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

At 02:30 PM 9/17/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>> >I figure I am just
>>> >missing the rules somewhere. Therefore I will tackle what I see to
be the
>>> >big problem - beam batteries. I believe that there needs to be
system of
>>> >anti-beam defense.
>>>
>>> Ummm...there are: screens (level-1 and level-2). These reduce the
>>effectiveness
>>> of beams fairly well.
>>
>>Yes, but there exists no way for escort vessels to provide some
measure of
>>beam defense for their charges.
>
>Nope, you're right, there doesn't. And actually, I think that's fine
and
>as it should be. If you want to draw on contemporary analogies of wet
>navy-ness, there existed no way for escorts to stop inbound shelling of
>gun rounds on their charges, either (I think it can be kinda sorta done
>now, but I'm not all familiar with the interactive details of
interception
>capabilities of our Navy; most of my knowledge comes from either my
brother
>who is in the Navy, or from a Harpoon game I played 7 years ago, in
which
>the scenario was to take place in the near future...er, in 1999,
actually!
>the americans were shelling the Russian ships with their big-@$$ guns
on
>the battleships, and we were using our SAMs to try and deflect the
paths
>of the shells - but this is getting a little escoteric and drifting off
>topic :).
>
>If you want to draw on 'established' science fiction analogies, there
has
>been no demonstration (short of physically interposing ships) of a
capability
>to stop beam fire (be it lasers, blasters, phasers, etc) from one ship
to
>another. So, I'm happy with the beam rules as they stand. :)
>
>Mk

Also, one thing that is overlooked when setting up a Convoy Mission
scenario in Full Thrust is the ability to "balance" the scenario by
fiddling with the victory conditions.  Since most scenarios are stand
alone
situations as far as logistics are concerned, the attacking player is
normally free to expend most if not all of his/her forces in order to
achieve the end result - the distruction of the convoyed ships.  In a
balanced force, stand-alone scenario, this is almost impossible to
prevent.

However, most "for real" convoy raiders played in a larger context, and
the
conservation of their own attack force was usually considered paramount.
For example, the Axis submarine attacks in WW2 in the Atlantic Theatre
were
mostly carried out against *unescorted convoys*.  They would - for the
most
part - avoid escorted convoys if at all possible.

One way to reflect this in a Full Thrust scenario is to set "acceptable
damage" limits on the attacking force as part of the victory conditions.
The attacking force would then be faced with the additional requirement
of
not taking too much damage in executing their attacks, otherwise they
can
*lose* the scenario even though they managed to destroy the escorted
ships.

Another way to balance the scenario is to use the MT boarding rules and
require that the attacking party *capture* part of the convoy, instead
of
simply blowing everything up.  This makes for a very fun game.

I think that this approach is much preferable than trying to tinker with
the weaponry and shielding rules, which work really well they way they
are
currently designed.  Just my 2 Deutchmarks <g>.

============================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
 email: hauptman@sfcmd.com
 StarFighter Command Homepage: http://www.sfcmd.com/
============================================================