GZG List archives -- June 2006

Number 213 of 214 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update



Assuming there are no small ships to soak damage that thrust 2 ship has to be in 1 of 3
places.  Those places are close enough that I can easily narrow my choice of SM placements
to two.  A placement  that covers a left turn of one and a placement that covers a right turn of one.
Both will cover the no turn option.  The ships actual thrust is so small as to be fairly irrelevant.

And I can probably narrow it down to one placement by table configuration and my estimate
of my opponents best strategy.

It's pretty hard to get a thrust 2 to 24 without flying out of the battle anyway.

What absolutely wipes out a SM player is K'rvak.  The dodge circle is huge.

Roger

(Did not work out the math on the thrust 6 ship but I bet the possible location circle is much bigger.)

On 6/30/06, laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And the velocity. A Thrust 6 ship poking along at speed 4 isn't as safe as a Thrust 2 ship at speed 24.

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


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update
  • Next by Date: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Revised Missiles (long) was Re: [GZG] Heavy missile questions.

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Sat Jul 01 01:07:33 GMT 2006