SaVasku Comment ( was Re: Fire Control lock-on)

> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:

> yes, I actually would love facing them time and

At the present time, SaVasKu are effectively invincable in any 'open ended'
space combat. The only way to have a combat with the 'S' be interesting is to
have some sort of a
'point in space' to attack/defend.

Bye for now,

In a message dated 6/27/2005 4:41:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:

At the present time, SaVasKu are effectively invincable in any 'open ended'
space combat. The only way to have a combat with the 'S' be interesting is to
have some sort of a
'point in space' to attack/defend.

Bye for now, John L.

Not true, they are not invicnable. I have been them in games both as the
 "S"
and agaisnt the "S". I have lost playing them and have won playing agaisnt
them with NSL and NAC and even ESY ships...A resent gae played, I used NSL
ships and an ally used IJN ships. the eemy was KraVak and there was a presence
of SaVasku as well. The SaVasku took out most of the KraVak without taking

enough damage to mean anything. Combines forces of the NSL and IJN, equalling
roughly 1800 points took out the Savasku force of roughly 2000 Vince

I am sorry to say that your example only serves to
prove that not all gamers are competent.   If you
choose to play by your enemys rules you will lose.

Bye for now, John L.

> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/27/2005 4:41:48 PM Eastern

In a message dated 6/27/2005 6:54:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:

I am sorry to say that your example only serves to
prove that not all gamers are  competent.   If you
choose to play by your enemys rules you will lose.

Bye for now, John L.

I dont know about that. I consider myself very competent and my friend gamers
are just as competet. Many of which won tournements at cons including GZG
Cons...

In the final analysis, a player will won if he can out smart his enemy
"AND"
have the dice gods on his side. The pater of this being the most of course.
There are been times I have out manuevered and enemy 75% of the game, rolling
20+ dice and doing like 3damage points, and my opponeent rolling like 5
dice and scoring 20 damage points. But all and all, I dont think the "S" are
to over powered as I heard people say. This comes from experience as I am sure
your opinions do as well.

I am not looking to argue, I simply ask if anyone has any idea when the

Sa'Vasku might be available for JavaFT in PBEM...

Vince

> I am not looking to argue, I simply ask if anyone has any idea when

The SV are not the immediate priority for FTJava. They have been considered,
but it will not be an easy task. Probably in 2006 at this rate.

I wrote my current priorities on June 16th to the FTJava list.

---

There is more work required to finalize the fighters in FTJava. I'm hoping to
be able to accomplish that by the end of July for the release of V1.0.

Planned for V1.0:

1. Specific "locked into dogfighting" rule 2. Launch from carriers 3. Carrier
recovery and rearming 4. Aces and Turkey squadrons 5. Fighter morale
6. Multiple role fighters - i.e. fast interceptors
7. New game interface - A tree structure vs the tabbed panes
a. Nationality icons

The same could be said for the reverse. Maybe the reason you can't defeat the
Spikies is you are locked into one set of tactics and are playing the Spikies
game. Whenever you start pointing out that not all gamers are competent
realize YOU may be the one displaying the lack of competence.

I have more problems with Kr'vak than Spikies, but then I play FSE and the
Kr'vak dodge my SMs and ignore my shields.

Roger Books

> On 6/27/05, John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The same could be said for the reverse. Maybe the reason you can't

Are you playing by the original FB2 rules or revised rules for SV?

> Roger Books wrote:

*I'm* definitely not competent, and I've managed to win a few games here
and there. :-)

Mk

> I have more problems with Kr'vak than Spikies, but then I play FSE

It's hard to beat the game where we had a combined fleet of 6000 points a
side. My co-cammanders watched in amazement as I brilliantly placed
all 6000 points of the enemy's fleet less than a foot away and in the aft arc
of my SDN and escorts, needless to say my 2000 points of ships went away. I
did this in Vector... Since I was playing FSE the Python references flew.

Roger Books

> On 6/28/05, Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:

> Roger Books wrote:

> I have more problems with Kr'vak than Spikies, but then I play FSE

Cinematic or Vector?

In Cinematic the lighter FSE ships can be very nasty to the Kra'Vak since
they're fast enough to give them a good chance of avoiding the heavier
K-guns, don't waste mass on screens and have surprisingly powerful
wide-arc
beam armaments which the KV have difficulties avoiding - at least if the
KV
want to shoot at the FSE ships :-/ Many FSE players stare themselves
blind at the missiles, but that's only at most half of the FSE arsenal.

The Sa'Vasku OTOH find it even easier than the Kra'Vak to avoid missiles

(or shoot them down, for that matter), can be screened if they want to, and
outrange the FSE beams by a MUCH wider margin than the Kra'Vak K-guns do
:-/

Regards,

> *I'm* definitely not competent, and I've managed to win a few games

Even a blind squirrel has to find a nut now and then.;)

> The same could be said for the reverse. Maybe the

The people who used the 'S' that I have played use the high available thrust
of the 'S' to maintain a range difference that is larger that the range
of my available weapons.   On alternate turns the
'S' us all available power to shoot at this extended range to do what damage
they can. This is a very extended process, very dull for the target, but the
'S' cannot be defeated if the 'S' player continues the tactic to its logical
conclusion.

If you can come up with a way to defeat this, please pass the information
around.

Bye for now,

The original rules, has the maximun range of 'S' weapons been reduced to 48"
or less?

Bye for now, John L.

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> >The same could be said for the reverse. Maybe the

> --- Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:

> *I'm* definitely not competent, and I've managed to

As your second in command during the ping pong balls of doom (Forgeworld)
game, I will state that you are a survivor in difficult conditions.

Bye for now,

> John Leary wrote:

Oh, yes, I remember that. :-)

I place part of the credit(?) for my surviving on the fact that
I was not rolling my own die. ;-D

Mk

> The original rules, has the maximun range of 'S'
weapons been reduced to 48" or less?

This is unofficial and I don't know whether anyone has actually playtested it:
If a Stinger or Spicule attempts to use more than 4 power points in a

single turn, it must check for burn-out BEFORE it fires. If the system
fails the burn-out check it is damaged just as if it had lost a
threshold check, the power allocated to it is lost and it may not fire again
until it has been repaired (using the normal SV damage control rules).
Power used:     Burn-out on a d6 roll of:
0-4             No burn-out possible
5-8             5+
9-16            4+
17-32           3+
33+             2+

In a message dated 6/28/2005 9:50:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:

> The same could be said for the reverse. Maybe the reason you can't

Are you playing by the original FB2 rules or revised rules for SV?

I have played both versions of the "Spikies" I lasted longer against them in
the original FB2 rules then I did in their "optional" revised variant. I

played 4 games with each set of rules and I prefer the original. The only
thing I see wrong is their point values might be a bit low. I personally think
if you adjust their point values they might be more playable. This is
something I am currently game testing. I have adjusted offensive weapons by
"4" instead of the normal "3". In 2 games so far, they have turned out more
balancing. Less ships for the "Spikies" but able to handle themselves better
in the right hands.

In a message dated 6/28/2005 10:31:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kochte@stsci.edu writes:

*I'm* definitely not competent, and I've managed to win a few games here
and there. :-)

Mk

LOL you managed to successfully destroy all the local asteroids in my game at
ECC last year... Damn anoying rocks in space, their just as bad as the
stinking humans huh?

Not to mention your partner warping in 2" from the ESU Battlecruiser
fleet...

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Indy wrote:

> Oh, yes, I remember that. :-)

So, for once, you *didn't* die by your own hand?

> Mike Stanczyk wrote:

:-P :-)

Opinion: Not to deride the intent, but the result really does not change the
original statement I
presented earlier.   The only thing that may change
is the duration of the game, not the outcome. (If you look from my point of
view.)

Bye for now, John L.

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> This is unofficial and I don't know whether anyone

> VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:

> at ECC last year... Damn anoying rocks in space, their just as bad as

Asteroids don't fire back. And they weren't dodging/evading. ;-)

> Not to mention your partner warping in 2" from the ESU Battlecruiser

That was outside my control.

Mk

In a message dated 6/29/2005 7:48:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kochte@stsci.edu writes:

> LOL

> the stinking humans huh?

Asteroids don't fire back. And  they weren't dodging/evading. ;-)

> Not to mention your partner warping in 2" from the ESU Battlecruiser

That was outside my control. Yeah, but it was still very sweet location....

Mk

> > Not to mention your partner warping in 2" from the ESU Battlecruiser

> > fleet...

Perhaps it was the Kochte Field? While not directly helping you the Kochte
field instead provides benefit to your team (i.e. Spiky ship exiting warp 2"
from my aft arc).

I'd hate to blame all your victories on such a thing but prove me wrong.
 ;)

> damosan@comcast.net wrote:

> :-P~~~

Bravo, sir! A devastating argument that demolishes his position! Surely,

he will not be able to show his face in these parts again!

Eh? No, techically, he never could show his face. And, yes, I will refrain
from calling you 'Shirley'...

The_Beast

:-P~~~
phthththththththt

:-)

Mk

Bravo, sir! A devastating argument that demolishes his position! Surely, he
will not be able to show his face in these parts again!

Eh? No, techically, he never could show his face. And, yes, I will refrain
from calling you 'Shirley'...

The_Beast

Indeed eloquent however, Bill the Cat is seeking redress for copyright
infringement......)

> Don M wrote:
Surely,
> he will not be able to show his face in these parts again!

Damo, far left, profile shot:
http://www.warpfish.com/gzgecc/gzgecc8/AAR/gallery/Han/WeightOfCommand-2
1.html

Damo, center at table, straight on:
http://www.warpfish.com/gzgecc/gzgecc8/AAR/gallery/Han/WeightOfCommand-2
9.html

Damo, dark shirt right of center (other profile ;-) :
http://www.warpfish.com/gzgecc/gzgecc7/pictures/Terminator4/101_0146.htm
l

> And, yes, I will

> infringement......)

IIRC, Bill the Cat used capital "P" for "Phthththt", whereas I am
using lower-case "p".

:-)

Mk

> Indeed eloquent however, Bill the Cat is seeking redress for copyright

> infringement......)

IIRC, Bill the Cat used capital "P" for "Phthththt", whereas I am
using lower-case "p".

:-)

Mk

See you in court.......)

> John Leary wrote:

> Opinion: Not to deride the intent, but the result

If you look at it from the point of view of the playtest games fought so

far with this rule, your opinion doesn't seem all that well founded <g>

(Yes, LL, this concept *has* been playtested - IIRC there are even some
AARs in the playtest list archive... More playtests are always good, of
course.)

Since the Sa'Vasku have to expend 1 biomass point on each successful repair
roll they make (FB2 p.24 - though some SV players seem to, er,
"consistently forget" that particular rule in the heat of battle!), every
failed stinger burn-out roll costs them 1 biomass point. Outside range
48mu, they inflict more damage on *themselves* by repairing burned-out
stingers than they do even on an unscreened enemy (unless the SV ship has 128
or more Power Points to spend on each shot, but for ships that big the CPV
hull cost begins to make itself felt in earnest).

Even when shooting at an unscreened target at range 36-48, the margin
between biomass spent on repairing burned-out stingers and the damage
they inflict on the enemy isn't very big (again with the exception of ships
with
128+ power points available for shooting). This means that an SV force
planning to hang at range 48 and grind the enemy down will need quite a lot of
biomass in order to outlast the enemy, so the "minimum biomass, maximum power"
style of designs that are so popular with some SV players will
almost certainly run out of biomass before an FB1-style enemy runs out
of armour and hull boxes. 'Course, the more biomass the SV ships have the
bigger engines they need, and the more power it costs them to move on those
alternate turns they spend increasing the range...

...and suddenly the "stay out of range and grind the enemy to death" tactic is
no longer quite so trivial to pull off as it used to be. Particularly if the
enemy is uncouth enough to use screens on his ships, or is able to force the
SV to devote some of their power to something else than moving

(eg. anti-fighter defences) on those game turns they'd prefer to spend
all their power on moving, or has weapons with enough range to hit back out to
range 45-48 (eg. the ESU B4s or the New Israeli Long-Range P-Torps), or
manoeuvres in such a way that the SV ships would end their movement outside
range 48 if they make no manoeuvres, or force the SV to spend power on
manoeuvring even on those turns they plan to fire, or uses any of the other
dirty anti-Sa'Vasku tricks available to them...

So, please try the burn-out rule out in your next battle against the
Sa'Vasku. You might be pleasantly surprised <g>

Regards,

> Damo, far left, profile shot:

Yeah...that's me enjoying the Kochte field. Thus ensuring our success on the
table.

Yet more ancedotal evidence in my favor.;)

In a message dated 6/29/2005 1:18:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ariander@telia.com writes:

So,  please try the burn-out rule out in your next battle against the
Sa'Vasku. You might be pleasantly surprised <g>

Regards,

I have played the "burn-out" rules a few times. Still not a big fan of
them on checkig on more then 4 points. Ad I hope that as with the KV and
Phalon, when the SV are made in Java it is by the book like the other 2
aliens..