Re: Re: [GZG] Re: Jon's question on rotate/thrust/rotate

[David Billinghurst <davebill@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Hi Oerjan,

I think we're kind of debating the same problem, though talking past each
other.

OK.  I understand FB1/FB2 ships were designed with Cinematic movement in
mind (as Vector is only offered as an Option in FB1 and was still considered
optional in FB2).

I also understand from the Designers Notes on Pg 2 of FB1 that the FB ships
are designed as average members of their classes, and from a design
philosophy of what a real navy would design for real missions, and haven't
been munchkined to win one-off games.

Now, I've been posting on this thread specifically about the Kra'vak as,
having bought some ships, I have a selfish interest in them.

So, when I said:
>
> David Billinghurst wrote:
>
> >The problem in Human/alien fights is not the rotating thing, but how the
> >opposing drive systems handle rapid changes in direction.

I was talking about how Vector treats the A drives specifically.  If the
'drive systems of Kra'vak ships seem to be very effective for their size,
and make full use of the KRA'VAK MASTERY OF GRAV TECHNOLOGY (emphasis, not
shouting) to permit rates of manoeuvre FAR IN EXCESS (ditto) of those
possible to human ships' (FB2 Pg 8 - Kra'vak Warships) then we have a
problem when the game mechanics deliver a one thrust point difference
between Kra'vak and human drives (ie KV's not having to rotate to use Main
Drive).

One could assume that as KV's can apply their Main Drive in any direction,
they can in effect zig-zag at low velocities, thus making themselves harder
for 1 arc Hu'mie smart-hro'kols to hit.  Except 30 degrees is still 30
degrees, and I would estimate that even an 8MU course change will still be
within 30 degrees by the time existing V is cancelled.

So if this, the great Kra'vak 'flavour' (every fleet has it's own flavour,
otherwise why buy it over any other?) of Mastery over Grav Technology,
doesn't work, and Kra'vak don't use ship armour because their own K-guns
shoot through it, and don't have Shields (which both the Phalon and Sa'Vasku
have - shields and armour, that is - and handled in quite a creative way),
then why the Kra'vak? The one trick they do seem to have is that all their K
Guns have a 30MU range.  This would seem to indicate that their optimum
engagement range is around 24 - 30 MU where they outrange all but Class 3
and 4 Beams and Pulse Torpedoes.

Oerjan replied:
> But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with the
> balance between weapon fire arcs and engine power; it only becomes a
> "human/alien" problem if you use the "official" Fleet Book fleets because
> the FB2 Kra'Vak are so heavily geared towards narrow fire arcs and
powerful
> engines while just about all of the other Fleet Book fleets use weaker
> engines and wider fire arcs.

Last point first, drive ratings by class (CL, BB, CV etc) are pretty much
identical across both alien and FB1 ships.  Yes, I know that those
speed-fiends, the NSL, have established that the Universe is in a
peak-thrust period and if we don't economise there will be thrust-less days
and thrust rationing, but otherwise, how are KV drives 'powerful engines'
when they deliver identical thrust to hu'man ships of similar size (eg KV
Ko'Vol Battleship - NAC Victoria Battleship)?

I don't really understand your comment about using "official" Fleet Book
fleets.  We have established that Hu'man and Alien drives produce similar
amounts of Thrust (let's leave the Sa'vasku out for the moment as they make
my head hurt).  Under Vector, both sets of ships may rotate for 1 Thrust.
Alien drives are not dependant on heading and can thrust in any direction.
This saves them the 1 Thrust Hu'man's expend to rotate after Thrusting to
bring guns to bear.  The Alien drives are supposed to be able to 'manoeuvre
far in excess of those possible to human ships', but this is patently not
the case.  The Phalons have analogs of armour and shields, and so are on a
similar footing to hu'man ships (I haven't had a look at their weaponry for
a while) but the poor old KVs have just their basic hull boxes.

> The rotating thing is what determines how easy it is to keep the enemy in
> your preferred fire arc, and as such it is *hugely* important for the
> balance between weapon arcs and engine power. If a single thrust point can
> only rotate your ship a little bit (eg. in Cinematic as long as the ships
> keep moving, or EFSB Vector), it is valuable to have powerful engines or
> wide fire arcs because both of those options increase your ability to keep
> the enemy in your fire arcs. If OTOH a single thrust point is sufficient
to
> turn the ship to any direction (Cinematic if the ship has speed zero,
> FB1/FB2 Vector), then a single-arc weapon becomes very nearly as effective
> as the much more expensive all-arc version of the same weapon and powerful
> engines are only marginally more useful than weak ones.

Very true and I agree with you.  As all the human ships move and manoeuvre
in essentially identical fashion under Vector (as one would expect, given
that they're all coming off the same technology base), I personally don't
see a problem with the wide arc/narrow arc debate.  This sounds like a
philosophical debate between Dead-eye Dicks and folks less confident in
guessing the exact location of the enemy, but who would still like a crack
at 'em.  Or between maximising your points per ship (all 1 arc weapons) and
trying to cover yourself if you find yourself outnumbered.

<snip>
>
> This - the weapon arc vs engine power balance in Vector - is the main
issue
> the limited-rotation Vector proposal is intended to solve.

Yes, I understand that.  I had gathered from Jon's original questions that
the rotational thing had become an issue.

When it's resolved, can we have a look at the Kra'vak, please?

<snip>
> As long as the low-thrust
> ship can keep its weapons pointing towards its faster opponent, it'll most
> likely outgun him regardless of the range. (Yes, of course there are
> exceptions to this - thrust-8 ships with B5s or larger beams, for
example -
> but they aren't very common.)

Good grief!  And I'd hope not, too! :)


Regards

David


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l