Re: [FT] FB2 Balancing Corrections Proposed

Alan Brain wrote:

>>I still don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think
>>Brendan is reacting to the Phalon weapons just like the general FT
>>community reacted to the SMs two years ago - ie., with an temporary
>>bout of panic before proper counter-tactics have been worked out.
> 
>We shall see on this one. I agree that we should wait, but think a bit
of
>playtesting wouldn't do any harm.

Playtesting on *very* small tables, yes.
 
>Thanks for the details of your long and very informative post BTW.
>The bits I found particularly interesting were:
 
>>I fought four playtest battles with all-C fleets, two each in July
and
>>October. What happened was that the non-C ships managed to stay
>>outside the Pulser-C range until the all-C force was reduced to a
>>managable size and finished them off after taking some losses.
> 
>>OK. In my experience (ie., with higher speeds and more space in
>>which to maneuver) the all-round arc alone doesn't compensate for
>>the 12mu range even when the enemy doesn't deliberately keep the
>>range open. If the enemy *does* try to keep the range open, I'd fully
>>expect you to lose about one-third of your fleet before you can fire
a >>single shot.
> 
>>Note that the NAC now have *more* close-range
>>dice than the Phalons at all ranges, after only one turn of shooting
in
>>the 12-24mu bracket.
> 
>This is very much contrary to my own experience. I've found that
>closing the range to 12" is not that difficult. What _is_ difficult is
doing it >without overshooting the target, and getting in the rear side
arcs for >both, or worse he's in your rear side, you're in his front
side. Often you >go straight from 25" to 11".

Unless your opponent expects you to try it, and does something about
it. He needs to plan a turn or two in advance to pull it off, though.

>Maybe I've been playing KV too long :-)

Or you're playing on a very small table, or against an opponent who
isn't used to deliberately staying away :-/

>>Question: Does anyone on the list know how large tables the CanCon
>>FT competition uses? (Since Brendan Pratt is one of the organizers
>>for that tournament, and it is his testimony which worries Alan :-/ )
> 
>6ft x 4ft

72x48mu, since they don't measure in cm AFAIK - and also AFAIK they
don't use floating edges. A single 3-arc Class-2 battery covers over a
quarter of that table... doesn't exactly promote maneuvering, and
maneuver is exactly what you have to do to defeat the Phalons. OK, I
see why they have problems.

My recent NAC/PHC battle featured 1500-pt fleets on a 96x60mu table,
ie. just over half the size of their largest fleets on a table 67%
larger than theirs - and for us, even that was rather cramped :-/

>Forces:
>Attack 2750 pts, no more than 50% capitals
>Defence 1800 pts, no more than 50% capitals
>Patrol: 1200 pts, no capitals
> 
>VPs = No of opponents crew factors killed

They'll need to change that to something related to the points value of
the destroyed enemy. Phalon and Kra'Vak forces of a given points value
usually has only 80-90% as many crew factors as a human fleet of the
same points value, and the Sa'Vasku don't have any crew factors at all.

>Normally, there'd be 2 Attack vs Attack "No retreat, No surrender",
>2 Attack vs Defence + Base Station, 1 Defence vs Defence in Nebula >or
Asteroid field, 1 Patrol vs Patrol, 2 Patrol vs Patrol + Convoy, and
>one or two others (eg Have to deliver supplies in Orbit)

Thanks for the info,

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