Re: (FT) Re: simple sensors, using centimeters
From: Roger Books <books@m...>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: (FT) Re: simple sensors, using centimeters
On 2-May-00 at 09:14, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:
> > > >Range (Info): 24" 48" 72" 96" 120"
> > > >Class 0 Passive All MASS Bogey None None
> > > >Class 0 Active All All MASS Bogey None
> > >
> > > I think the ranges are too great. What's the point of a Bogey if
> > > by the time ships got within firing range you knew what is or
isn't
> > > a false ship reading?
> >
> > I'll field this one. These ranges are entirely appropriate if
> > you are playing on an artificially small playing area. If your
> > playing area is large either because you are doing PBeM or
> > you are playing centimeters (or your table is very large) these
> > ranges give the required tactal uncertanty needed. Play a game
> > where the lowest speed is 30 and you will have a whole new take
> > on the game.
> >
> > Roger (a convert)
>
> What tactical uncertainty? You're going to know everything about
> the enemy before getting within firing range. We play on a large
> table but rarely does many ships get up to speed 30. We have fun
> with the sensor rolls vs jamming, especially when someone
> is trying to sneak in a needle beam or wave gun armed ship into
> the fray.
It's OK to learn about what your enemy has when you are committed
and it is too late to change your plan.
Roger