Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > The general concept, when last we saw, is that anti-ship weapons will be 
> > able to fire (with reduced chance to hit) on fighters, missiles, etc. The 
> > devil is in the details, as always, but I think most of those who 
> > initially opposed the idea (including me) have been persuaded that that's 
> > the way to go.
>
> Addendum: of course, if St Jon doesn't like it, then we pitch it out and 
> try again...

Does not the effectiveness of carriers and ordnance carriers depend on the 
kind of deployment and initial velocity you use?

In our campaigns we have 2 types of game. In our real space engagements we 
play on a rolling table and initial deployment distances are ~70MU apart 
with a maximum initial velocity of 10mu.
We also have hyperspace engagements. In these, the table is a 48mu diameter 
circle. Fleets enter during the movement phase of the first turn with their 
initial velocity set between 1 and 10 and proceed straight ahead. Ships 
enter from the edge of the playing area with a random placement.
With a mixture of hyperspace and realspace engagements to design ships for 
you can't just consider one set of scenarios. Tactics are also substantially 
different.

Hyperspace games are very different from normal games and are often to quote 
B5 "a disaster for both sides". Also in our games if you want to flee a 
hyperspace battle you have to use your FTL to get you out but it has to be 
activating the turn you get to the edge of the hyper bubble.

We have found that presenting players with a mix of deployment options this 
goes a long way to counter people designing ships with a very extreme 
viewpoint. If someone wants to have an all carrier fleet they have to be 
prepared for how to get past a hyperspace blockade.

John 


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