Re: B5-3 Aft

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 6:57 AM
Subject: B5-3 Aft

> Oerjan wrote:
> TMF 61
> NPV 209
> Hull integrity 6 (Fragile)
> Thrust-8
> FTL
> FCS
> 1x B5-3 (AP/A/AS)

> Ummm...if the Kra' vak just keep behind it and accelerate, it will
have to
> spend at least 3 out of 4 of its turns accelerating to stay ahead,
thus
> meaning it would only be able to fire one turn in 4. If it does turn
to
> bring the AP or AS arcs to bear this will give the kra'vak
opportunities
to
> cut the "corner" and close the range slightly, thus forcing it to
waste
> another turn accelerating to stay ahead. On the other hand I may have
missed
> something obvious here, in which case never mind.

On a floating table, yeah, you're missing something obvious.  The thing
has
25%
more thrust than the fastest Kra'Vak ship in the book, and it's got
twice
their
range on its weapons.  On a large, floating table, any turn where it
uses
its full
maneuverability can easily be balanced out the next by applying full
thrust,
thus
getting 4 thrust one turn and 8 the next to equal the 6 and 6 the
fastest
Kra'Vak
ships can get.	The added turn ability of the Kra'Vak won't do them much
good,
since it'll be speed and range, and not maneuverability, that will
decide
the battle.

However, there are a great many assumptions in play that stretch (my)
suspension
of disbelief in the viability of such a craft.

1.  For the actual game itself, you need a floating table with a large
area
for this
tactic to work.

2.  Moreover, you also need a strategic environment in which it is
assumed
that
the Kra'Vak have no choice in the war but to chase these things down in
deep
space.

It's this latter case that is most damning to me.  The large floating
table
is a matter
of taste -- I don't like to use them myself, but there are those who do.
The main
problem I have with designs that take this sort of methodology is that
it's
completely
and utterly incapable of defending a fixed point in space, such as an
inhabited world.
The only scenario where the idea works is one in which your opponent has
no
option
but to chase you down in deep space, with inferior thrust and shorter
ranged
weapons.

Over a long term strategic view, a starfaring power that devoted any
large
amount of
precious resources to such tactics would find itself in a rather
monumental
pickle as
an enemy figured out ways of conducting the war that didn't require
their
ships to
engage in futile chases through deep space.  This might include taking a
more
relentless offensive against the snipers' homeworlds in order to force
them
to fight in
situations where large portions of their fleet are simply not effective.
 It
also would
probably involve researching longer ranged weapons of their own to refit
their own
defensive installations (making the thrust of the snipers moot).  And,
if
they really
wanted to spend the resources doing so, they'd probably get around to
designing
and building hunter-killer craft of their own that _could_ chase down
and
kill such
snipers at a rather ugly rate of loss.

In the end, fast sniper vessels such as this only really work in a lark
where you're
assuming a great many things that don't make a lot of sense, or in
special
situations
such as commerce raiding where you're not going to devote any large
amount
of
resources to it, and where you're prepared to refit the vessels with
more
sound
armaments once your enemy stops being stupid and develops a
countermeasure.
It wins one-off games where you don't think a little outside the box and
project a
few military objectives that would otherwise rein in the impulse to
devote
precious
resources to building such vessels.

E
(aka Stilt Man)