Prev: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval [CLEAN STAMP] Next: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval (Correction)

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

From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@d...>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:52:22 -0400
Subject: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval

I agree. I see two ways to change this. 1) Force the attacking ships to
concentrate some firepower to the protecting/screening ships -or- 2)
Raise
the withdraw threshold for the attacker.

1) Drawing Fire
Awhile ago I came up with the following rules for drawing fire:
The following optional rules are designed to allow ships to draw fire
away
from something that they are guarding. 
	* Any ship that has not fired and is hit (including hits to
screen(s) or armor) must commit 1 of its fire controls and one to attack
the
ship that hit it. If hit by multiple ships, it must commit one FCS to
each
ship that hit it.
	* If all ships that attacked it are invalid targets (not in a
valid
firing arc or out of range) the ship must commit a fire control and
weapon
to a ship that fired on it (even if it missed). 
	* The weapon committed must have the ability to hit the ships
that
damaged it. That is, the damaged ship may not commit a weapon that does
not
point at the attackers or a weapon that does not have the range to hit
the
attackers. 
	* The attacked ship does not have to commit more fire controls
than
there are valid attackers. 
	Attacks from independent weapons (fighters, missiles, mines, &
Nova
Cannon) do NOT force commitment a firecon to the ship that launched the
weapon. 

2) Raised Withdraw Thresholds
When an attacker makes a threshold check, that ship must make a
confidence
check or withdraw.
1st Threshold: Roll 3+
2nd Threshold: Roll 5+
3rd Threshold: Roll 6

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	
http://fly.to/fullthrust       
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom McCarthy [SMTP:tmcarth@fox.nstn.ca]
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 9:00 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	[FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval
> 
[snip]

> n 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: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval [CLEAN STAMP] Next: RE: [FT] Vector vs. cinematic; air vs. naval (Correction)