Prev: Trading, er..., whatever Next: Re: MT missiles

Re: MT missiles

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:16:55 +1000
Subject: Re: MT missiles

G'day Mikko,

>If anyone is really serious about bringing them back, try this exercise

I think Mikko and I are destined to disagree until the end of time,
the mix of humanity wonderful? ;)

>- Make one normal fleet, say vanilla FB1 designs 
>- Make one fleet of equal value, composed entirely of "bathtub
>MD8, one MTM, FTL, minimal hull, nothing else. 
>- Start the battle in the normal way. The launcher fleet enters at
>allowed velocity.
>- On the first turn (assuming table depth about 60" or less), the
>fleet launches all missiles and executes a hard turn away. (Cinematic
>tactics vary a bit in vector, but the essence stays the same)
>- On the following turns they continue running and FTL away at first

That's why we have scenarios, victory point ideas etc. Many of the
(particularly the missiles and fighters) taken to the extreme can be a
off killer, that's why you give them a reason not to bring them (hard to
carry off the prize Phalon cargo if you have to do it strapped to the
of a missile).

>. Then play it out a couple times more. Then come
>back and tell just how much fun you had, and how many bathtub launchers
>you managed to shoot down. (My guess is none on both counts)

Derek's NSL fleet and my FSE fleet both actually have arsenal ships in
them, but they're not a game breaker you learn to adapt to the fact they
might show up. Admittedly they are the odd spice not the entire dish and
there in lies the difference I guess. Though during the arms race
the dominated down here last year those of use to stubborn/lazy to
designs with everybody else did eventually (hey this is Tasmania it
gonna happen immediately now was it ;)) that much of FT is a
rock-paper-scissors effect and put to the test you can usually think
way around many of these very lopsided approaches.

>I have a word of advice to all those who like to design new systems:
>it comes to testing, forget "reasonable". Try it all-out. See what
>when go *really* overboard with it. Try to answer these two questions:
> - why would anyone use your system at all
> - why would anyone use anything but your system
>If you can answer these *without* referring to "honor", you might be
>a winner...

This is a VERY good point! And the reason why missiles should use a
not a vector system (especially if they adopt the launcher's vector),
and I tried the vector system once and it became blatantly obvious VERY
fast that it completely took away the FSE's risk of having to get within
other's beam range to use the SMs effectively. Don't do it, it breaks
everything. Fighter based movement, with CEFs etc seems to work just
in our experience (they've got a movement of 18", attack range of 6" and
CEF under the method we use).



Prev: Trading, er..., whatever Next: Re: MT missiles