Prev: Insane modelling materials Next: Re: Insane modellers (and another GZG...)

Re: Fleet structure

From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@t...>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:32:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Fleet structure

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@hyperbear.com>

> Note that the More Thrust cloaking rules has a very serious problem:
the
> cloaked ship does _not_ get any kind of feedback as to whether or not
he
made
> an error in his orders. I played them and my opponent made a simple
error
on
> the first turn: he wrote an "S" for starboard instead of a "P" for
port.
The
> rest of his cloaked maneuvers were based on that error. When he
decloaked
and
> moved his ships, he found he was nowhere near where he thought he was.
His
> fleet was pretty much toasted. The cost of the cloak was seriously
over
priced
> for what he got, and probably even if he hadn't made the mistake.

There are advantages and disadvantages to cloaking.  Yes, you can't see
your
opponent any more than they can see you, and the cloaking equipment is
expensive enough in mass and cost that you're going to be giving up a
firepower advantage in exchange for the stealth.  This disadvantage is
significant, and in the case of carrier vs. carrier battles, pretty much
insurmountable, since fighter superiority is the most important facet of
those battles.	So it's definitely not for novices, and to some it may
seem
like it's even a negative asset to be able to cloak, since the cloaking
player is just as much in the dark about where his enemy is going to be
at
the end of the cloaking maneuver as the enemy will be about him.

But that assessment overlooks a rather major thing:  it is the cloaking
player, and not his enemy, who gets to choose whether he wants to engage
from the position he finds himself in when he comes out of cloak.  Even
a
simple thing like being able to cover weak firing arcs by simply
cloaking
yourself while you turn around can go a long way if you use it
effectively.

E
(aka Stilt Man)

Prev: Insane modelling materials Next: Re: Insane modellers (and another GZG...)