Hi All,
I ran "Affairs of State" at GenCon this year, a three way scenario between
FSE, NSL and K'V. I used essentially the same rules we've all been
discussing forever ;-) However, I used 6+ for Railgun doubling (I
believe
5+ is the alternate).
It turned out to be remarkably balanced. The K'V lost, but more because of
lack of effective tactics than anything else.
The K'V divided their forces, half going for each human fleet (mistake number
one).
The K'V and FSE seem well suited opponents. SMLs force the K'V to expend their
scatterguns. The FSE are less maneuverable, but have better arcs, and the K'V
are the other way around. In this game the K'V did not take advantage of that
manueverability (mistake number two).
The K'V NSL match-up was particularly one sided because they did not
take advantage of their speed (mistake number three) to close to optimal
Railgun range, nor did they then use their superior turning after passing to
catch the NSL from behind.
On the whole, I think that the methods we came up with to balance the Kra'Vak
worked quite well.
Were you using cinematic or vector movement? Have you played the scenario
using both? Were the results about the same?
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Were you using cinematic or vector movement?
Cinematic
> Have you played the scenario using both?
Vector movement tends to put high thrust ships at a slight disadvantage, so I
opted against it. I wanted it to be a good representation of the K'V point
values.
> Were the results about the same?
I didn't test this other than myself (which really doesn't count), but my
feeling is that the K'V would have suffered more from use of vector movement.
Thanks. I asked because I wanted to know if the K'V were as balanced when
playing vector movement. It would be a pain (and a shame) if there had to be 2
sets of K'V point values (one cinematic, one vector).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> On 9-Aug-99 at 23:21, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
Vector puts high thrust at a disadvantage? How so? And what do you consider
high thrust?
Since vector movement allows a ship with any thrust rating to rotate to any
position, it kind of makes trying to get behind it a bit pointless. Why bother
trying to get your fleet behind that Komarov SD when it can just rotate around
and vaporize you anyway? At least with cinematic movement, it takes so long
for a thrust 2 ship to turn that a higher thrust opponent should be able to
get and stay behind him.
Mark
> Roger Books wrote:
> On 9-Aug-99 at 23:21, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com)
wrote:
> > >Were you using cinematic or vector movement?
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Mark Reindl wrote:
> Since vector movement allows a ship with any thrust rating to rotate
Why bother
> trying to get your fleet behind that Komarov SD when it can just
Then amend the vector movement rules to requre a thrust point for each
rotational change. A smaller more maneuverable ship should be able to swivel
around much faster than a big dreadnought.
I was under the impression that rotational movement was limited to half max
availible thrust anyway. Have I misread the rules?
> From: Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com>
Why
> bother
Fleet Book 1 page 3 (Vector Movement): "Rotation of a ship around its axis
requires much less power than actually changing its vector. When the thrusters
are used to rotate a ship onto a new heading, ONE manoeuvre point from the
thrusters allows the ship to be rotated by any desired number of facing
points."
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> I was under the impression that rotational movement was limited to half
It is, but it only costs one to rotate any number of degrees whether its 30 or
360 (though doing a 360 might be a bit pointless beyond impressing your mate
on the cruiser over there). What Ryan meant was that make it cost one point
for ever 30 degrees and that way its going to take a while for that mammoth
SDN with 2 thrust to swing its nose around. Hope that clears it up.
Cheers
Beth
TURNING is limited. Rotational movement only costs a single maneuvering
thruster point turn any number of compass points.
Mark
> adamnan@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was under the impression that rotational movement was limited to
> On 10-Aug-99 at 17:35, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:
> rotational change. A smaller more maneuverable ship should be able to
I'm still not sure that higher thrust in vector is any less than in cinematic.
The difference is you must use different tactics. If you look at your weapons
mix and pick ranges where you are more affective than your opponent you are
gaining significantly from your weapons mix.
For instance, I go up against that thrust 2 Komarov with my
thrust 4 Foch. I can do pushes and keep him at 18-24" and there
is nothing he can do about it. In addition he is so slow he can't dodge my
SM's. Looks to me like my thrust is extremely useful. On the other end I have
an apponent that goes for thrust 8 ships. It is a waste of time for me to try
to use a SM on him. Another case of thrust being useful. (I worked through it,
I should never get a threshold check before he has taken 3. If he plots his
vector wrong I can even extend the range beyond 24. (IE, if he charges.) I
would love to have a Komarov Charging me at 16", that means I can open the
range to 30", a nice place to be.
Face it, your average small ship has no business trying to get behind a
Komarov, that blind spot thing is bogus. All he has to do is pick a direction,
Port or starboard, and wiggle one. Unless you guess correctly you are toast.
And it is a guess.