From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:45:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [FT] SMLs and Banzai Jammers (long)
From: Alan E and Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> > As long as you wiggle your behind a little and have weapons covering > ...just not hurt them _much_. Let's see, you get to fire maybe 4 SMs in I wouldn't waste my SM's at that time. I'd be plinking your Jammers away with class 3's, or waiting for my armored class 2 hedgehogs to dive in and blow a hole in them. > And on a floating table + cinematic movement, assume the pursuers Assume they retreat. If you're attacking a position, or trying to occupy a space it's your's for the taking. If you're defending a position, you've just succeeded in your goal, at least for the time being. Basically you win without firing a shot. What could be bad? > Getting back to the Great Debate, here's my central thesis: > a) Banzai Jamming is a 100% defence against SMs, when combined with b) This is a Bad Thing Disagree. Preventing boring games is never a bad thing. c) SMs are too powerful if Banzai Jamming is completely removed, All other things being equal. SM's are balanced, (barely) as is IMO. > Conclusion: Answer: A class 3 or 4 beam. Class 4's are inefficient at close range (3's are a little better, but loose the long range 12"). Both have utility vs. ships other than BJ's, Both can reduce effectiveness of BJ coverage. > I've had some comments that a) isn't true. I remain convinced it is, as FSE FB ships,as published, don't solve the problem the way I would. If I were forced to use close to FB designs, I'd swarm the BJ line with Ibizas or San Miguels modified to have 2 firecons, and trade corvettes for corvettes before I unload SM's. My first choice would be a force with some Milans and Suffrens modified to class 3 long range support. Not having tried it I can't say how successful they would be, but I suspect it would have a reasonable shot. > I've had some comments that b) isn't true, that without such a Well, I argue b) isn't true, but not so much on behalf of NSL, which can do well vs. SM's if they bring along enough Kronprinz's. I argue that it's not a bad thing preventing blowout games - especialy in one-off scenarios as opposed to campaigns, where circumstance _should_ conspire to have more lopsided battles than straight fights. > I've had no comments about c) being untrue (AFAIK). Certainly I've The potentially most devastating FT player is one with the intuition to place SM's properly the lion's share of the time. I dread one day having to face him/her across a table, whether or not I have my Sheir/Karakau jammers with me. Such a player would make the SM's look horrendously unbalanced. I think they're barely balanced with players with "merely" reasonable intuition. > But seriously, I guess the only way of convincing you is for you to If > despite your best efforts you lose in exactly the way described above, I would not want to use an unmodified FSE fleet vs. a fleet with granaatscherven support. Well, I _might_ give it a try if I had a swarm of Ibizas. Howwever I don;t play SM fleets because I _don't_ have good intuition about where the enemy is going to go. At least not good enough to place SMs with confidence. Chances are, If I ever played as FSE (or IF), I'd loose no matter the opposition due to sheer incompetence. :-\ > About alternate tactics. Wave attacks, Fighter/SM mixes, Beam > For FSE, Fighter/SM mixes are reasonable. I've tried them with some Where'd your escorts/SM cruisers go? Did you keep them back while the fighters took out the small stuff? > Make SM's a late punch system instead of a fast strike system. > "Late" is right. As in "The Late Arthur Dent". It's very much a case of Depends on if you can keep the SM's out of harms way until the target is ripe. No different than protecting a carrier, and SM ships are (usually) far better able to keep out of range if they want to. > Losing the ability > If the opponent manouvres, you have enough of the CTE factor in aiming Yet another reason I don't play with SM's. > Well, that is a straw man, since level 4 screens are not a real game > But if a 100% beam defence _did_ exist, would it not be neccessary to If, then, I would proabably agree yes. But I disagree (as above) that this defense is 100% vs.any but one kind of attack, an attack which, uncountered, virtually guarantees a boring game. I fully endorse a system that is a close to 100% defense against a boring game. > Reminds me of when I was team leading some Israelis working on an IDF Hah! My mom's a Sabra. Sounds like our daily family dinner conversation, back in the day. From: Sindre Cools Berg <cobos@saers.com> > Though I agree with you on the need for small ships I see a problem Ideally, the granaatscherven absorm _more_ than one slavo per unit. In a recent game, mine soaked 2 and 3 at a time. Depends on your maneuvering and your opponent's placement. There is indeed the risk of low return on investment, but you keep your heavies protected. I get around the morale effect with PSB. My Sheir/Karakau scouts can be operated by AI, but their max thrust is reduced to 6 from 8 when used that way.