> Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve
It works both ways, as I usually have some 6-arc weaponry (type 1s,
some type 2 beams), and the occassional rear firing pulse torpedo (especially
on Klingon designs). He ends up in my rear arc more often due to my
overrunning him and his tendency to head for my current position once we've
closed; I've changed my movement tactics but it still happens.
And, that's a silly rule. It might be good for the Tuffley verse, but not
mine. It does slightly favor him, but getting to rear arcs is not that easy
when the opponent uses advanced drives.
One thing that has worked against me is his tendency to make 1 point turns
closer to 45 degrees than 30. I've chastised him on this and he's getting
better at making the correct turns.
Also, speed is NOT life in Full Thrust; to change that oft-quoted
phrase. One that took me awhile to unlearn.
It's better for my limited-arc forward-firing weapon-armed
ships to go slow on the initial approach so as to keep him in the optimum arc
longer. And when we starting the maneuvering part of the battle a slower ship
does make a tighter turn.
Glen
> Glen Bailey wrote:
> Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve
Judging from the designs you've posted so far, Steve typically has
considerably *more* 6-arc weaponry than you do and considerably *less*
manoeuvrability (and thus ability to keep his (A) arc safe) than you do.
Sure, it works both ways... but since he's got more to lose and less with
which to *prevent* losing it, it works a lot more your way than his.
> He ends up in my rear arc more often due to my overrunning him and his
And also because the rules you're currently using give *you* very little
reason to *attempt* to get into his (A) arc.
> And, that's a silly rule.
Silly? From a realism point of view, certainly - about as silly as the
entire concept of ship-to-ship combat in space, really :-)
From the *playability* point of view OTOH, the "no (A)-arc fire" rule
makes a huge change for the range of tactics that are effective.
Specifically this rule is pretty much what keeps the low-thrust/all-arc
design style Steve favours from dominating the game, by providing it with a
potentially fatal weakness which its enemies can exploit. Keeping one
particular design style from dominating the game improves the variety
available in the game.
Which rule is the more silly one: the one which tries to increase the realism
of an inherently unrealistic subject, or the one which makes said
unrealistic game more varied? Depends on what you want more, of course -
realism or variety... most players seem to prefer variety if they have to
choose at all :-/
> It does slightly favor him,
I'd suggest that it (ie., your lack of restrictions on (A) arc fire) favours
him rather more than just "slightly".
> but getting to rear arcs is not that easy when the opponent uses
In Cinematic, if your opponent uses thrust-4A or stronger advanced
drives
(ie., is capable of making 4-pt or sharper course changes) getting into
his rear arc is very tricky indeed and staying there is nearly impossible.
If OTOH the Cinematic-moving opponent is 1) restricted to *3*-point
course changes or less, 2) moving at all (ie. he doesn't come to a full stop
to
rotate in place), and of course 3) actually following the movement rules
(which it seems that Steve doesn't always do), then the area immediately in
front of his ship's pre-move location will be in his (A) arc after
movement. For ships restricted to 2- and 1-pt course changes, the area
immediately *behind* the pre-move location will also be in the (A) arc
after movement.
Judging from your posts, Steve tends to use thrust-2A engines on his
battleships nowadays. That means that he is restricted to *2*-point
turns with those ships... so if you can make him follow the movement rules,
you've got a fairly good idea about where his (A) arc will end up. Your
thrust-4A engines give you enough manoeuvrability to get into it if you
want to; it's just that with no restriction on (A)-arc fire you have
very little reason to want to do that.
> One thing that has worked against me is his tendency to make
I must say that making 1-pt turns closer to 45 degrees than 30 sounds
rather similar to "cheating" - a bit like allowing a chess knight move
diagonally (ie., 2 squares in *each* direction) if it wants to...
> Also, speed is NOT life in Full Thrust; to change that oft-quoted
The problem with this approach is that way of "keeping him in the optimum arc
longer" tends to be equivalent to "staying in HIS optimum arc longer", as well
as "being unable to get out of his range quickly if things go
pear-shaped". Of course, with no restrictions on (A) arc fire Steve's
ships
don't really have any arcs that *aren't* "optimal" :-/
Regards,
> --- bail9672@bellsouth.net wrote:
If you are going to allow unlimited fire into the aft arc, I suggest
that you limit the number of 6-arc weapons, especially if your
reasoning is "realism", since it is really hard to clear enough fields
of fire for multiple 6-arc batteries.
I suggest limiting the total mass of the weapons that have 6-arcs:
Ship TMF Total mass of 6-arc weapons
1-4 1 mass limit
5-16 4 mass limit
17-64 9 mass limit
65-128 16 mass limit
129-256 25 mass limit
257-512 36 mass limit
> One thing that has worked against me is his tendency to make
If you have your ships based on hex stands, I have a really good turning tool
you might like that could help you with this.
J
> > And, that's a silly rule. It might be good for the Tuffley verse,
The "main" guns on his ships have 5 arcs, sort of a FX and RX set up (SFB
terms; FT: F,FS,FP,AP,AS; A,AP,AS,FP,FS). The "secondaries" usually have 6
arcs at half the number of weapons the ship he is modelling would have. He
really should double up that number but limit each one to 3 arcs.
> I suggest limiting the total mass of the weapons that have 6-arcs:
..skipping chart...
He's probably close to that chart, anyway.
I had a couple designs with mostly 6-arc weapons, usually
armed with lots of class-2 beams or pulsers, but then the
game becomes just a "bucket-o-dice" rolling game. And
when I found that the munchkins loved playing any of those particular ships I
tore up the SSDs.
> > One thing that has worked against me is his tendency to make
Generally it's not a problem.
If only I could get him to play with vector movement...