Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

Brian Burger wrote on 07/31/2008 02:45:32 AM:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Richard Bell
<rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Pope <tpope@cs.cmu.edu>
wrote:
> >>
> >> 2) The pulse combat model.  FT models WWI dreadnought battles
decently
well.
> >> It models WWII battles with carriers and screens quite well for a
space
> >> game.  In both of those models the combat model is similar.  Ships
can
take
> >> a number of hits from almost any weapon and keep fighting.  In
contrast, a
> >> modern warship can maybe take two missile hits before it is a
mission
kill,
> >> but I wouldn¹t count on it.
> >>
> >
> > I am not entirely sure that FT models WWI naval battles very well.
> > The dreadnought era has too many really big guns with huge arcs and
FT
> > lacks a mechanism for modelling plunging fire.  It is really suited
> > for predreadnought naval battles.  The vessels even had similar
> > designs to FT ships-- some big guns for long range plinking, some
> > medium guns for when the range closes, and a light battery to fend
off
> > torpedo boats.  Even better, most of the guns only fired in two, or
> > three arcs.
>
> And just like dreadnaughts would munch pre-dreads, a more specialized
> all-big-gun ship is going to be bad news for the "take one of
> everything" designs.
>
> For examples, see FB1 - the NSL's Maria von B. BB has a *higher* throw
> weight (beam dice rolled) than a Von Teg. SDN, which has to be the
> epitome of the "take one of everything" school of design.
>
> A Von T SDN gutted and re-gunned with the MvB's philosophy would be a
> scary beast indeed, especially if you allowed the design to be
> vector-specialized (ie narrower firing arcs than most FB ships).
>
> There's a similar issue with the NAC's FB1 designs - the Victoria BB
> outguns everything bigger than it in the NAC line...

Partially, isn't it because accuracy can be said to fall off linearly in
FT, unless it just represents damage in the case of space ships (beam
diffusion?)? I thought the all-big gun ships were possible only because
of
advancements in equipment, techniques, and training regimens allowed
reaching out and touching someone far, far, away.

Now that I think of it, using crippled dice, similar to those against
shields, for the further range bands, suddenly makes sense, for
pre-dreadnoughts.

> The ESU's Komarov SDN is the only "all big gun" design there, really.
> Beam 4 means being able to reach out and touch someone...

A scary monster that you can still lose if you're careless; been there,
done that.

With only two Beam 4, four Beam 3, and two each of Beam 2 and 1, I
hardly
think it qualifies as ALL big gun...

> Pre-dread "take a few of everything" design philosophy does seem to be
> rampant in the Fleet Books.
>
> Somewhere in my FT notes I have a set of designs where everything down
> to heavy cruisers has B4s jammed into it. Only ran a few of the
> designs, but they're *fun* - "OK, I have a dozen dice at 48"... yes, I
> know you have nothing that can respond, and your fighters just got
> eaten by my integrated PDS..."

I think it's been said many times that FB designs are not optimized, and
best played against each other. I've always inferred there were
historical
reasons, similar to what suggested above, that could explain them.

> Brian
> ...who is suddenly thinking he should paint that NSL squadron that's
> be half-assembled for about four years...
> http://www.warbard.ca/games.html

I think the newest of my 'waiting' ships is in the four year range. Oh,
whoops, I did recently acquire (ouch!) some Trav ships...

The_Beast

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l