Prev: Re: Orientation of minis Next: Re: Orientation of minis

Re: Subscatterscenarioharpoongunpointsdefencevalues and stuff

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:23:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Subscatterscenarioharpoongunpointsdefencevalues and stuff

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:

> Ah, now look what you done. You stirred up all that "points
> are good"/"points are bad" stuff...

Canned worms are my specialty ;-)
> Given some form of PSB FTL-drive that pulls you out of normal
> space there's no sense in a meeting engagement. For two fleets
> to meet their has to be something interesting nearby.

But the "nearby" is defined by the same PSB. If, for example, you can
in/out near enough a planet or base, escort scenarios don't make any
either. I don't think that's the effect we want.

How about "recon in force"? Or "border skirmish"? Or the good old "sneak

attack"? Or "defend the jump point"? Or simply "delay"?

There can be a number of reasons to fight over empty space (forces equal

or not). Actual naval warfare has seen more than its fair share of

But true, naval warfare also has more than its fair share of
draws. Withdrawing is so much easier when you only lose salt water.
> Fair point. It should already be factored into subbies and 
> PTT's. However it seems normal for a weapon *not* to affect 
> screens, once you consider all the official suggestions in FT.

Eh? Care to explain?
> That doesn't work for me. Humans should run the same ships
> against Kra'vak that they run against each other IMHO. The
> points value system should just ascribe a newer, lower value
> to keep the game square.

Well... It's a nice idea but it doesn't work. At least not until the
design system is revamped to non-linear (and that might not be a good
anyway). Let me explain. Because the linear nature of the system, you
take a Mass 64 dreddie, and split it up to two Mass 32 cruisers, or four
Mass 16 destroyers or... you get the point. Each fraction will have
exactly that fraction of cost, damage points and firepower. And better
thrust to boot. 

So why ever design big ships? Because you save by placing the systems 
under one defensive umbrella (screens + *DAFs).

But the KV completely negate most of that umbrella (screens). So it
no sense to send big ships against them. (Special weapon systems that 
cannot be mounted on non-capitals are an exception).

Thus you don't have to listen to "realism freaks'" moans about 
dreadnoughts without screens. Just split your big ships into 
destroyer-cruiser sized fragments.

Combined the fragments will still have the same cost and firepower, but 
better thrust and survivability.

> In principle, then, yes. What is a C-battery worth anyway?

My idea was along these lines: Instead of forcing people to change their

A's for C's, why not give them incentive to change their PDAF's for C's?

Trade a little bit of AF power for added AS effectiveness.

> It makes more sense in terms of MT's fighter sequence. And 
> they engage missiles.

Sure. It's a balance thing. From the pts/mass issue a PDAF and 1-arc C 
are equal. So, IMHO, they should have roughly equal usefulness.
> Same thing. Launch... run... fail to take objective.

... come again next day, and the day after that and the day after...


It's called "materialgeschlag".

It's not heroic. It doesn't require that much skill. It doesn't produce 
very interesting games.

It just wins wars. 

-- (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso     | hateme.html |

Prev: Re: Orientation of minis Next: Re: Orientation of minis