On 3/4/07, Zoe Brain <aebrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ground Zero Games wrote:
>> Formations speed things up because there is one set of orders for the
>> whole formation.
> Formation movement in Cinematic FT is quite simple to implement, as
> long as all players involved agree to accept the ramifications of it;
> basically, just write move orders for the one ship in the formation,
> and then move the others to maintain the formation pattern. The
> problems with this are, of course, that whichever ship you choose to
> plot for, some of the others will be exceeding the limits of the
> normal movement system - say you have a line-abreast formation and you
> plot on the middle ship, then if the formation turns, the "outer" ones
> are getting a free velocity boost, while the "inner" ones are possibly
> exceeding normal turning limits. However, this really need not be a
> problem if everyone agrees and is happy with it - the FT rules are
> flexible enough that if it "feels" right, then use it. We wouldn't
> recommend it for any kind of competition play, because obviously it's
> open to misuse by munchkins, but if you're playing a "friendly" game
> with reasonable people, then why not?
I tend to use Box or Diamond formations, rarely line.
Just have their initial positions defined well - say a 2" spacing
left-right and up-down, then move one ship, and then move the rest to
conform. So the box's orientation becomes a diamond after a 1 or 2 pt
turn, it remains a box after a 3 pt turn.
Sometimes I have ships in line - though often at 30 or 60 degrees
echelon rather than abreast or astern. This way, if my plans come to
fruition. after a turn at the right time they'll be in line abreast at
the optimal spacing.
You get all the benefits of formation orders, with none of the rules
bending. It just means the formations look a little untidy at times.
The gist that I get from this is that symmetrical, circular formations are easy to implement in FT, but they are similarily easy in 2D AV:T. In cinematic FT, formations that are only a few MU across and a few MU long can be treated as a single ship without breaking too many rules. It causes identical problems when ported to either 2D AV:T or vector FT.
A possible situation in a fleet engagement is redeploying a destroyer screen. You have a core of ships with devastating long range capabilities (graser-3's or HDC-2's) that have sacrificed close in firepower, so you have a destroyer screen loaded with class-2 beams and submunition clusters to make it really expensive for your enemy to close (Note: unless your opponent has your equal in long range firepower, you really do want him to spend the time to blow away your screen, as it keeps the range open). The problem is having enough destroyers to completely encircle your core is equally expensive, so you need to be able to keep your incomplete screen between your enemy's fleet and your fleet's core. The formation may be too large to just treat is as a single ship, and you may want to turn in one direction, while rotating the screen in the other. Maybe your enemy has misjudged and moved past your formation and you need to quickly get the screen to the other side. Finally, as elements of the screen are destroyed, you need to close up the gaps.
If you chose to go the HDC route for devastating long range firepower, you really DO have to exert finicky control of your formation to keep the gaps in your screen facing a likely enemy location.
BTW: I do not think grasers are unbalanced. At a distance they are quite destructive, but at close ranges an equal mass of beam-2's cost less and inflict more damage. They very much trade close in hitting power for long range crunch.