Re: Followup to Operation Furious Riposte [FB KV speculations]

Laserlight wrote:
> 
>     >My reply to Laserlight:
>     >Defeat in detail would not have happened.
>     If you're fighting them all at once, that's not "in detail."
> You'd need to find them separated by something like 300+ MU so you
> could pound on one squadron for a few turns without the other squadron
> being able to get there and support.

     Denny Graver is currently running an E-mail game, and it
is quite a large effort.   I will let you know the outcome
when available.
   
     Caution, opinion crossing!!!  

     I do not think the KV are really overpriced at this time.
The advent of the larger hulls, destructive ability of the SML,
and the reduced firepower of the KV (I.E. same firepower spread
over 6 areas vs 4), has changed the dynamics of the game.   These 
changes have not been fully tested and therefor the 'pricing'
should not be 'adjusted' on the basis on a couple of losses.

Comments on the Scenario:
1) The NAC forces were inadequate for the assigned mission.
   (It looks as if the NAC combat ships were outnumbered 
   (in points) by about 1.3 to 1.   A very difficult 
   situation at the best of times.)
   (The inclusion of the 10 transport ships in the NAC order
   of battle assured the defeat.)
2) The NAC commander failed to respond to the KV refusal of 
   his right flank.
3) The Kra"Vak commander did the right thing by overloading 
   the NAC left and rolling up the line.
4) The Kra'Vak commander protected his smaller ships initally
   and used them to great effect later in the battle.
5) The comments about the 'thrust, pivot, push' are problems
   with the vector movement system, not with the Kra'Vak.

Thus ends the tactical comments for the benefit of the prey!

Wa'Con-D'rk commander of the 17th Sq of the Hunt of the D'rk

Bye for now,
John L.