Re: "Custom" fleets

> Noam:

> I'd written out a nice elaborate argument explaining why, on the
fixed-edge
> table that the Full Thrust rules so obviously assume as the norm, the
> keepaway beam-6 BC's wouldn't be as broadly sound as the dreadplanet,
before
> a pretty stupid and simple mod occurred to me:  Reflex field.

Too easy. I wouldn't fire at you with the field on, and wouldn't let you
fire at me with my distance. If the field turns off for any reason, I
plink
it. If you advance on me, I back off. Heck even on a fixed table I could
handle it with my thrust 4 to your 1. FT was designed for flexibility,
not
for fixed or floating tables. Only that much is obvious to me.

> Your ships can take about half as much damage getting reflected back
as
mine
> can of what gets through.  If you're a starfaring power relying on
them,
your
> enslavement by the Hierarchy would take about as long as a refit,
regardless
> of whether we were playing on a fixed or floating edged table.

Rock, paper, scissors. You think I'd throw the same fleet at a reflex
field?
(BTW, I have yet to see the reflex field, and cloak, for that matter
convincingly balanced for FT2.5). I'd probably have to juggle stuff
around
to make a needle strike ship that would survive just long enough to take
out
the field. But I'm not going to work too hard on it, because Laserlight
had
a better idea:

Laserlight :
>> That's a genre weapon, not a standard one.  If you take that,
>> then Noam'll take a Wave Gun or Nova Cannon and kill your
>> fighters with it.

Stilt:
> Pretty difficult to do this, really... with the extra fighter moves
it's
not
> too hard to stay out of a supergun's reach.

Forget that. Keep all the PDS, replace One or two of the Beam-6's with
Novas. Nova until the Reflex Field thresholds away, then Nova+Beam until
the
planet falls. Wonderful, Laserlight.

> Incidentally, we play cinematic on a fixed edge... which makes this
tactic
> pretty unsound right there.  I honestly don't understand why anyone
would
> _want_ to play on a floating-edge table... it's basically _asking_ for
people
> to bore you to death with keepaway.

Aside from a fixed edge being an entirely artificial limitation in a
space
game, here's four reasons not to play fixed (take a 100x100 field as an
example): 1) Edge crawlers, 2) Corner squatters, 3) Behemoths/fleets
with
kill zones that fill 10-20% of the entire playing field, 4) Snipers that
can
cover 80% of the playing field at all times.

Laser:
> Your star system has edges?

Stilt:
> Not a relevant argument.  If you play floating edge, you're _still_
asking
> for people to bore you to death with keepaway.  The game's designed so
that
> class 3 beams are the largest cost-effective beam weapon and to be
fun...

Feh. "cost-effective" has real meaning here. You want long range fire,
you
a) pay for it and b) risk losing quick to anyone who can claw their way
close and quick for a knife fight. That b) option is one of the main
weaknesses of the Beam-6 fleet.

> Floating edges disturb that intent, to no real game-related end (IMHO)
but
to
> allow someone to get a fast ship with a class 86 beam so that he can
keep
out
> of your reach and sling insults at you from the next galaxy. 

If you want any kind of campaign continuity, that single class 86 beam
is
3.9x10^25 mass and 1.2x10^26 points in cost. THat's about 10^5 times
more
mass than planet earth (assuming 1 mass= 1000kg).  I was going to say
that
you could simply avoid the starsystem it was stationed in (It can't
move,
since FTL would cost a minimum of 3.9x10^24 mass (~660 Earths)/
7.8x10^24
points, and thrust 1 would cost ~2x10^24 mass (~330 Earths) /4x10^24
points.
Assuming you've used all the mass in your solar system for the weapon
itself, it's got one arc and no spinning capability. So I waltz up the
blind
side with a Needle corvette and cripple it within a couple turns. Sorry.
I
couldn't help but get carried away on that, but it does nicely
illustrate
(in the extreme) the cost effectiveness of large weapons.

> Sure, it might
> be a bit more realistic (as is vector movement) for those of you that
are
> hardcore B5-niks, but it's still boring as all heck.

A fixed map is almost a moot point vs. a thrust 1 ship anyway, unless he
starts at the edge (which you do in your standard setup, see below).
Fighting a spinner seems boring to me. One can only play so many "attack
the
starbase" games before wanting something else. Different folks,
different
tastes. For some, better realism makes better games.

> We simply don't have people deliberately try to abuse the borders.

Perhaps not, but your starting conditions play right into the hands of a
big
spinner. You said you start ~70" apart 15-20" from the edges. For a
spinner
with 24" range weapons that _is_ sitting on the edge. Anything between
the
spinner and the far edge is a kill zone, effectively cutting off 25-50%
of
possible attack vectors for opposing ships (depending on how wide your
table
is).

>  We may
> enforce an edge, but we do so because we expect people to stay near
the
middle
> and fight.

Again, that may not be a deliberate abuse, but the very expectation
opposes
maneuver-heavy tactics. The fact your wife took a KV fleet straight down
your throat illustrates that your play group either does not know how,
or
chooses not to use maneuver in a fight. I'm not sure why highly
maneuverable
ships and tactics seem inherently ridiculous to you.

> On the other hand, I've seen both Oerjan and Noam suggest with a
straight
face
> that someone make a strategy out of using a long-range beam and abuse
the
> floating edge to ping away at people.

Semantics, semantics. I call it taking advantage of the space.
Conversely,
as pointed out above, spining dreadplanet 20" (even 30") away from one
edge
is effectively an abuse of the fixed edge.

As a side note:
| Laserlight:
| >> On the other hand, I've seen you suggest with a straight face
| >>  that "space has an edge".
|
| Stilt:
| > Hey, dude, watch your tone here.  We're all friends here...
supposedly.
|
| Me:
| Laser's tone seems pretty identical to that of your barb at Oerjan and
me.
| I took both in the same lighthearted spirit. I hope I did not err.

> You don't have to like it.  It's prohibitively unlikely that you'll
ever
have
> to play under it.  But it's the way we play, and _we_ like it.  

Heh. Your Brother-in-law _likes_ losing 99% of the time to house rules
that
cripple tactics he may excel at if he ever got the chance? 8-/

>From Oerjan:
> Put it like this: my then-local opponents stopped using such tactics
> about half a year after FB1 was published, and designs like the ones
> Noam describes, because I consistently beat them with far more
> "standardized" (FB1 published style) designs. The extreme-range human
> beam weapons are a possible counter-design to your effectively
immobile
> dreadstar-from-hell, but they're a very far cry from "unbeatable" on
> the floating tables.

Bingo. A fast ESU or NAC fleet would likely take the Beam-6 fleet in a
standup fight (FSE less likely, since fast speeds and PDS could
avoid/netralize the heavy SM armament, but I could be wrong. NSL less
likely
becuase they don't have the speed). I'd do my best to make it painful,
but
once the distance closes, my ships would fall fast. Another thought -
for
the SV it would be a cakewalk. They could generate the same or better
beam
strength, and have more biomass/carapace to back it up.

'Course as Oerjan said, the initial excercise (killing the dreadplanet)
could be accomplished by a single Kormarov and other standard FB1 ships.

Man, I'd love to play Oerjan sometime (actually, quite a few sometimes).
I'd
probably learn alot from the pastings I'd get.

Noam