Hi
This mail is directed generically to the number crunchers (and perhaps
therefore specifically to Oerjan):
We've discussed (historically) that arcs in vector just aren't worth as much
as they are in cinematic. <I think I proved that I can't fly cinematic
recently, but even if I could, arc issues would have been far more pronounced
than in vector>.
Has anyone comments on how to recost standard ship designs to account for this
(change in the importance of extra arcs in vector movement games)?
I would like to calculate some new costs for the standard ships because
right now, playing KV (mostly Forward arc) vs multi-arc human fleets
seems to penalize the human fleets quite a bit. But versus humans with more
restricted arcs, this would not be so. I'd like to find some appropriate
costing figures (or best guestimates) to try to give the human forces a more
fair shake.
<The other option is scrapping the standard fleets and redesigning KV like
forward arc firing ships for all the fleets - this might be what
happened in
a vector world - but this solution lacks in "flavour">
I don't mind the humans having more arcs, I just hate to see them pay out of
proportion to the impact of the extra arcs (again, this is in vector I'm
talking about).
So, number crunchers of the Tuffleyverse, speak to me!:)
Thanks!
G'day Tom,
> I don't mind the humans having more arcs, I just hate to see them pay
As long as you're not mixing cinematic and vector movement in the one game I
wouldn't worry (even if you were I probably wouldn't worry). The extra
arcs are important to the owning ships even in vector... I've seen the KV
(and other 1-arc obcessed races) a hair out of arc quite a number of
times, but out of arc is out of arc whether it's by 2 degrees or 180! Besides
first up I'd say IF the guys buying extra arcs are disadvantaged then its less
than the 'granularity' of FT is concerned with anyway. Secondly having
the extra arcs means you can also cope with more counter-tactics (less
chance flank attacks will catch you wrong footed for instance). I wouldn't
sweat it Tom it all comes out in the wash.
Cheers
Beth
I have to agree with Beth here.
Arcs upto 3 seem to still be in balance. It only begins to get out of kilter
with 4 or more arcs on large beams and torpedos. I think that this is a
deliberate part of the design system (to encourage more guns with fewer arcs
rather than fewer guns with more arcs AND to encourage smaller guns where
the arcs cost less). As you move to oversided beam weapons (Class 4+)
you will find that most designers tend to limit the arcs of these more
powerful
weapons to redistribute mass/cost more efficiently.
Also, I have played with asymmetrical ship designs (in vector). I like these
as they give more concentrated firepower. But, as with the KV, I have often
been just a hair out of arc on a number of occasions (leaving no weapons in
arc).
When playing against asymmetrical or limited arc designs, it sometimes helps
to bracket your target so that not all of your fleet is in his arc. While in
practice it may not make much of a difference (due to concentration of fire),
it is psycologically unnerving to have someone shooting your ships
when you cannot return fire. :-)
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> first up I'd say IF the guys buying extra arcs are disadvantaged then
> chance flank attacks will catch you wrong footed for instance). I
> On Wed, 30 August 2000, Beth Fulton wrote:
> As long as you're not mixing cinematic and vector movement in the one
And another thing. In your poll, Beth, about how many turns a game lasts in
cinematic versus vector, it seems that vector games are shorter once the
shooting starts. I suspect that vector games get ships "mixing it up" more
readily. As such, I would argue that missing a firing opportunity is MORE of
an issue in vector than cinematic.
If cinematic games last roughly 6 games after engagement, and vector lasts 3,
missing one turn of firing because of bad fire arcs means
you've lost 1/6 of your firing chances in cinematic but 1/3 in vector.
I haven't played enough vector to know, but it would seem that you could make
single fire arc ships hurt with proper planning and movement, even in vector.
Beth warbled:
> The extra
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Your target is guaranteed to be within a
circle with a radius of his Thrust rating. At some specific distance away, the
width of your fire arc is bigger than the diameter of his maneuver envelope,
so you are certain of being able to shoot at him. As I recall, you cover the
envelope for Thrust 2 if he's 8mu away, Thrust 4 at 15mu, Thrust 6 at 22mu
(but it wouldn't hurt for someone to check those figures).
If you have a 1-arc, short range weapon (eg submunition pack), then you
have a problem. If you can keep your opponent at longer range, though, you
only need 1 arc. Incidentally, I calculated those figures for the Estrell
Battleship Duel.
You do still have to take into account where he'll be _next_ turn,
plus the possibility that you may want to shoot at more than one ship, but you
don't have to worry about flank attacks (because you can see them coming).
IMHO single arc Beam-3 and Beam-4 are a lot more attractive in vector
than in cinematic.
One strange question comes up in a mixed system battle. How would you point
balance a battle were some ships moved cinematic and others used vector?
Andy A
> I would like to calculate some new costs for the standard ships because
> more
IMHO, the small arc of the KV is only feasable because of the advanced drives
(in vector, at lest), as otherwise, tactics would be limited to those which
leave the enemy in the front arc, which would mean that most movement
would have to be foreward/backwards. The extra arcs of the humans mean
that they don't have to always face directly towards the enemy, and also gives
them a significantly better chance of being able to hit an enemy who is
maneuverable (advanced drives or 6+ thrust) at close range. The human
player who takes purely front arc weapons could be in for a _nasty_
surprise when the KV close in.
Thats what i think, anyway
G'day guys,
> I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Your target is guaranteed to be
And that would be the crux of the matter. Your opponent isn't going to let you
sit at that range (if they've got any brains), at least not on a regular
basis.
> You do still have to take into account where he'll be _next_ turn,
You've still got to decide where you're going to fire. Against the KV I've
found it very effective to have two equally strong wings come in against
them from opposite sides - they can either turn half each way and split
fire or only concentrate on one wing while the other hammers them.
> IMHO single arc Beam-3 and Beam-4 are a lot more attractive in vector
Quite possibly, but there are other weapons that are more attractive in vector
too. However within a purely vector game or purely cinematic surely its the
relative not the absolute costs that matter and so the system is
sound as it stands (or so it seems to me at least).
Cheers
Beth
Single-Arc ships seem to work very well in vector, you just have to be
really careful about moving and turning. Phalons make it even more
interesting. However, NSL cannot run single arc, but as we rarely actually run
FB1 designs, I do not know.
> > I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Your target is guaranteed to
Rather depends on your relative thrust rating, eh? An Alacrity BC (thrust 8,
Beam 4) vs anything without fighters is a game that takes a while, but only
ends one way.
> > You do still have to take into account where he'll be _next_ turn,
The logic here eludes me. You come in from both sides, either I face both
sides (and I have parity--or better, if I'm paying for fewer arcs) or I
ignore one side and maul the other.
> >IMHO single arc Beam-3 and Beam-4 are a lot more attractive in
I'm saying I wouldn't design a 1 arc B3 ship for cinematic, but I would in
vector. Therefore you might have to design enntirely separate fleets to be
efficient in both venues.
> Cheers
Beth said (for lines marked >>> and >; the >> parts are mine):
> >>And that would be the crux of the matter. Your opponent
I never actually _use_ an Alacrity--it's one of those "logic
requires the navy to have them but they'd be no fun for the game" ships.
> >> You've still got to decide where you're going to fire.
Against the KV I've
> >> found it very effective to have two equally strong wings
Well, obviously! ;-P
> and we'd get
Depends on the situation but I think my usual choice would be to wipe out one
wing outright.
> Whereas when they
target and a few
> escorts but the second 'big' target was untouched coming into
So? It's now outnumbered two to one.
Please note I'm not saying that your experience isn't valid--and
without a doubt you have more experience than me--I'm just saying
that it doesn't seem like the logical progression. On ther other hand, I
normally play by email have have plenty of time for a spreadsheet to define my
targets' maneuver envelope.
> Either way the next time I ran into them they had at least some
you meant "did NOT make them feel safe", I take it.
G'day,
> And that would be the crux of the matter. Your opponent isn't going
I think this may be coming down to the individual ways we allow set-ups
etc in the game. The first game may well end as you state here, but as we have
no speed limits at start up the second game would probably see the opposition
(or a good portion of it) belt in at speed 70 for one quick thump before
leaving...
> You've still got to decide where you're going to fire. Against the
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
;)
> I'm saying I wouldn't design a 1 arc B3 ship for cinematic, but I
Quite probably, I don't play cinematic enough to judge - though I'd
guess that workhorse fleets fair well in both (the ESU seemed to come out as a
favoured fleet regardless of the movement system used).
Have fun
Beth
G'day,
> I never actually _use_ an Alacrity--it's one of those "logic
Does it involve compromising photos and a hotel suite?;)
> OK maybe we're just the weirdest FT players in the universe
;)
> Depends on the situation but I think my usual choice would be to
In my experience that is the best option you could take (its definitely the
one I've got to sweat more to fight against, makes me damn sure I don't want
misjudge the width of those pincers!)
> Whereas when they
Not usually. Assuming I don't get more ones than normal (for me), I'm usually
facing either less ships or ones where the big guns are in worse
state than my remaining vessels. While you could only concentrate on half my
ships the previous turn I got to fire where I wanted (both points of the
pincer having only one lots of targets to face and so can fire in a
coordinated fashion).
> Please note I'm not saying that your experience isn't valid--and
Like I said we're probably weird;)
> On ther other hand, I normally play by email have have plenty of time
We do allow the (quick) placement of markers to get a 'cone of probability',
but if the orders aren't down within a couple of minutes then
people start getting antsy so I guess that lets mistakes/poor choices
creep in.
> Either way the next time I ran into them they had at least some
I'm glad you read what I mean and not what I wrote;)
Have fun
Beth
[quoted original message omitted]