Re: Announcing

Paul Radford wrote:

>>General questions/comments:
>>
>>* Which movement system is used - Vector or Cinematic?
> 
>Cinematic. Can't believe i overlooked that major point!

<g>
 
>> * How big are the gaming tables?
> 
>Unknown. Not seen them myself until Gencon UK.

 
>>* "Measuring the distance between ships will be allowed after a ship
>>has declared its intention to to fire, but not before." 
>>This is a rule I personally find rather... strange (to use a non-
>>offensive word) if you assume modern tracking equipment; but it
>>might be necessary to keep the game time down <shrug>
> 
>It has been known for players to have rules which 
>specify that players must declare actual targets before 
>measuring their distance rather than declaring which 
>ship is going to fire.

This was actually what I thought you meant :-/ Glad to see you didn't
<g>

>Thats the difference i am trying to make. It might just be worded
badly.

Could be clearer, yes.

>>Fleet Action-specific questions/comments:
>>
>>* I note you copied Allan Goodall's human fleets straight off, warts
>>(or rather mis-spellings) and all <g> Take another look at the names
>>of the NAC CHs and the NSL BBs, will you?
> 
>They were copied, with Allan's permission of course! 

I know; the web page says so. It was just such an obvious case of
copy'n'paste <g>

>>* If Phalon fleets are used in the Fleet Action tournament, when and
>>by whom are the Pulser configurations determined?
> 
>Good point. By players at the start of the game, as it 
>says in FB2. They may be reconfigured in subsequent 
>tournament rounds.

Good. Probably worth pointing this out in the tournament rules though.
I assume FSE magazine load-outs would be determined in the same manner
too?
 
>>* In the Phalon Carrier fleet, the Tuuloth-class Warrior is listed as
a
>>"BC". While I agree that its NPV (and combat power) are closer to
>>most human BCs than to their CHs, its listed "Human Class 
>>Equivalent" in FB2 is "CH", not "BC".
> 
> My mistake. I must have misread it.

Or typed too fast, or something <shrug>

>>* Should the abbreviation for "Phalon Conglomerate" really be
>>identical to the one for "Politically Correct"..?
> 
>Errrm true. Any alternate suggestions?

I use PHC instead (actually PhC, but in English-speaking countries this
may annoy certain PhDs <g>). Alternatively you could make a TLA of the
name of the fleet instead (PAT, for Phey-Aaksha-Tath'a), or something 
:-/
 
>>* The Kra'Vak Carrier fleet is worth 1514 points, not 
>>1494. (The NPV for the Do'San CVL given in FB2 is wrong; it should 
>>be 691 rather than 671.)
> 
>I'd missed that one.

So did I during the FB2 proofreading :-(

>>* Why don't the NSL or ESU have any Carrier fleet options in the
Fleet
>>Action tournament?
> 
>ESU will have, when the changes are uploaded!

Good.
 
>NSL do not have an offical CVL i.e. in FB1.

No, but their full-sized CV carries as small a strike group (4
squadrons) as the CVLs of the other powers.

I see what Dean means about the victory conditions (a von Tegetthoff
with all its four squadrons costs 809 points, or 54% of the fleet
composition I suggested), but since you seem to count the fighters
separately such an NSL carrier fleet is only marginally more unbalanced
than the Sa'Vasku fleet 1 where the Vas'Sa'Rosh is represents 48.6% of
the total fleet points value. (The Tegetthoff without its fighters is
49.1% of the fleet I suggested.). You may want to reconsider the SV SDN
fleet fleet to avoid this problem.

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry