Re: [FT-AAR] comment NAC/NI AAR

Laserlight wrote:
> 
> >Information gained from the AAR:
> >Range reduction per level of stealth
> > type   max range  reduction per level of stealth
> >class 3 =  24  =    6 inches
> >class 2 =  16  =    4 inches
> >class 1 =   8  =    2 inches
> >
> 
> Dunno, maybe I wasn't reading carefully, I thought it was reduction by
1/3?
XXX
     Slightly different point of view, 2 stealth levels does equal 1/3
range reduction, 1 stealth level equals 1/6 range reduction.  Both are
quite correct.	JTL
XXX
> 
> >Comment:  While I do experiments in the rules/weapons areas
frequently,
> >I do not suprise the people I play with.  I advise them that I am
trying
> >out something new and that it may or may not work.
> 
> Me too--but not necessarily *what* I'm trying!
XXX
Agreed!  JTL
XXX
> 
> >Comment: The 'offset arc' is a tactic for a 'one off' game and is not
> >usable for a campaign game.
> 
> Hey!	Why not?  That's standard for both Alarishi and Islamic ships
(which
> is why I made that comment about Noam buying Alarishi ships--Alarish
offers
> special discount rates to New Israel).  Anyone whose concept is
"circle at
> range" rather than "bore in and kill" should consider it.
XXX
     The use of this design assumes the use of sensors with a greater
range than the standard sensor (54 inches in FT, 60 inches in my house
rules.)   The ability to detect an alter course to present the 'armed'
side of the ship to the enemy presumes course corrections made prior to
board entry.   As far as I know, I am the only person who has made the
more advanced sensors have a greater range (and therefore value) in the
game (in house rules).	 
     What will happen the the Alarishi should you not start in a head
on mode?   What woud happen is your enemy has superior sensors, 
detects and identifies your ships as Alarishi, checks his 'Janes in 
Space' and maneuvers to close with the unarmed side of your fleet?
(This presumes some or all of my house sensor rules are in force.)


Comments?

Bye for now,
John L.