Re: Game 796

[laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> from 12 MU to 10 vs. stealth 1, and to 8 vs. stealth 2. (And torps
> for 6 to 5 and 4, respectively). I also argue that thinking in terms
> of range bands is _easier_ than thinking in terms of modifying
> "effective range"

It may be easier for you, but it's not for me.

> I disagree. At range 11 you're in B2 range against both a standard
> hull and stealth 2. But you're in RB1 vs. standard, and RB2 vs
> stealth. You still have to know your range bands. If you insist on
> making the effective range by multiplying the stealth factor, first
> you end up with a decimal range (16.5) and you _still_ have to know
> your range bands.

You have to know the RB's for *standard weapons vs standard targets*.

> I admit that a single number for "effective range" is more economical
graphically. However, 1) adding the "out of range" flag for stealth
affected systems is probably more important

No, because it's not just "out of range" that's important, it's also the
range bands.

> 3) modifying the range number is potentially additionally
> misleading

Okay, that's a good point.  And there may eventually be direct-fire
weapons which don't care about stealth.

Jon, how about modify the weapons targeting process so it shows "Effective
/ Actual" range?  So a Stealth-1 ship would show as "21E/18A".