Re: FT tryout

Tom Anderson wrote:

> > >This Sunday I'm going to tryout FT at my club. Can anyone suggest
> > >what ships what be suitable. They should have a wide range of
tactical
> > >options and the fight should be short but not too quick.
> > 
> > NAC vs ESU, 1500 points. Eg:
> > 
> > NAC, 1495 pts:
> > Inflexible-class CVL + 4 standard fighter squadrons
> > Victoria-class BB
> > 2 Huron-class CL
> > 2 Ticonderoga-class DD
> >
> > ESU, 1500 pts:
> > Petrograd-class BB
> > Voroshilev-class CH
> > Beijing/BE-class CE (Note: this is the ADFC-equipped "defensive
> > close-support variant" described in the Beijing notes, *not* the
ship
> > shown on the Beijing data panel!)
> > Tibet-class CL
> > Volga-class DH
> > 4 Warsaw-class DD
> 
> now, i'm no expert on FT (unlike Oerjan), but i have two criticisms
of
> this setup. firstly, it may be too big. six ships a side, of which
about
> two are capitals, is really too much for a first game. 

Depends entirely on how many people are involved. If it is a club game
(4-6 people or so), having a single DD or CL per person is too little -
a DD goes pop *fast*. A single capital, two cruisers or 2-3 DDs works
OK IME - much less chance of one player losing all his ships at once.

If there's only one player per side I agree with your OOBs below,
except maybe that they don't have that wide a range of tactics
available which Tony specifically asked for :-/

>secondly, fighters are unnecessary complexity at this point.

True. Replace the Beijing/BE with the standard variant and the
Inflexible with two Vandenburgs (sigh) :-/

>> I've deliberately avoided things like Salvo Missiles and fighter
>> variants (extra complexity can be fun, but not if it is your first
>> game IMO),
> 
>are thought vectors have the same direction, but different magnitude
:).
>complexity is bad here, and even standard fighters are too complex for
a
>first game. now, fighters may be a vital part of FT, but i think it's
>worth bringing them in later. i'd bring in SMs about the same time,
too -
>they seem popular with some people.

I'd wait with SMs until you've had a few fighter battle - fighters get
a second chance if you guessed wrong, SMs don't :-/
 
>> and Vandenburg-class Heavy Cruisers (which always die horribly
>> whenever anyone around here tries to use them :-/ ).
> 
>it's a shame about the Vandenburg - i can't verify this trend, but it
>looks like the NAC lack a working CA.

For a CL, the Vandenburg is pretty OK :-/ A bit expensive, though...

>anyway, i would say that NAC vs ESU is probably good (you could even
>use  NAC vs NAC to keep it really simple, and say one side is FCT
>rebels!). i'd suggest using the classic FT starter scenario of 2 CL +
3 DD >(or is it 3 FF?):
> 
> NAC: 2 Huron CL, 3 Ticonderoga DD; 634 NPV
> ESU: 2 Tibet CL, 3 Warsaw DD; 603 NPV
>
> the difference is 31 NPV (5%), enough to buy a scout for the ESU; 

Since this is Vector (with new players, too), I don't think the the
higher maneuverability of the NAC ships will have a very big effect.
The ESU ships are as well armed (except against fighters, which is
irrelevant in this matchup), and better protected, than their NAC
equivalents - they already have the advantage IMO. It's the NAC who are
in trouble :-/

If you're worried about the ESU being outmatched, upgrading one of the
Warsaws to a Volga is a better option.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry