Prev: Re: OT was Re: [DSII] Reactive armour Next: Re: [FT] Hardened Systems

Re: Directional screens (armor dropped)

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:27:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Directional screens (armor dropped)

Jared wrote:

[snip]

>Assuming he does nothing, or does what you want him to, yes.  this IMHO
is
>not a
>bad thing - For one, it encourages people to plan their movement - but
the
>relative weakness of FT screens as opposed to SFB means that this is
not the
>all-powerful defensive measure it can be in SFB - so I think after a
few games
>you will have a sense of when it would be most crucial.  It may make
ships
>a bit
>more survivable in a 1-on-1 scenario, but when you start to move to
multiple
>ships, you gain a new dimension of play.  Instead of just maneuvering a
>group of
>ships to bring their own weapons to bear, you now can maneuver to best
take
>advantage of your opponent's weaknesses.  Part of what tactics are all
about.

I agree, but I just want to make sure that the addition of elements to
the
rules, be they shields or whatever, do not also add potential design or
rules abuses. I also am a big fan of keeping FT clean and simple.

>Well, that's the down-side to trying to make a more 'realistic'
movement
>system
>while not allowing a more realistic firing option (some sort of
mid-move
>firing).  The tactics of penetrating weakened screens may not lend
>themselves to
>single-ship duels - so be it.	however, multiple ship closing from
various
>directions would be very capable of exploiting enemy weakness.  (If I
>can't hit
>your down screen, I'll drive you towards someone who can)

Very few FT engagements that I've seen have even gotten to the "drive
you"
portion of the tactical exercise. Openning maneuver IS extremely
important,
but it tends to generate at least one head on pass before things
degenerate
into a furball based loosely on Drive Rating. That first pass usually
decides the game, even if it takes many more turns to resolve. This is
no
fault of the rules or the system, but usually table space.

I'm concerned that this could generate fleet designs looking to take
advantage of this by making lopsided defenses.

>1) Time to allocate shields: This is done before the game, if you reuse
>designs
>it is done before your game group ever gets together.	It stays that
way
>for the
>entire game.  They are _not_ dynamically reconfigurable (Sorry if I did
>not make
>this clear - This was my intention all along)

This does change things, and is more acceptable in my eyes, but I'd
still
make the fleet design caution above.

>So purpose built ships are uniformly evil?  Take high-thrust ships with
>one-sided defenses, then moan when your opponent surrounds you with
>fighters and
>pounds through your rear.  Successful FT fleets depend on a certain
degree of
>balance.  Taking slow, lumbering, heavily armored ships against a
primarily
>beam-armed opponent may be workable, against a SML equipped fleet you
are
>asking
>to trouble - No single tactic is uniformly successful.

Not at all, however, as you so aptly point out, cheesers are bound to
poke
around. I'm fine so long as there's nothing for them to find (if you
take
my meaning).

Schoon

Prev: Re: OT was Re: [DSII] Reactive armour Next: Re: [FT] Hardened Systems