FT Fleet formations was Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/4/07, Zoe
Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
>
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >> Formations speed things up because there is one set of orders for
the
> >> whole formation.
> > Formation movement in Cinematic FT is quite simple to implement, as
> > long as all players involved agree to accept the ramifications of
it;
> > basically, just write move orders for the one ship in the formation,
> > and then move the others to maintain the formation pattern. The
> > problems with this are, of course, that whichever ship you choose to
> > plot for, some of the others will be exceeding the limits of the
> > normal movement system - say you have a line-abreast formation and
you
> > plot on the middle ship, then if the formation turns, the "outer"
ones
> > are getting a free velocity boost, while the "inner" ones are
possibly
> > exceeding normal turning limits. However, this really need not be a
> > problem if everyone agrees and is happy with it - the FT rules are
> > flexible enough that if it "feels" right, then use it. We wouldn't
> > recommend it for any kind of competition play, because obviously
it's
> > open to misuse by munchkins, but if you're playing a "friendly" game
> > with reasonable people, then why not?
> I tend to use Box or Diamond formations, rarely line.
> Just have their initial positions defined well - say a 2" spacing
> left-right and up-down, then move one ship, and then move the rest to
> conform. So the box's orientation becomes a diamond after a 1 or 2 pt
> turn, it remains a box after a 3 pt turn.
>
> Sometimes I have ships in line - though often at 30 or 60 degrees
> echelon rather than abreast or astern. This way, if my plans come to
> fruition. after a turn at the right time they'll be in line abreast at
> the optimal spacing.
>
> You get all the benefits of formation orders, with none of the rules
> bending. It just means the formations look a little untidy at times.

The gist that I get from this is that symmetrical, circular formations
are
easy to implement in FT, but they are similarily easy in 2D AV:T.  In
cinematic FT, formations that are only a few MU across and a few MU long
can
be treated as a single ship without breaking too many rules.  It causes
identical problems when ported to either 2D AV:T or vector FT.

A possible situation in a fleet engagement is redeploying a destroyer
screen.  You have a core of ships with devastating long range
capabilities
(graser-3's or HDC-2's) that have sacrificed close in firepower, so you
have
a destroyer screen loaded with class-2 beams and submunition clusters to
make it really expensive for your enemy to close (Note: unless your
opponent
has your equal in long range firepower, you really do want him to spend
the
time to blow away your screen, as it keeps the range open).  The problem
is
having enough destroyers to completely encircle your core is equally
expensive, so you need to be able to keep your incomplete screen between
your enemy's fleet and your fleet's core.  The formation may be too
large to
just treat is as a single ship, and you may want to turn in one
direction,
while rotating the screen in the other.  Maybe your enemy has misjudged
and
moved past your formation and you need to quickly get the screen to the
other side.  Finally, as elements of the screen are destroyed, you need
to
close up the gaps.

If you chose to go the HDC route for devastating long range firepower,
you
really DO have to exert finicky control of your formation to keep the
gaps
in your screen facing a likely enemy location.

BTW:  I do not think grasers are unbalanced.  At a distance they are
quite
destructive, but at close ranges an equal mass of beam-2's cost less and
inflict more damage.  They very much trade close in hitting power for
long
range crunch.