enemy *does* try to keep the range open, I'd fully expect you to
lose about one-third of your fleet before you can fire a single shot.
> But against KV, this might change. Certainly the B2(All Arc) becomes
On a very restricted table where you can get close enough to use them, yes. On
a larger table, I don't think the 3xB1s will get to fire very
often :-/
Today's battle report:
As I wrote above we ran an "All-C" battle today, using the GenCon UK
Fleet Action rules (available on Paul Radford's homepage, to which I don't
remember the URL offhand but it's been posted to the list several
times recently) on a 96x60 mu fixed table - 8x5 feet for those of you
who measure in inches, or just under the recommended size for a 25mm DBM
battle for those of you who play ancients battles. This is about
1/3 the size of the table we fought our playtest battles on, so we
thought there might be a difference - but no, there wasn't :-/
The fleets used were taken from the GenCon UK fleets. A random roll between
the three Phalon fleets gave my opponent the CVL one (1 Taanis CVL with 3
normal and 1 Attack squadron, 1 Tuuloth CH, 1 Tsaara CL, 1 Phuun FF and 2
Tyaph FFs) worth 1500 points. All Pulsers were set to
"C", which gave the fleet 96 close-range dice in the (F) arc, 60 in the
(Fx) arcs, 54 in the (Ax) arcs and 36 in the (A) arc, plus four PBLs
(strenghts 3, 2x2 and 1) and the four fighter squadrons. The total number of
armour and hull boxes was 101.
In the local group the FB1 NAC designs have a solid reputation as
losers, so in order to give the Phalons at least a fighting chance -
since all-C Phalon forces are about the only force with an even worse
record locally - I let the dice pick a random NAC fleet; it turned out
to be the BDN one (1 Excalibur BDN with a heavy interceptor sqdn, 1 Furious
CE, 2 Huron CLs, 3 Ticonderoga DDs, 1 Tacoma FH and 1 Minerva
FF), worth 1495 points. Counting the P-torps as "Class-3" batteries for
simplicity, this fleet had 71/45/36/19 dice in the various arcs at
close range (but they could of course fire at longer ranges as well);
18 PDS of which 3 were ADFC-guided, one fighter squadron, and 140
hull/armour boxes. On the face of it, the NAC were in for a tough
fight.
The first shots were fired on turn 3. The Phalon FFs were all shrouded, but
the cruisers and carrier launched PBs. The NAC fighters engaged two Phalon
standard squadrons in a dogfight, killing 8 for only 2 of their own lost; the
other two Phalon squadrons attacked a Ticonderoga on the far flank of the NAC
formation (though one squadron failed its morale check, so the DD only took 1
threshold), and the NAC BDN, CE and FH
were hit by two PBs (both strength-2). A flurry of sixes from both
sides later had the Furious take no damage at all, the BDN 4 pts and the FH 3.
NAC beam fire then destroyed one Tyaph, ripped the armour off the other one
(in spite of both being shrouded), and reduced the Tsaara CL to 2 hull boxes.
Apart from losing virtually every weapon, it also lost its bridge for 4 turns.
(With only 1 DCP remaining it failed to repair the bridge before it ran off
the table; it had no further impact on the battle). After repairs, the Phalon
beam die count was down to
66/42/30/18 close-range dice and 81 hull/armour boxes while the NAC had
only lost a single B1 so were down to 70/44/35/18 close-range dice and
130 hull/armour boxes. Note that the NAC now have *more* close-range
dice than the Phalons at all ranges, after only one turn of shooting in
the 12-24mu bracket.
On turn 4 the Phalon FFs managed to get within 12mu of a Huron and the Taanis
ended up at range 11.5 from a Ticonderoga; all other NAC ships were either in
the Phalon's (A) arc or outside range 12. The "doomed" Tico killed the damaged
Tyaph before itself being destroyed by the Taanis, the Huron killed the Phuun,
the Phalon fighters which attacked the other Ticonderoga managed to cripple
it, and the rest of the NAC ships poured fire into the Taanis. Its armour
held, but only just. The
die and hull count was now: Phalons 48/30/30/12 dice, 61 hull/armour
boxes; NAC 59/37/28/15 dice and 117 hull/armour boxes.
After this, the NAC heavies closed with the two remaining Phalon ships,
since the latter were both out-gunned and out-hulled. The battle went
on for another three turns, and ended with a rather convincing NAC
victory (! - but when two losers meet, one of them *has* to win :-/ ).
In the end the Phalons lost the CH, all three FFs and 18 fighters destroyed
(the fighters then died because they had no carrier to return to), the CL had
2 hull boxes left and couldn't avoid leaving the table (which means
"destroyed" in the GenCon UK rules, but in a campaign it would've escaped into
FTL before the NAC could catch it), and the CVL was turned into a drifting
hulk (the *only* systems, including the core ones, which was operating when it
simultaneously ran off the table and ran out of canned life support were 1
FCS, 1 fighter bay and the FTL drive.)
The NAC losses were 1 CE, 1 DD, both frigates and all the six fighters, 1 DD
crippled (2 thresholds taken and the FCS gone), minor damage to the BDN and
scratched paint on a CL.
During the battle the Phalon ships fired a total of 72 dice from their
PCs, while the NAC fired 55 dice + 2 P-torp shots at range 0-12 and 49
dice + 3 P-torp shots at range 12-24.
Except for the two initial turns when everyone was out of range, all the
action in this battle occurred inside a 48x60mu box. It is possible, but by no
means certain, that the Phalons had done better if we'd further narrowed the
table to a width of 48mu; at least it'd've reduced the speeds even more than
it did now. If we had both narrowed the table to 48mu *and* increased the
fleet sizes by 50%, the NAC would probably have been forced to close with at
least part of the Phalon fleet on turn 4.
Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the CanCon FT
competition uses? (Since Brendan Pratt is one of the organizers for
that tournament, and it is his testimony which worries Alan :-/ )
Later,
> At 20:59 2000-07-01 +0200, you wrote:
Oerjan,
The Phalon play test that I would like to see is:
4 Tacoma FH, 5 Ehrenhold FF, 5 Ibiza FF, or 4 Novgorod FFs
16 Tyaph protectors (Configure the 6-arc pulser Long, the 1-arc pulser
Close) Vector movement. 96x60tu table (fixed or floating edge should not
matter as long as the Phalon forces do not split up too much).
Both players should know how to play hit and run vector (set up angle, put MD
into movement and use rotation to put the correct arc on your enemy).
---
> Brian Bell wrote:
> Oerjan,
Assuming you mean "AND 4 Novgorod FFs" above, this is 1256 pts of humans vs
1344 pts of Phalons, which would seem to favour the Phalons somewhat (the
humans could get at least one more ship). If you really do mean "or", it seems
to be either ~300 pts or ~950 pts of humans vs 1344 pts of Phalons; I'm afraid
neither 1:4 odds nor 3:4 odds give particularly meaningful playtests.
> (Configure the 6-arc pulser Long, the 1-arc pulser Close)
<g> The very mixed Pulser tunings which Alan says has no problems :-)
I'm still waiting for the outcry when someone sets all his Pulsers to "L" and
uses sniper tactics... *that* is scary, particularly in smaller battles where
a human force usually doesn't have many
B3s/fighters/missiles to catch the Phalons with.
> Vector movement.
> Phalon forces do not split up too much).
Fixed or floating edges determines what tactics the thrust-4 human
ships must use to get into range of the thrust-6 Phalon ships, but I
don't think it'll matter much for the overall outcome.
The mixed human force above will most likely have problems to get into
range. A pure or almost-pure Tacoma squadron vs the C/L-configured
Tyaphs (say 16 Tacomas and an Arapaho vs 16 Tyaphs) should be fairly even
though; Tacomas both have the speed to close the range and strong enough hulls
that they're actually able to do something after closing. All bets are off if
the Phalons reconfigure their C pulsers to some
other setting though :-/
Later,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> I still don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think
We shall see on this one. I agree that we should wait, but think a bit of
playtesting wouldn't do any harm.
Thanks for the details of your long and very informative post BTW. The bits I
found particularly interesting were:
> I fought four playtest battles with all-C fleets, two each in July and
> OK. In my experience (ie., with higher speeds and more space in which
> Note that the NAC now have *more* close-range
This is very much contrary to my own experience. I've found that closing the
range to 12" is not that difficult. What _is_ difficult is doing it
without overshooting the target, and getting in the rear side arcs for both,
or worse he's in your rear side, you're in his front side. Often you go
straight from 25" to 11"
Maybe I've been playing KV too long :-)
> Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the CanCon FT
> Alan Brain wrote:
> I still don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think
Playtesting on *very* small tables, yes.
> Thanks for the details of your long and very informative post BTW.
> I fought four playtest battles with all-C fleets, two each in July
Unless your opponent expects you to try it, and does something about it. He
needs to plan a turn or two in advance to pull it off, though.
> Maybe I've been playing KV too long :-)
Or you're playing on a very small table, or against an opponent who
isn't used to deliberately staying away :-/
> Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the CanCon
72x48mu, since they don't measure in cm AFAIK - and also AFAIK they
don't use floating edges. A single 3-arc Class-2 battery covers over a
quarter of that table... doesn't exactly promote maneuvering, and maneuver is
exactly what you have to do to defeat the Phalons. OK, I see why they have
problems.
My recent NAC/PHC battle featured 1500-pt fleets on a 96x60mu table,
ie. just over half the size of their largest fleets on a table 67%
larger than theirs - and for us, even that was rather cramped :-/
> Forces:
They'll need to change that to something related to the points value of the
destroyed enemy. Phalon and Kra'Vak forces of a given points value
usually has only 80-90% as many crew factors as a human fleet of the
same points value, and the Sa'Vasku don't have any crew factors at all.
> Normally, there'd be 2 Attack vs Attack "No retreat, No surrender",
Thanks for the info,
> > Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the CanCon
Hi Guys - just responding to your post
> Alan Brain wrote:
I'm not prone to knee jerk reactions - I used NAC to defeat all comers
two
years ago after the 1st book came out and wasn't bothered by SMs - this
last years gone by I used FSE to do the same thing only with a higher enemy
body
count than before - interesting weapon with many tactics for use with
and against.
> >
We play at our club and in tournaments on 96x48 mu table (8x4 ft -
measure
in inches). No float - victory in previous years was based on points
from damage inflicted and points from scenario objectives.
> >
see above
> 72x48mu, since they don't measure in cm AFAIK - and also AFAIK they
Scoring this year will be altered to take into account the new races and the
differing elements therein.
> >Normally, there'd be 2 Attack vs Attack "No retreat, No surrender",
> Brendan Pratt wrote:
> Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the
Allows a bit more time for acceleration, but no more lateral space to dodge in
than a 6x4 table (assuming the fleets set up at the short edges of the table).
I'm not sure the difference between a 5ft wide table and a 4ft one is that
critical (cf. the previous report where the
1500-pt Phalon fleet got virtually annihilated for only light NAC
losses on a 8'x5' table), but it does make it harder to dodge than on
my 120x100mu table (equivalent to 10'x8'4"for you inch-measurers) :-/
> I'm not prone to knee jerk reactions - I used NAC to defeat all
I don't know your personal initial reaction to the Salvo Missiles, but during
the first summer (1998) after FB1 was published quite a few player described
their reactions to them in almost identical terms as you described your
group's reaction to the Pulsers.
We also had a *very* similar reaction to the FB2 Kra'Vak from two
players after their first FB2 battle - IIRC they recommended removing
the "double-damage" feature of the K-gun completely and/or increase the
cost of the K-guns considerably in order to balance them, though these
recommendations were withdrawn after some further analysis. At least one of
those players is what I'd consider "not prone to knee jerk reactions", but his
initial battle report was strongly coloured by the reaction of the other
player (who *does* seem somewhat prone to
knee-jerking when certain other subjects come up, so it's anyone's
guess whether or not he did so in this case as well).
So... whether or not you actually *were* knee-jerking, your post to Jon
sounded very much like other posts which have since proved to be just
that :-/
That said, the tactics needed to defeat the Phalons are quite different from
those effective against the FB1 designs (and against most custom designs you
can build with FB1 technology). Indeed, both the Phalons and the Kra'Vak were
deliberately designed to turn the "traditional" concepts of "effective
tactics" in FB1on their heads (as well as some
extreme human-tech design styles that are very effective against other
human-tech ships) - but that only means that these aliens are
vulnerable to other tactics, not that they are invulnerable or unbeatable.
> Thanks for passing thios along - I look forward to further
Jon had a whole bunch of posts he was going to forward to you. Did you recieve
those?
Regards,
> >>>Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the
As a generalisation, I would suggest that 8 x 4 playing surfaces are more
commonly in use than larger alternatives - only said as I have played
tournament style games since 1980 and have played in 5 countries.
> >I'm not prone to knee jerk reactions - I used NAC to defeat all
My personal reaction was "Wow - I'm goning to run out of ammo really
quickly - I was on my way to a wedding down south and pulled into a
truck stop to read later, after 2 hours driving and pondering the issue I
thought
about the limitations - ammo and less control over targeting. I was
borne out on these points and have found that they are a strong weapon, but do
not tip the balance when two opponents of "roughly equal" skill play. We are
testing the rules very intensively with about 20 players at our twice weekly
club meetings - there are a number of players at any given skill level,
all of whom have expressed the same strong opinions about certain aspects of
both Phalon and Sa'Vasku weaponry.
> We also had a *very* similar reaction to the FB2 Kra'Vak from two
We've enjoyed the Kra'Vak immensely here - however most Kra'Vak players
are
getting used to being burned down by beam fire - no defence at all :-)
> So... whether or not you actually *were* knee-jerking, your post to
Granted that you argument does hold lots of water - My main counter is
that two players of equal skill are not going to have similar results over a
number of battles - I am not going into my own relative skills, as an
Organiser of a major event I have to test to destruction the rules before
implementation and would like as many arguements as possible to be resolved
before the Con.
> Jon had a whole bunch of posts he was going to forward to you. Did you
Not yet - Alan Brain forwarded yours originally.
> [quoted text omitted]
One other comment is that the Phalon plasma bolts don't worry me anywhere near
as much as the Sa'Vasku.
Again - I appreciate the feedback and look forward to future discussion
> We also had a *very* similar reaction to the FB2 Kra'Vak from two
Is that me and John Atkinson (in that order, I hope)?
> --- Brendan Pratt <bastard@oalink.com.au> wrote:
...
> One other comment is that the Phalon plasma bolts
Brendan, I think you are just to kind hearted to realize just how evil they
are in the hands of a master.
Phalons were designed by a GW spy.
Bye for now,
> I think you are just to kind hearted to
Brendan has been called many things in the past. Some of them by me.
But "kind hearted"? That's a first.
I remember when he was attacked by a pack of sharks. Two of them died in agony
as a result, and several were still hanging off him when he emerged from the
water. An "Australian Tall Tale" that (like most of the really unlikely ones)
happens to be true, he has the scars to prove it. Arnold Schwarznegger he's
not, he just gets seriously peeved when provoked. And the sharks weren't
particularly big ones (just lots of em).
I've managed to beat him in many (OK, a few..) games, but not once AFAICR in
FT. In fact, he's the only opponent
that has consistently beaten me, not by lucky die-rolls, but by playing
better, the B*stard! <g>
> --- aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
...
> I still can't believe that my ESU ships managed to
Alan, The mind has a wonderful ability, it is not able to remember pain.
Bye for now,
Sorry if there are two versions of this one... the previous attempt
disappeared into the void somewhere before it was completed :-(
> Brendan Pratt wrote:
[Difference between 6x4 and 8x4 ft tables]
> Allows a bit more time for acceleration, but no more lateral space
9x5 (table tennis table) is the "recommended standard size" for 25mm
games in several ancients/medieval rule sets, but no doubt the ancients
crowd claim all those tables for themselves <g>
Not sure if Alan forwarded my recent NAC/Phalon battle report to you
(1500 pts per side on a 96x60 mu table), so I'll risk repeating myself about
it. My (Phalon) opponent initially thought of this (comparatively) small table
as "duelling with assault rifles in a prison cell", but I (flying the NAC) had
no difficulties keeping my ships more than 12mu away from the Phalons until I
had killed enough of
them to safely outgun them even at point-blank. In the end the Phalons
were massacred - they lost 1275pts destroyed, and the one CL which
escaped had only two hull boxes and very few working systems left -
while the NAC only lost a CE, three escorts and a fighter squadron (491 pts)
with a DD being crippled (FCS lost) and the BDN needing its entire
pattern of kill-marks re-painted (not just the three new Phalon ship
symbols :-/ ).
In spite of my opponent's initial hopes, this was no different from our
battles on the large (120x100mu, and floating edges) table. Narrowing the
table further and increasing the fleet sizes, eg. to 48mu and 2750
pts <g>, would probably help the Phalons - but would it really be
enough to turn the above rather one-sided slaughter *by* the NAC *of*
the Phalons into its exact opposite?
> We are testing the rules very intensively with about 20 players at our
After how many battles each? IIRC, in your post to Jon you mentioned about 30
battles in total (using all three of the alien races), but with twenty players
that doesn't give each individual that many chances
to try out counter-tactics... it does take a bit of time to adjust from
anti-human to anti-Phalon thinking
> That said, the tactics needed to defeat the Phalons are
One of the more subtle differences is the range vs arc one. When fighting the
FB1 human fleets, being in the right fire arc (preferrably in the target's
(Ax) arcs while keeping it in your own (Fx) arcs) is generally more important
than the range at which you fight, since both sides' firepower drop of at
roughly the same rate. The Phalons OTOH don't care much about which fire arcs
your ships are in thanks to their
numerous all-arc weapons, but the *range* your ships are at is
absolutely critical to them.
Conversely a human ship doesn't care from which arc(s) attacking
fighters approach since all its PDSs and B1s are all-arc, but most
Phalon ships don't have the same PD strength all around (the
Vlath-class SC is the only published exception). A fighter squadron
hitting a Ptath-class "battleship" (really a battledreadnought if you
look at its combat power) on the nose is faced by up to 7 Pulsers firing in PD
mode; if instead it attacks up the Ptath's tailpipes it only has 2 Pulsers to
worry about.
> Granted that you argument does hold lots of water - My
Like the 35 playtest battles I and my main opponents fought, you mean?
<G>
Two players of equal skill won't get similar results over a large
number of battles provided at least one of them varies his/her tactics,
but it wasn't clear from your what different tactics and tricks the
non-Phalon players tried. It was quite clear that the Phalon players
*didn't* vary their tactics, but they were winning so they had no incentive to
change anyway.
> Jon had a whole bunch of posts he was going to forward to you. Did
Hm. Jon said to forward 'em all to you about a month ago... I'll see if I have
any of them saved somewhere.
> One other comment is that the Phalon plasma bolts don't
I'm not surprised - the SV worry me as well.
A couple of other questions:
* Does your group use player-designed ships, or only the published ones
from FB1? (During the FB2 playtesting Alan said something about him very
rarely using custom designs, though it does sound a bit curious in
light of his ST-to-FT conversions... Alan?)
* If you do use custom ships, have you flown human ships with weak
hulls, massive armour and armed mainly with Class-1 beam batteries
(with some missile or WG/NC backup)? With what results?
The following three designs were offered to the IF admiralty by the FSE
designer Georgios Phallandros in 2182 AD (standard FB1 design rules):
Voss-class SDN
TMF 283 NPV 999 MD2 FTL Weak hull (57) Armour 25
Level-1 screen
5 FCS
66 Class-1 batteries (All)
12 SMR-ER (3xAP/FP/F, 6xFP/F/FS, 3xF/FS/AS)
Ptah-class BDN
TMF 161 NPV 511 MD4 FTL Weak hull (32) Armour 8
Level-1 screen
3 FCS
42 Class-1 batteries (All)
4 SMR-ER (FP/F/FS)
Tulip-class BC
TMF 94 NPV 324 MD4 FTL Weak hull (19) Armour 6
Level-1 screen
2 FCS
18 Class-1 batteries (All)
3 SMR-ER (FP/F/FS)
After taking a single look at the blueprints, the IF High Admiral went into a
fit and accused Mr.Phallandros of being an NRE agent attempting to weaken the
Federation. Indeed, Mr.Phallandros's very life was only saved by the FSE
ambassador's presence; the diplomat calmed the High Admiral by testifying that
Mr.Phallandros was in fact an FSE citizen living in Paris.
If you had been the IF High Admiral, would you have bought the above designs
instead?
[For those who haven't read the Encyclopedia Galactica for the
unofficial Tuffleyvers: the NRE is the Nea Rhomaoi Empire, aka
Byzantines in Space. They are arch-enemies of the IF, but their
relations to the FSE are quite solid. *Frozen* solid, that is :-) ]
[For Laserlight: The Sultan was as appalled as the FSE ambassador by
the High Admiral's behaviour ;-) ]
Later,
> The following three designs were offered to the IF admiralty by the FSE
(snip Beam-1 barges)
> After taking a single look at the blueprints, the IF High Admiral went
(snip)
> * Does your group use player-designed ships, or only the published ones
Basically, the FT grognards at the club only use FB designs. At least, I've
never seen them use a non-book ship.
This can probably be traced back to the days of FT1 where it was just too easy
to make UberShips far better than those described in the book (FT/MT).
The FB1
design system appears to have solved the problem, but broadside-rollers
and other such 'gamey' designs are still possible. I'm not convinced that a
fleet
of 22-mass 1-hull FTL 1-thrust 2 Fighter Bay ships are particularly
balanced
either. Nor for that matter a vast quantity of 3-mass ships which do
nothing
but attempt to ram at speed 30+. And no, I don't claim that they are
unbeatable winners under all circumstances. If your opponent knows what you're
taking, then he can make a counter, which since you know what he's taking you
counter etc etc.
I tend to use only FB designs myself, unless playing a Star Trek TOS game,
where
only ST-TOS designs are used that are consistent with the background.
One exception is my OU designs, which I've tried to make consistent in style
with FB1 while retaining a distinctive feel. They are 'balanced' designs (in
terms of weapons fit, thrust etc rather than play-balance). I've been
playtesting
these vs FB1 and FB2 ships, and they give as good as they get - losing
battles about 60% of the time, but hardly ever losing a ship (they FTL out
when severely
hit - the OU has a low population base and losing whole ships hurts them
worse
than most opponents - if they stick around they'd maybe win 50% but lose
a lot more ships).
The object of playtesting the OU ships was not to make the "best possible
ships for that BPV" but to make designs that were neither creampuffs nor too
powerful (while again being different from all other fleets). I tried to do
this by having
them somewhat under-armed compared with opponents, but making use of B2s
and B1s (the most efficient weapons) exclusively. At 36 they have no firepower
to speak of. At 24 they're about equal. At 12 they're somewhat superior
(though in fact about equal, as they've usually taken a fair bit of damage).
The extra hull and armour that isn't being used for weaponry means they can
take a lot of minor damage and still close to "decisive range", while their
wide fire arcs means they don't have to worry about overshooting or getting
into a turning duel. The Modular design means that they can retrofit with PTs
or whatever for special missions or circumstances ( eg "Hunt the ESU CV") but
losing a lot of effectiveness. They require their own tactics - getting
into
"knife-fighting" range.
Most player designed ships are an attempt to get the most effective ship
*under some particular circumstances* possible for the BPV. Thus the
specialised anti-KV
ships with no shields, a layer of armour about 2/3 the size of a row,
Thrust-6
> Laserlight wrote:
> The following three designs were offered to the IF admiralty by the
May have been a bit difficult in the presence of the Ambassador, though
:-)
> Wasn't this the same Phallandros who inexplicably took psychoactive
It was, but given the... quality of his brain before the accident
no-one ever noticed any difference ;-)
Later,
As I said, no-one ever noticed that Mr. Phallandros suffered severe
brain damage from his... unfortunate experiment with the psychoactives
:-/ Two of the designs offered to the IF weren't entirely correct:
> Ptah-class BDN
A rather sugared offer to make it more palatable for the IF leaders, I
suppose. The real cost is of course 559 points.
> MD4
Actually TMF 93, NPV 321 (or TMF 94, NPV 322, and a very large
captain's cabin counting as "passenger space" :-) )
> MD4
A later re-working of the two designs turned them into:
Ptah beta-class BDN
TMF 152 NPV 526 MD4 FTL Weak hull (30) Armour 10
Level-1 screen
3 FCS
36 Class-1 batteries (All)
4 SMR-ER (FP/F/FS)
Tulip-class CH
TMF 87 NPV 299 MD4 FTL Weak hull (17) Armour 8
Level-1 screen
2 FCS
15 Class-1 batteries (All)
3 SMR-ER (FP/F/FS)
[The Phalon ships that, um, *didn't* inspire Mr. Phallandros to make
these designs have quite a few 3-arc Pulsers, but there aren't any
3-arc B1s :-/ ]
> Brendan Pratt wrote:
Of course the ship selections and loadouts may have played a part in this
battle? - and of course the relative skill levels of your opponent and
yourself too. My comments have been oriented around the disparity between
weapon effectiveness' from race to race. Tactics are always going to be a
contributing factor in the outcome of any given battle - I have played
tournament type wargames for 22 years now - including Evil Empire (TM?)
and
have won most of the tournaments I have entered - stated for the record
as I believe that any battle I play using the Phalons; or indeed any battle in
a
competition I run, the results will be the same - Phalon or Sa'Vasku
victroy every single time. To combat what I see as an improper imbalance in
technologies, I am introducing some specific tournament alterations to the
Sa'Vasku and Phalon rules for Cancon 2001 - Beth Fulton contacted me off
list and I will send her a copy of said mods and she will circulate them for
comment.
> >
Our ancients players do indeed horde the 8x5 tables - we have however
used
8x5 tables in test play - the results were exactly the same, although
games
did sometimes play longer - it often depended on how good the Phalon was
a
anticipating his opponents moves - however, we still saw most of the
victories go to Phalon or Sa'Vasku on any sized table regardless of who played
the forces.
> Not sure if Alan forwarded my recent NAC/Phalon battle report to you
see above
> >We are testing the rules very intensively with about 20 players at
At the time of the post, these were the 30 battles specifically relating to
the new races against the old whose results I had access to at the time of
the posting - many more similar results since then :-)
> >>That said, the tactics needed to defeat the Phalons are
agreed
> One of the more subtle differences is the range vs arc one. When
agreed whole heartedly
> Conversely a human ship doesn't care from which arc(s) attacking
my own opinion is that you never ever have enogh PDAFs available against any
opponent (big grin>)
> >Granted that you argument does hold lots of water - My
I can't comment there as I do not know you or your opponents - any
answer
would be foolish - play testing is a touchy subject, we (the Canberra
Game Society) play tested B5 Wars for Aog and I felt we didn't do enough, even
though we played 23 games and wrote copious notes - the game changed
dramatically from what we tested to what went to print and was much more
playable - I also tested material for the ADB during my Star Fleet
Battles
days - much of what went to print was poorly tested as only a few angles
were looked at. Perhaps the arguement I am trying to make revolves more around
the nature of tournament play and the introduction of new
rules....
> Two players of equal skill won't get similar results over a large
Please do - I would like to read them
> >One other comment is that the Phalon plasma bolts don't
> A couple of other questions:
FB1 and 2 only - we have too many min/max players to enjoy the endless
array of optimised ship that would be thrown up if we played much self
designed material (unless one party designed the ships and another party used
them). Many of our players have a strong Car Wars background and every week
saw
monsterous new designs often spawned by the latest Autoduel Quarterly -
such arms races can get tedious and it then becomes fun to try to play within
the limits laid down by the pre designed fleet books ( you probably have some
idea of what I'd do with the FSE to redesign them :-}).
> * If you do use custom ships, have you flown human ships with weak
Close range set pulsers are better :-)
> The following three designs were offered to the IF admiralty by the
If I understand your question - no, but I and several other players have
made an art form of using and defeating SML's - including the aptly
named
banzai jammers - ask Alan Brain about the 1999 Cancon tournament when he
was using a NSL missile fleet.....
<snip>
Many thanks for the return posting Oerjan - keep them coming.
> Brendan Pratt wrote:
> Brendan Pratt wrote:
We choose the fleets at random from the GenCon UK Fleet Action
tournament pre-selected fleets (3 Phalon and 15 human fleets). All we
chosed ourselves were the fighter configurations, so we ended up with:
Phalons:
1 Taanis-class CVL, 3 Standard and 1 Attack squadron
1 Tuuloth-class CH
1 Tsaara-class CL
1 Phuun-class FF
2 Tyaph-class FF
Had the human fleet had any missiles my opponent would've preferred replacing
the Attack squadron with an Interceptor one and used the
points to upgrade a Tyaph to a Phuun instead (PBL-1s being a favourite
anti-missile weapon of his).
NAC (me):
1 Excalibur-class BDN, 1 Heavy Interceptor squadron
1 Furious-class CE
2 Huron-class CLs
3 Ticonderoga-class DDs
1 Tacoma-class FH
1 Minerva-class FF
The lone NAC squadron being a Heavy Interceptor had some impact on the battle,
since it tied up the Phalon fighters for longer than either of us had
expected. The NAC were helped by not having any ships with
thrust-2 engines, but OTOH they couldn't use their (F)-arc P-torps much
without running straight into the Phalon formation... which I didn't
want to do :-/ With that few fighters and no missiles at all, and a
fairly large number of small ships, I wasn't too happy with this fleet
- fighters and missiles are both extremely useful for drawing off
Phalon firepower and dissuading them from using their vapour shrouds overly
much, and small ships are rather more vulnerable to plasma bolts than large
ones.
> - and of course the relative skill levels of your opponent and
We're fairly closely matched. I win perhaps 60% of the battles, but very
rarely this decisively. I've been playing FT for a couple years longer than
he, but with seven years to his five I can't say I'm *that*
much more experienced :-/
> My comments have been oriented around the disparity between >weapon
I didn't know MicroSoft ran wargame tournaments..? <g>
> and have won most of the tournaments I have entered - stated for the
SV agreed; we didn't get those right in the playtests. But the Phalons? Either
you folks use some Phalon (or general) tricks we haven't
learned, or we use some anti-Phalon tricks that you haven't yet
discovered.
> To combat what I see as an improper imbalance in technologies, I am
It'll be interesting to see them.
> As a generalisation, I would suggest that 8 x 4 playing
Interesting. The opponent's ability to anticipate the Phalons' moves
must've had some importance as well, at least if the Pulser-Cs were
decisive?
> We are testing the rules very intensively with about 20 players at
OK. What tactics have you tried against the Phalons? So far you've only seemed
to describe the battles as if the Phalons charge in against
initiative-less enemies, but I don't believe that's true :-/
> One of the more subtle differences is the range vs arc one. When
It is IME easier to control the range to your enemy than it is to end up in
the particular arc you want, too... particularly for the
longer-ranged side
:-/
> Conversely a human ship doesn't care from which arc(s) attacking
So if you're under attack by both missiles/fighters and ships, against
which threat do you use your C-configured Pulsers? Or do you drop a
plasma bolt on your own ship to take the missiles out instead (a perfectly
valid tactic, but it sometimes backfires)?
> Granted that you argument does hold lots of water - My
We're fairly closely matched, and we all played both with and against the
Phalons during the playtest battles.
> Jon had a whole bunch of posts he was going to forward to you.
Seems I've deleted them :-( Let's hope Jon hasn't - JON?
> A couple of other questions:
This also means that you have little or no recent experience in dealing
with min/maxed designs using more vanilla ships :-( IME, extreme FB
designs are considerably less dangerous than extreme CW designs - or
extreme FT2 designs, for that matter.
> * If you do use custom ships, have you flown human ships with weak
In what ways? (...not to put too fine a point to it, but if you haven't
actually *used* ships armed mainly or only with Class-1s, how do you
know...?)
Let's see. Compared to Class-1 batteries:
+ the Pulser is easier to repair due to being bigger. Not that
significant on Weak-hulled ships given their tendency to go BOOM rather
soon after suffering the first threshold check, but still significant.
+ the Pulser is marginally cheaper per anti-ship die - around 10%
cheaper if you only count the cost of the weapon, its proportion of the
engines and the basic hull structure to hold them, but 5% or less of the cost
of the entire ship assuming that hull integrity, armour and other systems are
identical. A single initiative roll has about as much influence on the outcome
of a battle as a 5% difference in total fleet cost.
+ the Pulser can shoot down plasma bolts if it is lucky; the Class-1
can't do it no matter how lucky it is. This is only important in a battle
between two Phalon fleets, though.
+ the Pulser can use ADFC guidance. Significant if the ship has ADFC,
which most FB ships don't have.
- the Pulser has only 1/3 the point defence firepower against missiles
and fighters. Not important as long as you never get hit by missiles or
fighters, but very important indeed if the enemy is uncouth enough to use them
against you.
- the Pulser is a lot less flexible for targetting - you have to throw
all six dice at the same target even when you know it only has one hull box
left, and you can't use half the Pulser for PD fire and the other half against
enemy ships.
Of the Pulser's advantages the cost one is too small to be significant, the
ability to shoot down plasma bolts only significant in a battle between two
Phalon fleets and the ADFC capability only if you fly
Voth-Es, Keraphs or Klashh-Huulths (or homegrown designs, but you don't
use those). The big question is whether the Pulser-C's higher
repairability outweighs the Class-1s' better targetting flexibility and
(especially) their vastly stronger point-defence firepower, and if so
by how much.
[Phallandros's designs snipped - see the updated versions of the Ptah
and Tulip posted yesterday]
> If you had been the IF High Admiral, would you have bought the above
You don't find the massed all-arc beam batteries attractive, then?
Would you, as the IF High Admiral, have bought them if the SMRs were replaced
by PBLs?
> - including the aptly named banzai jammers - ask Alan Brain about >the
He's already told the tale. Too bad the Phalon scouts are so expensive,
though... BJs are useful, but they're hardly a sure-fire defence unless
combined with radical maneuvers - ask Alan about the NSL+BJs vs FSE
battles I fought (and reported to this list) last winter, where the FSE
repeatedly smashed the NSL+BJ fleets. That was however on the big
table, where the FSE had space enough to fly around the NSL flank without
coming into weapon range; it is impossible on your narrower tables unless you
use floating edges. Solid edges in space may be necessary in a tournament, but
it does have some rather... strange side
effects :-/
Regards,
> Brendan Pratt and Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I'd like to second that. I'd like to see them too especially as there is a
perceived imbalance regarding the FB2 races. I don't want the Gencon UK 2000
Fleet Action Tournament marred by something that may have been overlooked.
Cheers,