Prev: Re: Roughnecks Next: Re: Roughnecks

[FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval

From: "Tom McCarthy" <tmcarth@f...>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:00:27 -0400
Subject: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval

Last night we played a convoy attack / defense scenario with NAC on the
defense and ESU attacking.  We used vector movement.

It reinforced a couple of things.

Relatively speaking, when comparing guns to thrust, I'd rather have
thrust 6
in cinematic and I'd rather have thrust 4 in vector.  It comes down to
making the most of small arc weapons and avoiding enemy firepower.

Limited fire arc weapons usually focus the brunt of the firepower
straight
ahead.	In cinematic, that means you want to point your nose at the
enemy,
so you want to turn toward the enemy.  Being out of position means being
unable to bring your nose to bear.  In vector, 1 point of thrust turns
your
nose to any heading, and if you're chasing / intercepting the enemy (as
opposed to head on engagement), it's also the direction you wish to
thrust
so the 1 rotation per turn limitation is not a serious problem.  In
cinematic, I'd flank and attack a low thrust target because the extra
thrust
let me face the weaker broadsides.  In vector, I can be perpendicular to
his
velocity vector, but he'll still turn his heavy nose armament at me...

In convoy defense, I find myself revisiting the argument of whether FT
is
closer to an air or naval model.  In the air model, defenders detect
attackers with sufficient time to engage them beyond their maximum
attack
range, and must destroy them before they reach attack range.  The air
model
also features primarily weapons with limited arcs that kill with a
single
lock-on, so the attacker can actually be pinned or distracted by
attackers
without either being destroyed.  The naval model, on the other hand,
allows
properly placed escorts to physically interpose themselves and support
with
counter-measures and area defence, effectively blocking or degrading the
shot at the target.  Also in naval, the attacker can be threatened by
flanking forces and be distracted from the attack.

In FT, I find the convoy defender usually lacks the advantages of either
of
these models and this is exaggerated in vector.  Specifically, the games
usually start with the convoy and defenders close and the attackers no
more
than 2 turns outside of engagement range.  The attackers can usually
mete
out punishment to the convoy and defenders as they choose, because
there's
few ways to block or degrade shots at the freighters or civilian
shipping
and the attackers usually don't have the same consideration attacking
naval
and air craft have (that they are becoming more exposed by commiting to
the
attack).  The only way to deter the enemy from flying right at the
target is
to use area effect weapons like e-mines, SMLs, and nova cannons, and in
vector this main not prevent them from using their best weapons (as
explained above).

I find myself wishing for a better model for convoy defense, like not
having
the target ships on the board (like the air model) or some model for
escorts
to actively protect the targets (like the naval model).

Prev: Re: Roughnecks Next: Re: Roughnecks