Re: Re: Re:[GZG] [FT] Tactical jump

["Laserlight" <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

JohnT said:
> Doesn't this argument actually describe why it makes good fleet tactical 
> sense to deploy like it is done in the games?

If you meant "tacjump would result in engagements which occur in the same 
way the FT games are actually set up", then my answer is "that's the reason 
for discussing tacjump." I'm not certain that's what you meant.

> If you can only jump once every 6 hours while the FTL recharges then if 
> you do a tactical jump you can't jump out if things go wrong. So if you 
> are going to jump in you better be really sure that you are going to win.

Right. How often, when setting up an even-points battle, are you sure before 
the battle starts that you will win? And if you're on the short end of a 
battle with uneven points, why would you stick around? You'd wantt to jump 
in on a smaller enemy, and he'd then want to jump out as fast as 
possible--which currently is one turn.

> Same thing goes for why don't you rush towards the enemy with a big 
> initial velocity? If you are doing speed 20+ towards the enemy then a turn 
> when you try and jump out puts them on top of you before you can jump.

Not necessarily. You could zoom in, shoot, and then jump out when you've 
gone past.

> Also there would  be a good chance of there being an enemy ship within 6mu 
> of your jump point  and so making you escape very dangerous.

If there's one thing that needs to be changed about FTL, it's the "damage 
from jumping out"

> If you go in at a low velocity and don't like the look of the enemy fleet 
> you can disperse and jump before the enemy fleet can get to close range.

Not if you can only jump every six hours.

> Also tactical jumps sound a lot like parachute drops to me.

Imagine two opposing paradrops into the same area. 

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