> Laserlight wrote:
> But it is done with the mechanics of how the weapon operates, not with
I didn't say that they weren't both artificial, I just said that one was
more than the other.
> Q: How many people play on an area this large ? (as O.O.'s)
You mean 24" x 48", right? That makes it... about 60 MU x 120 MU
You play on the LR floor? What? No pets or Laserlightlings? Furniture? What
happens when the superdreadnought "Ultimate Devastator" drifts into the Dust
Ruffle Nebula or the Infinite Defiance"
is caught in the path of a dust bunny stampede?
> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
I didn't say "unusable", I said "unusual", as in "uncommon", "rare", "not the
usual".
> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)? LL made no
Yes, but the table * is * limited [at least in this reality:)], so that in
each direction there is a limit as to how far apart you can be and continue
the game. And since we are talking about the scenario for a game, and not "A
Theoretical Treatise on the Relative Advantages of Class 5 Laser Batteries in
Three Dimensional Combat in Infinite Vacuum",
It does become germane.
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass
You proposed it and OO supplied a ship design. You proposal said a Thrust 8
battlecruiser with B5 weaponry, and that it would kill or drive
off any KV ship. That implies a ship dual, not a swarm of piranha tactic. It
also implies that the scenario encourages the human ship to engage, no blow
past at high V to avoid the engagement. I chose not to press the "any KV ship"
point and did not suggest your BC vs a KV SDN or CVH. OOs ship implies leading
a stern chase, but you (LL) never mentioned that, nor did you specify "only if
I have a football field in which to maneuver".
I am confident that any reasonably thought out scenario's conditions, the
victory will primarily depend on the size of the playing area (larger to the
human tech ship, average to the KV) and whether the
scenario set-up gives the T8 w/ B5 ship the opportunity to use the
tactics OO described.
J
> You play on the LR floor? What? No pets or Laserlightlings?
The dog has figured out that she shouldn't step on the starcloth; and Josh has
beaten me the last couple of games.
> You proposed it and OO supplied a ship design. You proposal said a
<shrug> from my POV, a scrolling table is a given unless otherwise specified.
In vector, this is a trivial battle. Turn 1, the KV accelerates in amount in
any direction. Turn 2, the BC rotates and thrusts to match the KV's
acceleration from Turn 1, then it rotates to face the KV and fires. Rinse and
repeat as needed. In Cinematic it's more work.
By the way, I tend to agree with you that I'd like larger beams to be
more effective (ie do more damage at longer range)--I like the WW1
dreadnought model. That doesn't mean it's necessarily balanced, just that it's
what I'd prefer.
> Laserlight wrote:
> You play on the LR floor? What? No pets or Laserlightlings?
So, old enough not to chew on dad's minis:)
> You proposed it and OO supplied a ship design. You proposal said a
> or CVH. OOs ship implies leading a stern chase, but you (LL) never
I also assume a scrolling table, but the * size * of the table also has an
effect, because it limits the maximum distance between ships, no mater how
much you scroll the table.
Once again, < sigh >
Cinematic, Cinematic, Cinematic.
However, in vector: 4x6 or 5x8 table, KV enters table from short table
end at high speed (30+). If the T8B5 is on table, or enters
perpendicular, then the game consists of a single pass and the KV continues to
blow up your secret outpost. If the T8B5 enters
parallel-converging, then he's within 1 game turn of the KV weapons
basket.
> By the way, I tend to agree with you that I'd like larger beams to be
I didn't mean to increase the effectiveness/damage of larger batteries,
just reduce the mass (minor point, I know).
But otherwise; Yeah!:)
J
> However, in vector: 4x6 or 5x8 table, KV enters table from short
I didn't specify a secret base in my conditions (because, after all, it's
*secret*). I grant you that a raider isn't suited for defending a fixed point,
but since I never implied I was defending a fixed point, this doesn't matter.
The point was that higher class Beams have advantages which higher class K
guns do not have.
> I didn't mean to increase the effectiveness/damage of larger
"A higher ratio of damage to mass"
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> However, in vector: 4x6 or 5x8 table, KV enters table from short table
Then the game set-up pretty explicitly says that the T8B5 has screwed up
its pre-battle manoeuvres.
If the universe is bigger than the gaming table (and fact that the table
scrolls implies that it is), why would the T8B5 captain - assuming that
he
has any brains at all - approach the incoming KV ship perpendicularly
(which is almost guaranteed to lose him the battle), when matching course and
speed just outside the KV ship's weapon range is guaranteed to *win*
him the battle? He has the engine power to do it.
> By the way, I tend to agree with you that I'd like larger beams to be
> just reduce the mass (minor point, I know).
<sigh>
Repeat after me:
The important thing is NOT the raw damage a weapon inflicts.
The important thing is the RATIO between its DAMAGE and its MASS.
IOW, reducing the mass is IDENTICAL to increasing the effectiveness, unless
you also reduce the damage to compensate...
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> perpendicularly (which is almost guaranteed to lose him the battle),
> is guaranteed to *win* him the battle? He has the engine power to do
Yeah, I figured that out when you, in a previous post, in passing, mentioned
setting up in opposite corners of the * long * table edge.
However, if you thought this was an issue, you could have mentioned it
when I * explicitly listed * the set-ups that my group uses. That would
have been both more helpful to me and more productive for everyone than us
going around in circles and off on tangents.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> However, in vector: 4x6 or 5x8 table, KV enters table from short
I could have done so - if I had realized at the time that these were the
ONLY set-ups your group uses, rather than some EXAMPLES of the many
types
of set-ups you use. When I finally did begin to suspect that the set-ups
you had listed actually were the only ones you use, and also realized the
rather major importance you put on leaving the table in spite of its scrolling
(which would prevent a faster ship from catching up with a slower one once it
had left the table), I immediately described a more appropriate
set-up for this particular scenario.
I'm sorry, but this debate feels a bit like discussing maths with someone
who first claims to master calculus but half-way into the discussion
expresses his annoyance that no-one has told him about how addition or
subtraction works until he explicitly asked about it - and then berates
everyone for not telling him about it at the outset.
Of course this debate isn't nearly *that* bad (the above example is much
exaggerated), but time and again you've made what appears to be quite definite
statements about how things are in Full Thrust but which eventually turn out
to be based on relatively basic gaps in your
understanding of how the game - including its ship design system -
works. (Not how the *rules* work as such, but how they interact with one
another.) The relationship between a weapon's combat power and the area
covered by
its fire arc was one such case (OK, that one admittedly isn't a particularly
"basic" gap, but it is one I can nail down closely enough to put words on),
the relationship between a weapon's "effectiveness" and its mass was another,
the relationship between turn rate and value of wide fire arcs a third, and so
on.
Unfortunately, since we don't know exactly where these gaps of yours are, we
only have two ways to fill them in: either we try to give *all* the background
detail of which you already know most, in which case you
complain about us giving the crucial details - ie., the ones you were
missing - only "in passing"; or else we try to answer your specific
questions in which case you complain about it taking too long before you
get the answer you were looking for (since the crucial detail wasn't always
part of the answer to the specific question you were asking so it took us some
time to figure out what piece of the puzzle it was you didn't already have).
Whichever way we try, you seem to think that we, out of sheer spite, are
deliberately witholding information which we are allowed to tell you. After a
while this becomes somewhat exasperating.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
You are correct that they are not the ONLY set-ups, but as I said at the
time, they are the vast majority (by which I meant 80% or more). Next time I
will be more specific to avoid misunderstandings.
> When I finally did begin to suspect that the set-ups you had listed
> appropriate set-up for this particular scenario.
That importance is because we usually use forces totaling 6-20 ships per
side, rather than 1 or 2, so that having ships on both edges of the play
area is not uncommon. I describe this in more detail in my response to your
other post.
> Of course this debate isn't nearly *that* bad (the above example is
> understanding of how the game - including its ship design system -
> area covered by its fire arc was one such case (OK, that one
As for the rotation rate vs fire arcs topic (where this all started), I very
explicitly stated a) the limited extent of my experience with the vector
system (3x EFSB, 1x FB1, 0x FB2), b) that I was essaying a solution to a
problem I had read as perceived by others on this list, rather than one from
my own experience, and c) the places where I viewed
the problem to be rooted. From the way the responses et al. flowed, it seemed
as if most of the members who answered had only skimmed or outright skipped
that part (my introduction to the post) and then went straight to debating my
suggestion. No one pointed out "Your suggestion
flows from a faulty premise of XYZ. It is actually ABC. Does that change what
you want to suggest?". Nor did anyone say "The limited experience that you
stated probably makes you unaware of ABC". As it turns out, the "gaps of mine"
were expressly stated at the beginning, they were just ignored.
In only one case (re: my suggestion in re: Mr.Evans question about a more
realistic handling of acceleration) did anyone bother to say: "Oh, wait, I
read that too quickly before answering".
Now, as for the weapons range thread, I probably was out reaching my grasp.
For that, I am sorry. But, in the course of the thread, I did learn some other
factors to take into account. So that slightly lessens the guilt I feel.
However (again), since I expressly stated my starting position at the
beginning of the vector debacle, I have no guilt over that one.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> I could have done so - if I had realized at the time that these were
That was indeed the impression I got initially. What made me start thinking
that they were the ONLY set-ups you use was when I speculated in how
you'd set up a T8B5 pursuit battle (which judging from your earlier posts
would
be very much a *non*-standard battle for your group) and you retorted
> Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section
The reason I speculated in set-ups different from your standard ones is
that I know (from experience with playing on large tables) that none of
your standard set-ups was very appropriate for this particular battle in
terms of larger-scale pre-game manoeuvres. Since the T8B5 has a massive
range advantage and at least thrust parity (your other recent post described
T8 escorts, but back then it still sounded as if the expected
opposition was T6 or slower which would've given it a 2-pt thrust
advantage
instead) the shorter-range force has no way of forcing it into any of
your
standard set-ups, and the T8B5 itself has absolutely no reason to
voluntarily enter any of those standard set-ups; therefore the only way
your standard set-ups can occur at all in this particular battle is if
the T8B5 commander screws up in a major way even before the shooting has
started.
Although games set up on the assumption that one side's commander has already
screwed up and now needs to save whatever he can are often very fun to play, I
don't consider them to be appropriate for assessing how effective a design
concept is under normal conditions, ie. when the
commander does *not* screw up :-/ (OK, for some space navies screwing up
*is* the normal condition, but those navies usually don't last very
long...)
Because of this, your retort about already having described your *standard*
set-ups made it seem very much as if you hadn't considered how and why
the
opposing forces got into the set-up positions in the first place. If you
had considered this already, you would already have realized that the
standard set-ups you had described were inappropriate for this *non*-
standard battle - and you would also have understood why I automatically
assumed that you wouldn't use any of your standard set-ups but instead
to game it out, but instead look for a more appropriate (albeit
non-standard)
set-up.
> When I finally did begin to suspect that the set-ups you had listed
And in such larger games it makes a lot more sense (answered in the other post
today). Again however you didn't seem to have considered what the
change in number of ships could mean in this situation - eg., if one
side only consists of 1 ship then it can't possibly have ships on both edges
of
the gaming area :-/
[...]
> As for the rotation rate vs fire arcs topic (where this all started),
That's very true. However, and unfortunately for this part of your defence,
the relationships between rotation rate and fire arc value are if not
identical then at least *extremely* similar in Cinematic and Vector: if you
can change your facing quickly (and thus bring single-arc weapons to
bear
quickly), then you don't need wide-arc weapons.
Thus wide weapon arcs are valuable in Cinematic (where you can't change facing
quickly unless you've spent a lot of resources on powerful drives)
but not in FB1/FB2 Vector (where just about anyone can change facing
quickly, even if they only have thrust-1 engines).
Your "gap" in this particular case was your failure to consider what makes
wide weapon arcs valuable *in Cinematic* - a game system which you
should have plenty of experience with.
> b) that I was essaying a solution to a problem I had read as perceived
places where I viewed the
> problem to be rooted. From the way the responses et al. flowed, it
Hm? From what I could see back then, and also what I can see going through the
list archive again now, neither of these initial statements of yours
were ignored.
You, however, appearently ignored a post sent by Brendan Robertson within ten
minutes of your first proposal, where he described how EFSB handled the same
problem (which is also the best of the two working solutions to the
problem). You also seem to have totally failed to understand the post I wrote
on August 28th, after your second post to the thread had made me realize that
you hadn't yet grasped the implications of Brendan's post.
Let's take a closer look at this thread. I can't answer for why others wrote
what they did or when they did, only for my own posts:
You posted your proposal on the 21st of August.
Within 10 minutes you got a reply from Brendan which, as I read it then,
was somewhat terse but nonetheless said pretty much everything that needed
to be said about the rules part of your post: EFSB, an FT-based game
system explicitly written to emulate B5 space combat, limited the rotation
*rate* (the very thing your proposal explicitly sought to avoid) instead of
the
*number* of rotations (which was what you proposed). I'm not sure if you
ever read that post; all I know is that you didn't reply to it. Since I
then thought that Brendan had already covered the game mechanics parts, my own
reply on the 22nd only commented on "sillyness" of RBRF manoeuvres and
their on-screen appearance in B5.
With one exception the rest of the discussion between the 21st and 27th
concerned the *aesthetics* of FB2 vector movement (ie., whether or not "RBRF"
sequences look silly), and how Vector movement appeared on screen in the B5 TV
show. The one exception was Alan Brain's post of the 24th, which suggested a
minor change to your proposal which wouldn't help the game
balance any more than your original version would. No-one seems to have
commented on his post, not even you.
On the 27th you returned to the thread:
> I only made the suggestion because several posts had complained that
and so on. This post made it clear to me that you hadn't grasped the
implications of Brendan's post: although it didn't dispute your *description*
of the RBRF sequence (which was after all essentially correct, so there was no
reason to dispute it) it did dispute your *proposed solution* to the game
balance problem by pointing out that
limiting the rotation rate - the very thing your proposal sought to
avoid -
was the way EFSB did it. EFSB was specifically written to emulate B5 space
combat; since the first two examples of ships you believed would benefit
from your proposal were taken from that show it is a quite relevant
counter-example. Your post of the 27th also put more emphasis on the
game-balance problems (as opposed to the aesthetic side of things).
(Looking back at Brendan's post now I can see why you didn't understand that
it disputed your proposal; but when I first read it I thought that it
was pretty straight-forward.)
17 hours after you posted your second post - ie. as soon as I had waked
up (you sent it at approx. 1 am, my local time), download and read it in the
morning, realize that you hadn't noticed the implications of Brendan's
post, spend a full day at work, return home, and write a reply - I
posted a detailed explanation as to what caused the game balance problems in
question and why your proposal wouldn't solve them. In other words, if as you
say:
> No one pointed out "Your suggestion flows from a faulty premise of
It is
> actually ABC. Does that change what you want to suggest?"
then I must be the proverbial "No one" since I did point exactly that out to
you close to two weeks ago, and I did it as soon as I realized that you were
trying to solve the wrong problem.
This post can be found in the archive at
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200308/msg00352.html ; the bit explaining
the game balance problem and why your proposal wouldn't solve it starts with
"Unfortunately for your suggestion, you haven't correctly identified the
problem."
about one-third down the page.
Then the real debacle began, and it was entirely your own. When (on the 2nd of
September, after Matt Tope's getting into the thread) you finally
replied to the game-mechanics parts of my August-28th post (you had
already
replied to the first, B5/aesthetics, part of it on August 31st), you
wrote among other things:
"Actually, this [ie. ships being able to make 2 rotations per turn in FB2
Vector] is the root cause of the problems (symptoms) that I am trying to
solve, namely that AGD does not give enough extra benefit in Vector to
justify its higher cost and that multi-arc weapons are also not useful
enough to justify the extra cost."
and
"Then what is the root cause of the problem?"
- the latter in direct reply to my "Unfortunately for your suggestion,
you haven't correctly identified the problem."
Your writing these two sections in a post where you extensively quoted my post
of the 28th in which I had described, explicitly and in a fair amount of
detail,
* why, contrary to your belief at the time FB2's "2 rotations" system is
NOT the root cause of the problems with overpriced wide firing arcs and
Advanced Drives in Vector,
* why the ability to rotate 180 degrees for a single thrust point (even if you
can only do it once per turn) IS the root cause of these problems, and
* why your proposal wouldn't solve the problems whereas the solution Brendan
pointed you at would do so
- well, let's just say that your writing the above comments gave a
rather strong impression that you either was outright stupid and therefore
unable
to understand the post you had just read and quoted, OR - and this was
the
interpretation I arrived at - that the aesthetics, not the game balance,
was your primary reason for this proposal. Statements like
"But in vector, narrow arc standard drive ships /should/ be able to keep
the enemy under continuous fire /if/ they forego accelerating in any
direction except towards the enemy. [...] Accelerating /toward/ the
enemy and then rotating (once) to keep him under fire is reasonable to me."
further reinforced the impression that your main interest was the
aesthetics, not the game balance - that something is "reasonable to you"
only means that you find it aesthetically pleasing; it is completely
irrelevant to whether or not said something is also the root cause of a game
balance problem.
On the 3rd of September I re-stated my explanation of the 28th in
somewhat
different words (http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200309/msg00040.html),
and also adding a fair deal of cynicism. I'm not sure if you ever replied
directly to that post; but I don't know if that means that you read and
understood it without having any further questions or comments, or you simply
ignored it, or you did in fact reply to it but I couldn't find your
reply in the mailing list archive - considering the ways these threads
have
merged, split up and re-merged under new subject headers I may very well
have missed it during tonight's quick search.
To summarize, I wrote a detailed explanation why your proposal would not
solve the game balance problem as soon as I realized that you hadn't fully
understood the implications of Brendan's earlier comment about it and that you
were trying to solve the wrong problem. This makes your recent complaints
about "getting answers in passing or after much wrangling" quite...
exasperating.
Regards,