Prev: Re: Roughnecks Next: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval

RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval [CLEAN STAMP]

From: "Rick Rutherford" <rick@e...>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:42:48 -0400
Subject: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval [CLEAN STAMP]

Tom McCarthy wrote:
> ...snip...
> 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).

I know what you mean -- I've played the same kind of scenarios, with the
same kind of results. I think the only way to preserve the unarmed
convoy
is to set up the scenario such that the convoy are off the board, and
the goal of the attacker is to get past the defender with as little
damage as possible.

Of course, if the attacker screams past the defenders at ever-increasing
velocity, then once they reach their targets they'll only get one or two
shots before they're out of range again.

An interesting goal for the attacker could be:
1) Exit the board opposite the edge you entered, and
2) Your maximum velocity when leaving the board must be 12 or less.

--
Rick Rutherford
I apologize in advance for any junk appended to this message
by the mail server.

========================================================================
======
09/17/99 09:42:50

[INFO] -- Virus Manager:
This email message and any attachments were scanned by the WorldSecure
Server that protects Electronic Systems and itÂ’s customers. No Viruses
were detected in this message.

========================================================================
======

Prev: Re: Roughnecks Next: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval