RE: MT missiles

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 15:45
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: MT missiles

Brian Bell wrote:

>Unlike Oerjan, I use vector (not for missiles or fighters), inch
scale, and
>usually fixed table edges (because of lack of room to do floating
>edges).

Uh... "lack of room" is the *reason* for using floating table edges -
ie, the practise of relocating all models by the same vector whenever
some of them threaten to leave the table.

If you have enough room, you don't *need* to use floating edges...
 
[snip]
-----End Original Message-----

I have tried a floating table 3 times. All 3 times one of the forces 
split to both right and left off the table (by at least 2 table 
widths each). 

The first time a force tried to do a pincher maneuver (main body 
center and flanking forces split left and right). We had TV trays
(small 1x2' trays) that we used to place the one group on, but the
other side was far into the near wall. We could not shift the 
table or the main body off the main table. So we ended up having
to estimate where the one force was. It was not a very enjoyable game.

The second time was a "catch the blockade runner" game. We were 
chasing the group of trespassing ships when they split at 90 degree
angles to each other (45 degrees from the original path. The longer 
we played the farther they got apart. We decided to do one group and 
then the other. After another couple of turns the trespasser group
turned back at about 90 degres toward the original path. At this 
time he stated that the other group was doing the same. We then played
out the other group the same number of turns. While both groups were
honorable and did not try to take advantage of the situation (of 
knowing what the group was going to turn back toward the other group)
they also did not put themselves in what would be a bad situation
either. The groups came back together and combined firepower on
the pursuers and managed to escape. Could have been fun, but as it
was, you were always 2nd guessing youself to try to be fair.

The third time was with someone who was very picky about where ships
were placed when floating the table. But this person insisted on
constantly moving off and back on the table (forcing constant shifting
of the fleets). This REALLY slowed down the game (as he left the
table about every other turn). After several hours of complaints about 
placement, (and even allowing him to shift my fleet), I sacrificed my 
ships rather than submit to more whining.

This is why I stated that I don't have room to play with floating
tables.
I would really have to have portable tables (as I did for the first
game) and room to place and move them. Even then, you need to play with
someone who is willing to say "close enough" when plotting from a
portable table to where you will move the portable table after movement. 

Now someone will suggest using the floor. A fair alternative, but many
of the people that I play with (at home) are getting to old to 
comfortably use the floor. And doing it at the gaming store is inviting
trouble as someone is sure to walk through your battle and crush a
ship or two (while looking at the merchandise).

Someone else will suggest cm scale. I have tried this too, but found
that to get within Class-2 range placed a lot of ships within 1' of
each other and ADAF ships could not be placed on the board. They had
to have some marker placed for them. Take any 3 GZG heavy cruisers
and 2 frigates and place them 3cm apart in a row without them touching
each other. I could not do it except with NSL.

If I sound like I am griping or whining, please forgive me. That is not
my intention. I am just explaining why we usually use a fixed table.
I can usually play with anyone except someone who would rather win
than have fun.

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net> 
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
---