Re: Two AARs--John Atkinson vs Laserlight

Beth Fulton wrote:

> >Lesson 2: "You can't avoid being in the F arc of a Kra'Vak
> >ship."
> 
> Takes practice but is possible - try flanking moves (another thing
that
> takes prcatice but works very well against the KV).

Nonsense.  They fly merrily along in whatever direction they want, and
will always be facing you unless you are facing an inexperienced player
who's too stupid to guess which general direction you will be in.  Even
then, logic would suggest to face your KV slightly off each other's arc
in order to catch a wider spread.  I run a lot of ships with Pulse
Torps, and very rarely am I out of arc, much less if my facing and
thrust were utterly independant.

> >John suggests the quick and easy modification would be to delete
> >the provision for KV weapons doing double damage.
> 
> Actually I don't think that's necessary, just out of interest were you
> using the new mechanic or the old for dealing double damage?

New.  Where a K5 does 10 points of damage 84% of the time.  Note that to
average that high takes 15 beam dice, which at 12-24 takes 16 mass worth
of beams.  Haha.  That's even.	Or let's compare PTs, which average 3.5
points of damage and have the same range bands and (usually) arc
limitiations.  Gee, that takes an average of 4.6 (or thereabouts, havn't
done the math) to do 10 points of damage.  Five PTs weighs 20 mass. 
Yup.  That's balanced.
 
> Seeings as it rips thru' armour too your best defenses would be longer
> range beams or high manuverability. Keep the sods at range, hit them
from
> both sides and make them use up their scatterpacks needlessly would be
my
> advice.

Scatterpacks are trivial--but I'd like to see you "keep them at range"
with a consistently lower thrust (ie, every fleet in the FB, and most of
the designs I've seen on the net) and less maneuverability.  I'll not
even mention the difficulties which arise when you have scenario
objectives more defined than "kill the bug-eyed monsters."

John M. Atkinson