[?] Tournament Fleet Composition

> John Atkinson wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling of the FT community
-->8--
> And what would be an acceptable counter-response? I can't think off

Maybe, oh, a CV with 6 fighter groups... That's 18 sure kills on the 36,

I seem to recall that there was some sort of restriction on tournament fleet
composition, to the effect of 2 cruisers per capital ship and 2 escorts per
cruiser, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

The question is if anyone else can confirm of deny this - thus proving
that I'm going senile early.

Thanx in advance,

It depends on which tournament restrictions you're after. The FT rulebook
suggests a max of 50% points from one ship class, but this leads to large
numbers of small escorts. For the Conquest'98 tournament, the restriction was
50% of total ships from the one class (similar to the Empress Ariana
Tournament)

For my full restrictions visit:
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/ft/conq98.htm

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*********************
Mary had a little LAM, It's thrusters all aglow; And everywhere that Mary
went, The 'Mechs were sure to blow.

> -----Original Message-----

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

Schoon, I remember seeing that go by, but I am not certain it had to do with a
tournment. The organizer normally sets the requirements for the tourney, and
these may differ a great deal from person to person.

Sorry to be of no great help. Bye for now,

> John Leary wrote:

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

It will depend on the organizer. The first Empress Arianna tournament had few
restrictions and allowed up to 50% of all total ships could be of a single
class (Escort, Cruiser, Capital). Learning from that tournament, I imposed
further design constraints requiring a flagship of Mass 48 or greater, the 50%
rule, and limits on fighter groups and missiles for the current tournament. I
have been pleased with the fleet designs and variations.

> I seem to recall that there was some sort of restriction on tournament

> fleet composition, to the effect of 2 cruisers per capital ship and 2

I don't know of any such rule in FT or MT, but it is a nice general rule to
form a classic style fleet.

In the Full Thrust Tournament that is being organized for GenCon, we will
 have pre-made fleets of around 1500 points for the players to choose
from. Most of the ships are the FT and MT examples (even though the Fleet Book
is due out soon, I don't think we can expect all the players to be familiar
with the rule changed plus fleet balancing in a couple months wouldn't be
easy). Each fleet should have a unique flavor but all of them should be
relatively equal in total power. Once a few more fleets have been defined and
reviewed by the other guys who will be running the tournament, I hope to post
the fleets to this list for review and to catch any problems we missed.

> You wrote:

> The idea of all this was to get people to build balanced fleets
fleets are >totally acceptable.

Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling of the FT community
towards lunatics like myself who like swarm-style fleets?  At a recent
game I put 36 4-ton ships with one missle each as their only armament.
And that costs a mere 912 points, heh. Out of a 6,000 point fleet[1]. All the
other players whined a lot, but that's just because I waxed 2
capital ships, a cruiser and a frigate with no losses to myself--which
put them a bit at a disadvantage. The discussion which ensued did
point out that modern wet-navies do operate on this basis.  See: PLAN,
et al.  8 Styx-class missles and then turn around and run to rearm.
And what would be an acceptable counter-response?  I can't think off
the top of my head what would be a good counter to this strategy.

> John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling of the FT community

Personally I like a fleet of fast, thrust 8, escorts and cruisers.

> At a recent

> And that costs a mere 912 points, heh. Out of a 6,000 point fleet[1].

> All the other players whined a lot, but that's just because I waxed 2

> put them a bit at a disadvantage. The discussion which ensued did

> et al. 8 Styx-class missles and then turn around and run to rearm.

Maybe lots of fighters or another swarm.

Enjoy,

> John Atkinson wrote:

Good for tournaments, really bad for campaigns or scenarios that are supposed
to reflect RL.  (As much as Sci-Fi can reflect RL.  (8-) )

> The discussion which ensued did

Modern wet-navies given a costal defence mission.  Try crossing the
Atlantic in an Osa-II.  (8-)  Swarms usually need mother ships in
'realistic' scenarios (Sea Control or Power Projection type things), and

that usually tips the weight against them as the mother ship is so expensive,
a balanced fleet would be better. And God help you if the mother ship gets
cacked... which is why everybody is wondering about the USN Supercarrier right
now, especially given the 'From The Sea...' mission, which puts the carrier
right in the middle of harms way.

> And what would be an acceptable counter-response? I can't think off

Wet navy style, or FT style?  (8-)

In FT, area weapons like the Wave Gun or Nova Cannon would be good counters.
Loading your ships with PD would help. Fighters. Banzai Jamming (if
your universe supports it.)   There's only so much you can do because of

the firecon limits i.e. FT weapons can't fire in local control.

Just some babble.  (8-)  Time for my exam.

J.

The only defense against swarm missile fleets that I can think of is another
swarm fleet. Kinda boring IMHO. Full Thrust breaks down with swarm fleets.
That's why our group uses Command Ratings with our starships to organize our
fleets. We base it off the mass of the ship. Also added Command and Control
"system" that gives the ship a higher com rating.

Nice and easy. works for us. Needed something to control "swarm fleet
syndrome" in our Strategic FT games. Com Ratings seems to work for us.

Pete

=======================================================================
Peter Caron pcaron@cris.com

"There is no nation on earth so dangerous as a nation fully armed, and
bankrupt at home." Henry Cabot Lodge

> On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote:

> game I put 36 4-ton ships with one missle each as their only armament.

> And that costs a mere 912 points, heh. Out of a 6,000 point fleet[1].

> All the other players whined a lot, but that's just because I waxed 2

> put them a bit at a disadvantage. The discussion which ensued did

> et al. 8 Styx-class missles and then turn around and run to rearm.

> 2K and teamed up with my brother to take on the other three players.

> On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling of the FT community

> game I put 36 4-ton ships with one missle each as their only armament.

That would be my "bathtub launcher" concept, from discussion some time back.
Back then, I recall not many people took the threat seriously, since they
thought such tactics would not be employed by "honorable" opponents.

Personally, I wouldn't use such a fleet. I just have a perverse interest

in finding holes in rules (perhaps because of losing one game too many to such
tactics).

> And what would be an acceptable counter-response? I can't think off

For a one-off game, there isn't. Especially if you're required to take
escorts, which are pretty worthless in a gunfight.

Even in a campaign, there isn't much -- you just can't fight a thrust 8
ship that doesn't want to fight without gaining some sort of surprise (for
which there are no rules, which means arbitrary GM decision, which is just a
fancy word for "unfair").

You have to ask yourself, what will that lead to? Everyone starts taking

bathtub launchers, and soon no one has anything but them. The battles play out
like this: Both sides enter table. Both launch missiles and turn tail. All
missiles miss. End of battle (or repeat ad nauseum with reloads). Lots of fun,
huh?

> You wrote:

Could you send me (or post to list) the rules you have written up along those
lines? I built the fleet, but I'd like to be able to prevent the use of that
many small missle ships in future engagements. I put it out as more of a joke
than anything else. And also because one of my opponents is... flexible with
both rules and spirit of game. First time I saw him play his 1500 point fleet
was two ships. Gah! This was
second time I saw him play, and what does he bring?  Escort-sized ships
with fighter bays and cloaking devices. Pffft! BTW, where does it define
'carrier' as a capital ship in the rules? I know it does, but can't find it.
As long as he is playing, I will abuse rules to counter his abuse.:)

> You wrote:

> That would be my "bathtub launcher" concept, from discussion some time

They don't know the comedians I play Full Thrust with. Honorable? What's that?

> Lots of fun, huh?

Beats loosing because I decide to take a balanced fleet as opposed to two
uberships. First time I played with these jokers at least two people brought
nothing but capital and superships. Feh. I brought (at 1500 points) nothing
larger than a Battlecruiser. As far as I'm concerned a little fight like that
is a heavy scout group. Seems that style of playing doesn't go over too well
with those clowns.

> You wrote:

> Good for tournaments, really bad for campaigns or scenarios that are

Now, now. BTW, what is disadvantage in campaign games?

> Modern wet-navies given a costal defence mission. Try crossing the

Well, I figure that there have to be system defense elements of any space
fleet. And these seem ideal.

> that usually tips the weight against them as

The scary part about this is that the guy who runs this group of abusive gits
I play with has introduced some slight modifications of the rules. Like
allowing any ship to become a tug. I intend to point
out that this makes the cost-effectiveness factor of 6-ton STL ships
with 2 missles each and a superheavy cruiser as a mother ship rather loony. So
we'd be doing Traveller, where Battleriders dominate space warfare. If that's
how he wants to run his universe. Of course, he
also made Privateers illegal--no A batteries on smaller-than-30-ton
ships. Wierd idea, IMHO (Sorry folks, but the WWII 16" gun on a tin can
analogy does not hold up!). Which skews things in favor of capital ships even
more than they already are.

> In FT, area weapons like the Wave Gun or Nova Cannon would be good

Speaking of goofy and abusive weapons...

> Loading your ships with PD would help. Fighters. Banzai Jamming (if

Banzai Jamming?

> Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling of the FT community
I, too, like smaller, faster fleets. I still think the game is too heavily
balanced toward Capitals. However, I recognize the swarm missile problem.

#1 defence is Wave Cruisers. Wave Guns are great for clearing the sky of pesky
missiles and fighters.

I also lobby for PDAF's and C Beams as PDAF's to be allowed to fire at any
missile or fighter group in range.

> > And what would be an acceptable counter-response? I can't think off
...Major Snippage from Multiple posts...JTL)

In the FT format(and a couple people can swear to this),
You take 2 Battledreadnoughts at thrust 5, speed 20+, and be
broadside at the moment of launch. Any number of missiles is no problem!
(Unless one is playing on a hard edge portion of space, where you can fall off
and be lost!) You win the game, because you control the field of battle. (In a
campaign, you follow the gnats home and swat them there.)

Bye for now.

> John Atkinson wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> those lines? I built the fleet, but I'd like to be able to prevent

Swat them with AA-megabatteries & waveguns before they can launch.
As a secondary, you could allow ECM to add +1 to PDAF rolls vs missiles.
This gives battlewagons a chance to defend themselves without the use of Aegis
cruisers (although 3 ADAFs do help).

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*********************
Mary had a little LAM, It's thrusters all aglow; And everywhere that Mary
went, The 'Mechs were sure to blow.

> -----Original Message-----

> John Atkinson wrote:

John, How about trying out one of my ideas.

Scenario Title: One, Two, Three, Free (for all)

A series of 4 games: (human ships only) No wave, nova, reflex, or closking.
1) 1000 points in escorts.  (Estimate 8-12 ships)
2) 2000 points in cruisers. (Estimate 6-10 ships)
3) 3000 points in capitals. (Estimate 3- 8 ships)
4) The survivors of the prior three battles (as they were at the games
compleation, no repair, or rearm allowed) are pitted against each other in the
fourth battle.

This has not been tried out yet, but it may work for you. other

> You wrote:

I happen to think that for the same reason you have a large
number of ships with A-beams you will have a large number
of fleets based around 2 and 4 mass ships. I am currently in a campaign game
where one has the option of hiring Kra'Vak mercenaries for 5 production turns
of service and we have discovered that 2 Mass Kra'Vak ships armed with
a railgun apiece are _very_ dangerous.

However, we have also discovered that fleet battles eventually start involving
10,000 build points worth of ships to a side, at which point certain other
factors come into play. In order to avoid Nova Guns, Wave Guns and 'R'
Torpedos (a researchable technology that launches a 2" radius fireball), it is
important to disperse the swarm. However, for sufficiently large fleets the
swarm is not going to be able to concentrate fire because a significant
portion of the swarm is going to be outside of 30" range. Our house rules
allow Wave Guns on Cruisers but not Escorts, and we have played out battles
between swarms and wave gun cruisers and it is quite possible for the cruisers
to suffer less than 50% casualties.

We have discovered that while missile ships of any kind can inflict a lot of
damage they generally can't wipe out an enemy fleet. We have seen volleys
where less than 1 in 3 missiles launched ended up within 6" because the
targeted ships made unexpected maneuvers. They have no staying power.

The other problem they have is that while they have a really big punch, they
aren't going to be terribly efficient. If you are targetting each ship with
enough missiles to get a sure kill you are very likely to waste a lot of fire
power. It would take 2 missiles hits to have near certainty versus an Escort,
but you could easily do double the damage needed to kill the target.

Swarms are effective for two reasons: 1) They can overwhelm the enemy's fire
control, at close ranges when the enemy has enough firepower to reliably kill
any ship within its arc it can still only kill a few ships. If the overkill
value outweighs the benefit the larger ship gets from shields and other
defenses...

2) They are hard to efficiently target with beam weapons.
In the 24"-36" range an A-beam has a 50% chance of killing
a 2 Mass ship, but 3 A-Beams have a 12.5% chance of leaving
it completely intact. Pulse Torpedos and fighters squadrons waste a lot of
potential firepower going against such small targets.

We have discovered at least one way of humbling a pure swarm fleet.

Carriers with nothing but Long Endurance Fighters, launch and leave by FTL.

A 48 Mass Carrier with 4 Long Endurance Squadrons and Thrust 2
costs 368 points.  Mass 2 Kra'Vak with Railgun-1 cost 14 each,
or approximately 26 ships.

The Kra'Vak lose 19 or 20 ships, or 280 points, versus 128 points for the
fighters.

The Kra'Vak can try to stay out of reach of the fighters but that is difficult
if they are protecting an objective. They 'win' by holding the space, but they
come out behind on points.

Given 100% certain knowledge about the composition of an enemy fleet I can
build a fleet of equal points that can consistently beat it, (under certain
engagement conditions).

> John M. Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote:

I'd love to see the com rating rules also. If they are not too long, they can
be posted to the list.

Enjoy,

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:22:48 +1000, "ROBERTSON,Brendan"
> <Brendan.ROBERTSON@EMPLOYMENT.GOV.AU> wrote:

> The FT rulebook suggests a max of 50% points from one ship class, but

For the FT Mailing List game at GenCon last year we restricted each fleet to
1500 points, escorts must outnumber cruisers, cruisers must outnumber capital
ships. Within those constraints, the fleets were fairly well balanced. We also
outlawed Kra'vak weapons.

I guess I'm the culprit. The tournament never actually ran because of lack of
interest and now some mates are trying to get me to run FT at SAGA. Anyway the
fleet composition rules were; No more than 50% on capitals. Each Crusier must
have an escort of frigate size or better Each Capital must have 2 escorts of
destroyer size or better Each Carrier must have 2 escorts (as per capitals)
plus a crusier and it's own escort (ie fleet carrier, escort cruiser, 2
destroyers, frigate) For fleet composition purposes Patrol Carriers and
Privateers are counted as Cruiser class ships (ie patrol carrier and a frigate
are legal, so is a fleet carrier, patrol carrier, 2 destroyers, frigate) The
idea of all this was to get people to build balanced fleets without have to
spell out too many points ratios or limits. "Swarm" fleets are totally
acceptable. I'd love to able to tell you how this all worked in practice but
I'm afraid not. Maybe at SAGA..........

> At 16:51 21/04/98 -0700, you wrote:

> You wrote:

> ships. Within those constraints, the fleets were fairly well balanced.
We also >outlawed Kra'vak weapons.

Curiosity: How would you feel about a human fleet that had a captured refitted
Kra'vak ship with it? Only Kra'vak rules I used were armored
hull-engines were damaged badly and rebuilt to human specs.  It looks
pretty potent for it's size (I've been playing with Patrol Cruiser hull
designs), but I havn't tested it.

> John Atkinson wrote:

John the slightly frustrated pens:

> That would be my "bathtub launcher" concept, from discussion some time

> 1500 points) nothing larger than a Battlecruiser. As far as I'm

It sounds to me like John needs to meet up with Mark Siefert...or John's group
needs to meet Siefert's group...

;-)

Mk

> I try to never let the facts get in the way of a good grudge wrote:

It's not that my group (who has dropped FT for a while to play in a Flintloque
campaign) field a couple of Intergalactic Uberdreadnoughts of Doom. It's that
they field about 10 to 20 Intergalactic Uberdreadnoughts of Doom. Their
response to anyone who objects to fleets composed of 100 Mass, Thrust 8, ships
with 16 A batteries is "Build your own, stop mucking around with such dinky
ships, and stop complaining." (Favorite story: One numbskull got the idea to
mount 50 Kra'Vak scatterpacks on his ship.) In their humble opinion,
traditional fleet composition makes FT a "wet navy game in space rather than a
space game." They lambaste escorts as "popcorn ships." They believe that our
concept of fleet tactics makes FT "too British." (Yes, these are actual
quotes.) When I playtested FTIII with them, they were NOT amused with the
construction rules for the following reasons:

1. The FT II construction rules are "simpler."

2. "They don't allow you to 'back engineer' ships" (a term they use for their
design concept were they purchase a whole bunch of weapons and build the ship
around that).

3. The new rules "make big ships too powerful and small ships too weak."

Yes I've tried to start a new group. Nothing has panned out just yet. I don't
want to advertise it because they're certain people I don't want to join us.

Um I think I should have also said that only Human designs from FT and MT were
allowed. That solves the missile problem. As a counter to your swarm missile
fleet I'd suggest large numbers of scout ships, corvettes or frigates backed
up by a number of capitals mounting A's, AA's, PDAF's and maybe ADAF's (if you
allow them to shoot down missiles.) The capitals take out some with the AA's
before launch as do the escorts which have closed the range. The Swarm now has
to divide it's fire or ignore the escorts which set about blowing them all to
hell. This and lots of PDAF's give the capitals a much better chance to
survive the Swarms single bolt while still taking some out. Once the storm of
missiles has been weathered you clean up or follow them in hyper space and
then clean up the swarm and any
mother/resupply ships about. Your basically looking at fighter combat
where the individual ships have grown in size by a factor of 10. I really
think that a missile swarm fleet is a gimmick that has suprize and novelty
value. Good tactics should defeat it most times.

> At 16:16 22/04/98 -0500, you wrote:

> And that costs a mere 912 points, heh. Out of a 6,000 point fleet[1].

> All the other players whined a lot, but that's just because I waxed 2

> You wrote:

> It's not that my group (who has dropped FT for a while to play

Now, there is nothing wrong with Flintloque. I play Flintloque. Fun game, but
best played slightly intoxicated, and not to be taken seriously.

> complaining." (Favorite story: One numbskull got the idea to mount

We've discussed various ways to 'balance[1]' Kra'Vak ships in our group. The
current prevailing opinion is to make scatterpacks do 1 point of damage, end
of discussion. Plus rail guns do their size class, never double. I'm not real
fond of these ideas, but...

> In their humble opinion, traditional fleet composition makes FT

I don't suppose any of them have read any David Weber? He's more or less the
only SF spacefleet author worth reading, AFAIK. Escorts play a biiiig role in
his universes. Except Mutineer's Moon, where nothing but really fast uberships
run around. Oh, well.

escorts as
> "popcorn ships." They believe that our concept of fleet tactics makes

Too British? Since when did the Brits invent small ships? I thought the
British were the ones who invented Dreadnoughts.

> When I playtested FTIII with them, they were NOT amused with the

FTIII?? What? Where?

> You wrote:

Fine for a tournament, not so good for normal games.

to your swarm >missile fleet I'd suggest large numbers of scout ships,
corvettes or >frigates backed up by a number of capitals mounting A's, AA's,
PDAF's and >maybe ADAF's (if you allow them to shoot down missiles.) The
capitals take >out some with the AA's before launch as do the escorts which
have closed >the range. The Swarm now has to divide it's fire or ignore the
escorts >which set about blowing them all to hell. This and lots of PDAF's
give the >capitals a much better

Here's the problem.

6,000 points, of which a bit over 900 were sucked up by 36 one-shot
missle ships.[1] You rig your entire fleet to smash my missle ships, and I'll
mop you up with the two superdreadnoughts, one dreadnought,
Battlecruiser, half-dozen cruisers, and a lot of conventional escorts.
That's the problem. These guys are so cheap, they are a potent
_auxillary_ to a real fleet.  They won't wipe out your fleet, but
they'll smash enough capital ships to truly unbalance the main fleet
engagement.

I can't imagine anyone with the time or patience to put together 480 of these
bastards for a full 6K fleet of them...

> You wrote:

> Maybe, oh, a CV with 6 fighter groups... That's 18 sure kills on the

6 missles? For the cost of a CV I can pick up a lot of these bastards. Like
for the cost of a book Light Carrier, I can put 19 on the field. And a thrust
8 ship can outrun fighters.

And no, a book Fleet Carrier cannot survive, even with 2 Escort Cruisers next
to it, 18 missles. I've seen one try.

> When I playtested FTIII with them, they were NOT amused with the

Not out yet, won't be for a while. But you can get a good feel for how things
are going when the FleetBook arrives (comes out at the end of the month in the
UK, hopefully very soon afterwards over here across the pond). So don't panic
yet. I'm sure you'll hear more about the FleetBook on the list here as soon as
it's available. And you'll hear more about FTIII when it gets rolling on the
presses.

Mk

> On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:

> Maybe, oh, a CV with 6 fighter groups... That's 18 sure kills on the

Erm, I don't think so. You can't catch a Thr8 "launch&leave" ship with
*anything* under vanilla rules, much less with fighters. (Assuming an even
setup at about sensor range).

They can't hold territory, true, but they make bloody excellent raiders.

Consider if the B-17's had been *totally*invulnerable* to AA and fighter

weapons? Sure, all the bombs wouldn't have hit the pickle barrel, but they
would have kept coming back and back and back...

> In a message dated 98-04-23 11:10:20 EDT, John M. Atkinson writes:

<< don't suppose any of them have read any David Weber? He's more or less the
only SF spacefleet author worth reading, AFAIK. Escorts play a biiiig role in
his universes. Except Mutineer's Moon, where nothing
 but really fast uberships run around.	Oh, well.   >>

In MM? well, I guess you could call a "Sub-Light Battleship" an escort
vessel.....

Randy

> You wrote:

> In MM? well, I guess you could call a "Sub-Light Battleship" an escort

Yeah, but Dahak himself? Mr."I've been Masquerading as half a
double-planet system for the past umpteen gazillion years!"  And he's
just a small planetoid, from the Empire. Let's not think about a Imperium
Planetoid...

> You wrote:

Allow two >rounds of combat before missile launch and there aren't going to be
many of >your ships left. Then my pinprick ships go after your heavies. They
won't

Ummm... Do note that a missle has a launch range of 54 inches. Why
in God's Name would I get close enough for some C-battery-toting ship
to shoot at me?

> Now if you have a house rule that allows PDAF's to attack any

Then what's the point of taking ADAFs? Indeed, what's the point of taking
fighters? At that point you're not playing Full Thrust. You're playing "I HATE
Fighters!" or whatever you call it.

> Allow ECM to degrade chances of a hit, then ADAF's and PDAF's from the

Anyone got some house rules on that put together? I may want to suggest them
to my group, but it helps to have them in writing.

> target ships (vanilla rules) and you can see that not a lot of

Yeah... "If we throw in 3 house rules and assume you're playing like an idiot
by delaying your launch until spit distance". When I used them, I launched at
such long range that I ended up targeting two on a frigate because that was
the only thing the edge of the line could reach. Made a satisfying "puff!"

> capitals. Your swarm fleet is effective at 24" range and if you can

Who told you that?  Missles.   Three turns endurance.  Times 18 inches
movement. I dunno about anyone else, but ships start our games at the same
speed as the thrust of their slowest ship. Which generally is two, unless
you're one of those wierdos that likes pouring money into
your drive systems.  (Which is a mistake--I've gamed against people
with Thrust 6 Battleships.  Just not cost-effective.)  Makes it reaaaly
easy to catch someone with a Turn 2 launch.

> Now no doubt you'll argue that not all of your 6000pts (I have

Yeah. It is. What happens when the subgenius running the game advertises 2K
points per person, five people show up, and the guy running the game hasn't
got the brains to move into the next room and take over that table too. Which
was free. *Sigh* And has yet to come up with scenarios, but wants to start a
campaign. *Sigh* Anyone in
the NoVa/Southern MD area who's free during the days?  I work evenings,
except Monday evenings.  Gamers only, please--if you play the game so
you have an excuse to show off your nifty paint jobs, I hope you die an
agonizing death soon. I spray my ships grey and paint the bases black.
 And that's _IT_.

> the swarm or capitals, that you have escorts and crusiers. But then I

Umm... Four capital ships. No, five. Includes a Carrier. Lots of escorts and
cruisers.

> P.S. It is a neat design and I might just take some with my other

They are only scary if you take a lot of 'em. Three or four would be a joke.
My rule of thumb is 6 per 1K points.

> John Atkinson wrote:

Ah; you're the first group I've heard of that actually starts so slow. It
definately depends on the size of your playing surface,
but most games I've played usually start at speeds 8-12.  I've
started as low as 6 when I played on a really small table, but I tend to keep
speeds high. (I've heard 'Speed is Life' too many
times.  (8-) )

Once ships start going really fast (16-24), missiles and fighters
become a lot harder to use, because of their limited speed. And on really big
tables, I've heard of AVERAGE speeds around the 24 mark, which greatly
reduces, if not eliminates, the threat fighters and missiles have.

Just goes to show how hard it is to balance scenarios.  (8-)

J.

> capitals. Your swarm fleet is effective at 24" range and if you can

> easy to catch someone with a Turn 2 launch.

You guys start games at speed 2?? Wow...we generally start out somewhere
around 8-12, give or take a few depending on the scenario.

And I dunno about that not-cost-effective Thrust 6 battleship. I had my
head
handed to me once against someone who fielded high-thrust battleships. I
ended up pulling a tactic I think is cheesy and don't like much and played
'gun turret in space' just to hit him as he ran circles around me. Now they
may
not be cost-effective for getting lots of firepower out there, but they
can run circles around you, and if they get behind...

Mk

> 6,000 points, of which a bit over 900 were sucked up by 36 one-shot

> That's the problem. These guys are so cheap, they are a potent

> these bastards for a full 6K fleet of them . . .

I think you miss the point. For say 900pts out of 6000pts, I get virtually he
same number of scout ships and almost twice as many couriers (standard FT
ships) whose main job is to kill your swarm ships who have only 2 damage
points with the 1st hit causing threshold rolls if not blowing it out of the
sky (space). Using just scouts, and assuming only 1 round of firing, I
should kill 1/3 of your swarm and cripple 1/6 of what remains before
launch (and this is not counting the damage down by the supporting capitals).
If I
take all couriers then the odds are good that they will account for 2/3
of your swarm before launch plus missiles loses to threshold checks. Allow two
rounds of combat before missile launch and there aren't going to be many of
your ships left. Then my pinprick ships go after your heavies. They won't do a
lot of damage in a single turn but there are lots of them and the damage adds
up. And they can make an infinite number of attacks (provided they survive).
Death by a thuosand cuts! Now if you have a house rule that allows PDAF's to
attack any target in
range, then 1/6 (more if there is doubling up which there will be but
let's keep it simple) of the missiles launched will be shot down, if using
scout ships which makes them my preferred choice, before the heavies open up.
Allow ECM to degrade chances of a hit, then ADAF's and PDAF's from the target
ships (vanilla rules) and you can see that not a lot of missiles are going to
get through. And we still haven't considered the contribution of the
supporting capitals to the fight between the swarms, which if your keeping
your capitals up and truly are supporting the swarm won't make that much of a
difference overall. If fact I'm better off hanging back with the capitals.
Your swarm fleet is effective at 24" range and if you can get there intact
(take losses only in the turn that you reach that range) then my dreads are
pretty much dead. If you have to fight my swarm twice, plus have the capitals
take the odd shot at you, In fact it this senario you'll be luck to get more
than 2 missiles away. Not much of a problem. For the missile swarm to be
effective it has to close to 24" without taking many losses, it can't afford
them. Now no doubt you'll argue that not all of your 6000pts (I have assumed
that you meant 6000pts a side which is really HUGE game) has been spent on the
swarm or capitals, that you have escorts and crusiers. But then I haven't
spent all my points on scout ships and capitals either and low and
behold.........
......we've both created balanced fleets which is exactly what your sample
fleet, given above, is.

> At 00:12 24/04/98 -0500, you wrote:
<snip>
> Ummm. . . Do note that a missle has a launch range of 54 inches. Why
<snip> Because I don't let you get way. The idea of the scout ship swarm is to
close on the missile swarm. Beisdes from my experience missiles launched at
54" tend to be out 6" attack range at the end of 3 turns. Will admit that this
is less likely with only thrust 2 ships but it is still there. Mass launch of
missiles will always be a very nasty tactic for those on the recieving end,
but if you can survive it realativily intact good tactics will defeat a feet
based on this tactic.

<snip>
> Now if you have a house rule that allows PDAF's to attack any
<snip>

Yeah I know, but it's the way most people I play with are happy with. As a
counter (but as yet untested) we've come up with (and everyone accepts) is a
Wild Weasel defence supression fighter which I just posted under "Targeting
missiles" which you should have already. The point of taking ADAF's is the
range. By the way I'm getting your replys pretty quick. I'm at home working on
my thesis (when not discussing tactics) so I'm jsut at my computer and
checking email when bored. If you don't mind my asking what are you doing?

> You wrote:

> You guys start games at speed 2?? Wow...we generally start out

Well, we have a limited size playing field, and generally a lot of
ships on the field.  Remember what I mentioned--12K points on a small
board is FULL.

> You wrote:

> thesis (when not discussing tactics) so I'm jsut at my computer and

I work evenings, so during the day I'm doing laundry, painting, and
playing around on the internet.  Also check e-mail after work.  :)

> You guys start games at speed 2?? Wow...we generally start out

Yah, thaz true....soooo....smaller fleets?  :-}   Can't increase an
already limited playing field unless you change the scale a bit (cm instead of
in)

Mk

> Tony Wilkinson wrote: