At a recent game at out club one player designed a phalon fleet based heavily
on the Plasma bolt launcher.
His fleet had 4 capital units mounting multiple PBLs and a squardon of small
frigates and corvettes all mounting a class 1 PBL.
Being able to deposit about 20 PBLs to carpet the table area took the opponent
by surprise.
Massed PBLS are also very hard to kill.
We have placed a limit on the number of PBLs a ship can carry to no more than
one launcher per 50 mass of ship, otherwise you get a capital ship with 12
size 1 PBLS that can carpet the table.
It still looked pretty mean though.
have other people done this in their game groups and what was the consensus on
a fleet based around the PBL doctrine?
Regards
The last opponent I had that tried that was in a tournament. He ramped the
speed up to about 45-50 and dumped plasma all over the place.
There are several ways to deal with it:
1. High speed and random course changes with close-in firing passes;
2. Long range weaponry (36+) and stay outside his plasmabolt placement
range;
3. Screen-2 and double normal PDS batteries;
4. Fighters (especially at high speeds); and
5. <sure there's more ways, can't think of off-hand>
Usually that sort of fleet doesn't have many beam-based weapons as
backup,
so you just need to out-manouvre him and accept that you will take some
damage. Lots of Plasmabolt-1s are not a big threat; you only need to
worry
about the larger bolts. Plasmabolt-1s are only good as point defence
and to channel you into his bigger bolts. A single firing pass with beams will
decimate his fleet (make sure to target the ships that DIDN'T fire plasmabolts
that turn).
I have a short summary of the tournament results here:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/conquest.htm
The real damage of plasmabolts is that they regenerate every 2 turns, so you
need to go in hard and fast before the endurance outlasts you. This is partly
what happened in the big FTJava game that finished a few weeks ago. The
formations interpenetrated, which gave the plasmabolts time to recharge
between firing passes.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
Intersting.
Looks like you played with CMs as the Mu and used the core systems rules.
The core systems rules might be a way to mitigate the big ships are better, if
they suffer a core systems hit its much more of a loss.
Also playing with only 1 class of ship with mathmatical computations is never
the way to win at a tournament. Your assumptions in your equations are often
invalidated by the tournament scenarios.
For deployment what kind of restrictions did you have and what sort of table
size were you on?
Thanks
6'x5' tables using cm scale and fixed edge (a "combat box" engagement).
Deployment was starting speed of 6-12, alternating deployment along
appropriate table edge (usually a 6" section of table).
The scenario I played against him (as the "gumby" due to odd player numbers)
was a basic meeting engagement - deploy opposite edges and shoot away.
On the table size used, inches is too close contact for good maneouvring; you
need at least 12'x10' (144x120 MU) to allow all fleet types opportunity to use
their equipment.
If your "combat box" is too small, fleets like Phalon and FSE seem
overpowered, as the targets have no room to evade ordinance. If it gets too
big, you can't reach the middle and high thrust fleets (such as Kra'vak) can
control the engagement ranges too much.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> John Tailby wrote:
"have other people done this in their game groups and what was the consensus
on a fleet based around the PBL doctrine?"
In the group I belong to we use the Beta Test fighter/PD rules. One of
my opponants currently fields a heavy PBL armed fleet that was proving to be
an absolute menace. The vessels employ class 1 and class 3 PBL's primarily and
are able to put down a substantial barrage.
After getting whipped a couple of times I gave the matter some thought and
employed a different approach...quite litterally in this case. I kept the
range open for a few turns and then moved to the location where a PBL barrage
was most likely to be placed. My fleet was arranged in a rough diamond shape,
around 4 ships across and three deep. In my orders I told the front rank of
ships to slow by 2, the middle rank to stay at the same velocity, and the rear
rank to speed up by 4, thus converting the diamond into solid line of ships,
all of which ended up in the blast radius of the barrage...but each PBL being
in the FS, F, or FP arc of 1 or more of my own warships at point blank range.
My opponant followed his usual tactic and had moved his PBL firing vessels
safely out of harms way. This allowed me, as I had hoped, to concentrate all
my PD and AS firepower (in this case my vessels were armed with pulse torps,
class 1 grasers in 3 arcs, and PDS) against the PBL's. All the PBL's were
removed by the volley. The same tactic worked a second time in the same battle
and has worked well in subsequent battles.
Of course, if your group is not using the Beta Test fighter rules then this
tactic is not going to work!
On the whole though our group has found that PBL's are just a little to easy
to shoot down with the Beta Test rules, but a little to over
powerful using v.2.5/FB2 rules. However we think the Beta test rules
work a treat for fighters, missles and AMT's.
Well it's nice to be back (not that I expect anyone remembers me),
> John Tailby wrote:
"have other people done this in their game groups and what was the consensus
on a fleet based around the PBL doctrine?"
In the group I belong to we use the Beta Test fighter/PD rules. One of
my opponents currently fields a heavy PBL armed fleet that was proving to be
an absolute menace. The vessels employ class 1 and class 3 PBL's primarily and
are able to put down a substantial barrage. He likes to keep the range open
and has the patience many other players lack, which usually results with them
dashing straight at his fleet at some point in the game, usually to where he
has just laid down a nice fresh PBL barrage. On the turn he fires his PBL's he
then moves his fleet away from the enemy and continues to keep them at arms
length. If you do side step the barrage then during the subsequent turn when
he is recharging he is usually pretty good at ducking out of the way or moving
into a position close to the pursuing fleet but in their rear arcs. This,
combined with activating vapour shrouds, reduces any damage his PBL armed
ships receive. So PBL armed fleets can be extremely effective.
After getting whipped a couple of times I gave the matter some thought and
employed a different approach...quite literally in this case. I kept the range
open for a few turns and then moved to the location where a PBL barrage was
most likely to be placed. My fleet was arranged in a rough diamond shape,
around 4 ships across and three deep. In my orders I told the front rank of
ships to slow by 2, the middle rank to stay at the same velocity, and the rear
rank to speed up by 4, thus converting the diamond into solid line of ships,
all of which ended up in the blast radius of the barrage...but each PBL being
in the FS, F, or FP arc of 1 or more of my own warships at point blank range.
My opponent followed his usual tactic and had moved his PBL firing vessels
safely out of harms way. This allowed me, as I had hoped, to concentrate all
my PD and AS firepower (in this case my vessels were armed with pulse torps,
class 1 grasers in 3 arcs, and PDS) against the PBL's. All the PBL's were
removed by the volley. In the subsequent turn I was much better placed to make
a close range pass and inflict some serious hurt of my own.
The same tactic worked a second time in the same battle and has worked well in
subsequent battles.
Of course, if your group is not using the Beta Test fighter rules then this
tactic is not going to work!
On the whole though our group has found that PBL's are just a little to easy
to shoot down with the Beta Test rules, but a little to over
powerful using v.2.5/FB2 rules. However we think the Beta test rules
work a treat for fighters, missiles and AMT's.
Well it's nice to be back (not that I expect anyone remembers me),
> John Tailby wrote:
"have other people done this in their game groups and what was the consensus
on a fleet based around the PBL doctrine?"
In the group I belong to we use the Beta Test fighter/PD rules. One of
my opponents currently fields a heavy PBL armed fleet that was proving to be
an absolute menace. The vessels employ class 1 and class 3 PBL's primarily and
are able to put down a substantial barrage. He likes to keep the range open
and has the patience many other players lack, which usually results with them
dashing straight at his fleet at some point in the game, usually to where he
has just laid down a nice fresh PBL barrage. On the turn he fires his PBL's he
then moves his fleet away from the enemy and continues to keep them at arms
length. If you do side step the barrage then during the subsequent turn when
he is recharging he is usually pretty good at ducking out of the way or moving
into a position close to the pursuing fleet but in their rear arcs. This,
combined with activating vapour shrouds, reduces any damage his PBL armed
ships receive. So PBL armed fleets can be extremely effective.
After getting whipped a couple of times I gave the matter some thought and
employed a different approach...quite literally in this case. I kept the range
open for a few turns and then moved to the location where a PBL barrage was
most likely to be placed. My fleet was arranged in a rough diamond shape,
around 4 ships across and three deep. In my orders I told the front rank of
ships to slow by 2, the middle rank to stay at the same velocity, and the rear
rank to speed up by 4, thus converting the diamond into solid line of ships,
all of which ended up in the blast radius of the barrage...but each PBL being
in the FS, F, or FP arc of 1 or more of my own warships at point blank range.
My opponent followed his usual tactic and had moved his PBL firing vessels
safely out of harms way. This allowed me, as I had hoped, to concentrate all
my PD and AS firepower (in this case my vessels were armed with pulse torps,
class 1 grasers in 3 arcs, and PDS) against the PBL's. All the PBL's were
removed by the volley. In the subsequent turn I was much better placed to make
a close range pass and inflict some serious hurt of my own.
The same tactic worked a second time in the same battle and has worked well in
subsequent battles.
Of course, if your group is not using the Beta Test fighter rules then this
tactic is not going to work!
On the whole though our group has found that PBL's are just a little to easy
to shoot down with the Beta Test rules, but a little to over
powerful using v.2.5/FB2 rules. However we think the Beta test rules
work a treat for fighters, missiles and AMT's.
Well it's nice to be back (not that I expect anyone remembers me),
> Matthew Tope wrote:
...
Is it me, or did I just see Matthew's message three times?
> Is it me, or did I just see Matthew's message three times?
Nope, me too.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/15/05, Brian
> B <brianbinor@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep. It's you. And you, too.
;-)
Mk