Re: FT: tactics vs a slow mover with high arcs

On 19-Jan-00 at 18:45, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:

>  His designs are
> based on the miniatures he's using: WW1-WW2 era naval ships.
> Move 2 (now he's gone to move 1), 5 arc class-3 beams with some
> class-2s (the secondarys) and class-1s, point defenses and each
> "BB" has a an area defense, weak hulls with lots of armor (he saw
> that he lots of armor left upon the first threshold and he commented
> that he may go with average hulls and less armor).

Sounds like a situation just begging for Salvo Missiles Racks.	Those
speed 1 and 2 ships make hitting with SM's trivial.  Drop 8-10 on one
of those and he won't have enough area defense to stop it.  Personally
I like a mix of SM's and fighters.  Once you figure out where the
majority of the SM's are going to go have your fighters attack the 
same target, it makes the choice of where to use the PDS's much more
difficult.

> This brings up another point.  I think increased arc costs are too
cheap
> compared to maneuver cost.  Or is it that I'm just terrible at
maneuvering?
> Maybe I should "sink" to his level and design multi-arc slow moving
> ships as well?

I don't worry too much about points on designs.  Personally the extra
space taken up by the extra arcs is what really hurts.	A 5 arc class
3 takes up 8 mass.  In the same space (and for the same cost) you 
could have 8 class 1s or 4 3-arc class 2's.

Is he running screens?	If not drop the p-torps, the beams are much
more mass and cost affective.

As was pointed out elsewhere, a couple of small ships with submunitions
will eat fire control and weapons he needs for elsewhere.

Not my normal thing, but if he is using speed 1 ships then needle
beams and needle torps can destroy his day.  You take out the drive
on a DN with a needle beam and the smallest destroyer behind it
will crunch it.

This is a rock-scissors-paper game.  Any design you come up with
can be countered.

Roger