Interesting, I just had horror visions of the retrograde ship from hell and
then Noam pulls something like that outta his hat...
Ãrjan:
> Put it like this: my then-local opponents stopped using such tactics
Care to tell us how? Let's say "ultimate realism", floating edge vector.
Startup speed free within X, direction free, distance outside anyone's
weapon range. The retro ship has MD8 and an all-arc class 6 for example,
plus the usual trappings. I'm genuinely interested, especially if it does not
involve "lure him closer".
You see, I don't buy the lure part. If you're betting on retrograde, I'd say
you are also willing to accept that engagements may be inconsequential draws
until your opponent can be goaded into trying something stupid. (Yes, this is
horribly boring, and you can often make HUMAN opponents make stupid mistakes
out of boredom, but assume an unrelenting, coldly
calculating, has-all-the-time-in-the-world, omniscient computer
opponent. Heck, assume two computers... hmmm... maybe I should give this a
shot...)
Off the top of my head, I can see two ways it could go:
In either case the retro-ship starts with maximum allowed velocity
*away* from the opponents.
- If they try to follow, the retro-ship uses its high thrust to maintain
range. Sure, it loses some thrust in spins, so against other MD8 ships
(hmmm... I recall the ESU scout is the only one in FB1, I am correct?) it'll
actually lose about 2MU of ground per turn. Still, this amounts to
about 10-20 free shots after which you could FTL away and try again
next week.
- If they don't, end of game, no damage to either side, try again next
week.
If you float the table in empty space, it's rather hard to give bonus points
for "holding the field", since what would define the field? If it is a fixed
point in space, then it is not an empty space game, but a one with a virtual
objective. If it's ships, whose ships? Is it like the
definition of porno: "I'll know lily-livered running away when I see
it?"
Sidenote: It's always a very intriguing possibility beating your opponent
without taking a scratch. So interesting, in fact, that many people will try
it even if it just *seems* possible, reality not withstanding.
Unfortunately, these tactics are often horribly boring no matter who wins in
the end. Thus, IMHO, a game system would need to make it BLATANTLY obvious
that they won't work.
From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi>
> Interesting, I just had horror visions of the
Assuming you can fire aft while turning, but not using MD (I can't recall
right now if that's legal), I'd also thought of a Beam-5, Thrust 6 fleet
with A/AP/FP arcs. It has many of the flaws Mikko points out, but the
3-arcs
means I'd (usually) be circling on attack, only running away from dogged
pursuit, and then, only running to prolong the time I can fire at him for
free. For a two person game, I don't think you bring fleets like this if you
want _both_ players to have fun :-)
> Unfortunately, these tactics are often horribly
As a matter of course, yes, I think it's boring. In the occasional game
-
like say the last Cygnus BYO, the reactions from bystanders alone were worth
it, and a multiplayer game can, on its own, challenge strategy and keep it
from being boring.
> on 6/9/00 6:11, Mikko Kurki-Suonio at maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
> Unfortunately, these tactics are often horribly boring no matter who
I happen to agree that games involving this manner of tactics are usually very
boring, but I must play the devil's advocate here for a moment.
One of intentions behind FT is to have a generic system IIRC, capable of
providing a base system for a wide variety of situations, making it adaptable
to a number of specific backgrounds.
Some of these backgrounds may include such tactics in battles. If the rules
system COULD make it so such tactics were useless it would be narrowing down
the backgrounds one could use FT to game in. Such restrictions, if desired by
the players, should be left for house rules IMHO.
Next issue is that some players might want to try such a tactic out. I'm
certainly not volunteering (too much Federation Retro from SFB sorry) but I'll
bet there are some people out there that are masochistic enough to
like/try this.
Lastly, how does one change the current rules to do so without adding undue
complication or artificial feeling rules? One way might be change the rule
that aft arcs are no longer limiting to fire - making it the current arc
opposite the direction in which the majority of thrust from the Main Drive
was employed. However, I'd rather not have to compute this every turn -
it might however make an interesting one off type of game just to see it's
effects are. Then again maybe not depending on your preferences.
Ahh! Someone else who plays vector.
I usually use a house rule that removes the rear arc restriction excactly
because of this. It makes no sense to have a ship burn all but 1 point of
thrust, turn 180 degrees, and not be able to fire out of what is now the rear
arc (i.e. the direction the ship is moving), but be able to fire the direction
the engines were firing. So unless you are going to track which arc the ship
applied thrust into (groan, another marker), to prohibit that arc, it makes no
sense.
Vector players, how do you use this rule? 1) The aft arc of the ship during
the firing phase 2) The arc that the ship thrusted into during movement 3)
Ignore Rule 4) Other (please specify)
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Lastly, how does one change the current rules to do so without adding
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Interesting, I just had horror visions of the retrograde ship from
Why not go further still, say MD10 or more? <g> That does make it harder still
to beat with straight FB1 fleets, though of course there'll be even less of
them than of the MD8 ships.
> I'm genuinely interested, especially if it does not involve "lure him
Um... The basic goal of all tactics is to force the enemy to do something he'd
rather not. In this particular case he'd rather not move closer, so what you
seem to say is that you're genuinely interested in the tactics I used,
especially if they don't involve tactics?
> You see, I don't buy the lure part. If you're betting on retrograde,
"Something stupid"... like moving into his own weapon range? <g>
> (Yes, this is horribly boring, and you can often make HUMAN opponents
Sorry, I've never played against a omniscient computer. I only play against
human players.
> Off the top of my head, I can see two ways it could go:
The only real reason for space battles (or wet-naval battles) is to
ensure that you can go wherever you want and stop the other guy from doing the
same. Destroying the enemy ships is only a means to this end, after all.
So, if the sniper player wants to stop me - or destroy the cargo I'm
escorting, or whatever - he needs to start the battle moving towards me
(unless the battle is set-up with me already within his weapon range,
but we don't set up games like that on the assumption that both sides have
detected one another quite some time previously). If he wants to go somewhere
and I want to stop him, I'll place myself between him and
his target (provided I can do so, but FT is a tactical game only - the
system-scale movements which put me there and set the scenario up
aren't part of the game) and he *still* needs to move in my general direction
to get past me. If I turn away from him, he'll need to chase me instead; and
unless the game started with his weapons already within range of me he'll need
an overtake velocity to do so.
Now begins an interesting game of minds: when exactly will my escort
and/or fast cruisers turn back as hard as they can? If he manages to
pick the right turn to break off the chase he'll stay out of range (but quite
often outside his own range as well as mine); if he doesn't, I'll suddenly
range on him. In the sniper battles we fought, the snipers generally took more
damage from my few salvoes than I did from their continous drizzle.
There were several variations on this basic theme depending on the exact
forces used, of course. Eg., depending on just how many "extras"
the snipers had and which fleet I was flying, dropping missiles and/or
fighters into his path may also... disconcert them somewhat :-/ The
overall results were that I won most (IIRC about three out of four)
games against the long-range sniper fleets squadrons ("won" as in
"destroyed a larger value in points than I lost"), and my opponents got tired
of using gimmick designs that lost more than they won <shrug>
> Unfortunately, these tactics are often horribly boring no matter who
That's always a problem with a game which wants to be generic, I'm afraid.
Quite often the solutions aren't blatantly obvious; when they aren't you can
only hope that the side most guilty of causing the boredom loses more than it
wins (since that tends to discourage people from persisting with it).
Fortunately that was the case in our sniper
battles :-/
Regards,
Kevin,
You are on the right track... One of my pet axioms is "realism does not a good
game make".
If you want an honest to god *simulation*, ok, I guess you're willing to
accept the boredom as a facet of the realism...
But if, like me, you're looking for an enjoyable GAME, you must accept that
some setups, while perhaps realistic, do not produce enjoyable games.
Occasionally this means games will have rules that seem arbitrary -- but
I still prefer to see them in writing a priori, instead of some "assumed
general understanding".
Greg Costikyan, btw, has written a wonderful article on games (i.e. what is a
game).
P.S. Now that I retook posting to this list, my Hate Page started lighting up
again... coincidence?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Must be all that advertising you do:
> http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/ hateme.html
:-)