Prev: Re: [OT] Quincey's website Next: Re: FB2 SV Drone Question

RE: "Custom" fleets

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:58:23 -0400
Subject: RE: "Custom" fleets

> wrote:
> > > Vs. the dreadplanet you posted, I'd take a scaled up, Cinematic
> modification
> > > of my Cygnus BYO fleet:
> > [SLASH]
> > 
> > *muttering*  All right, all right, thank you... I _think_ that I'd
> figured
> > out on my own that if you crammed a ship to the gills with PDS, the
> Super
> > Orb is toast.
Not exactly. It's neutralizing the fighters _and_ damaging the
without taking anything themselves, as your strategiec tiers below

	>  Especially if you give it weapons that can reach halfway
> > across a solar system, and permit it to fly at fraction-C speeds
> at
> > the beginning of the game instead of being forced to actually start
> > a more reasonable cruising speed and actually having to use its
> to
> > attain those kinds of speeds.
Starting speed is immaterial given the difference in thrust between the
force and the Orb, and your self-described starting distances (~70 mu).
for range, well, it's paid for.

> > That said, I don't think my brother-in-law would thank you terribly
> > suggesting this fleet to him to fly against me, because in 98.7% of
> > battles we fly, I would utterly annihilate these guys and he'd tell
> > that after about a three second glance.  
Perhaps so. I've not a picture of your other fleets. My experience with
original version of the  Beam 6 fleet is that it's at least good against
multiple fleet types. It'd be interesting to see how someone who was
used to
such a fleet configuration (and with its less PDS intensive variants)
fare in those 98.7% of games. I think the Beam 6 fleet is weaker in
Cinematic than Vector, so would be less coinfident in its all around
in cinematic games. I certainly would be reluctant to play with it on a
100"x100" fixed field in almost any event.

	> You're misunderstanding why he usually doesn't beat me...

I wasn't really trying to. I was merely countering the ubership. I had
already made the conclusion that he generally plays on your terms,
he intends it or not, though your respective fleet and tactic choices.

> > One of the critical elements in that is, I don't tend to design my
> > with an eye to overspecialization. 
I consider an Ubership to be one direction of overspecialization. 41
groups is agruably another overspecialization (41*(18+27) = 1845 or 37%
your total fleet NPV in fighters and bays. Compare that to 23% of Fleet
in Class 6 beams and another 23% for PDS for the BC fleet).

	> When I put them together, I think a good two or three levels

A standard logical way to design a fleet, that is.

> > ...My brother-in-law, on the other hand, tends to give
> > in to the temptation to over-compensate for what he expects me to
Another way of saying he forces himself to play on your terms.
> > The "dreadplanet" example's layers of thinking go about like this...
> > 1.	Primary game plan:  establish overwhelming fighter superiority.
> > 2.	If they take that away by out-fightering me, they probably don't
> have
> > as good a ship-to-ship armament as I do...
> > 3.	If they take that away by a stiff area defense phalanx...
> > 4.	If they _do_ manage to survive the fighters and plasma, the
> > beams...
Here are the Beam-6 BC tactical tiers:
1. Neutralize all Fighter/Missile/Plasma threats and utilize superior
range. (which happens, in this example, to counter all 4 of the
tiers by itself. The rest of the BC tiers deal with other opposing fleet
2. If the PDS is insufficient for the task, bug out, concede, and go on
to a
more interesting game. (in this example, Dreadplanet would have had to
on the order of 50 fighter groups (45% of fleet NPV) - and throw them
all at
once, for me to consider doing that)
3. If enemy range is equivalent, compare overall firepower and determine
whether a slugging match has a chance (if not of winning, at least of
fun). If yes, we've got a real battle. If not, bug out.
4. If enemy speed is superior, play running game while they are forced
wade through as many turns of long range fire as you can maneuver them

> > Most _broadly_sound_ enemy fleets can be defeated by one or more of
> > above plans.  
I suppose I'd argue that the Beam-6 fleet is "broadly sound" in absolute
game terms. Not that I'd suggest NAC or ESU etc. actually _build_ such a

	> Yes, you can really grossly overspecialize and defeat that
> > one plan in particular, but the problem with this plan lies in the
> > that you _don't_ know what I'm going to do, and the pseudo-campaign
> nature
> > of our games reflects that. 
In a real campaign type setting. If that's the case, though, I'd never
to field a dreadplanet, or this particular Beam-6 fleet, since both are
rock/paper/scissors to be a reliable strategic asset. You could probably
take both the planet and the BCs, despecialize both, and _turn_ them
something useable for a campaign. 

	> No admiral's going to countenance building
> > a fleet _that_ over-specialized and risk an entire task force's
> resources
> > doing so, when its real usefulness in the broader campaign is going
> > be horrifically limited.  
Looking at the tactical tiers for both, I'd argue that the Beam-6 fleet
far more versatile than the dreadplanet, but that's me.

	> That gets reflected in game terms by our lack
> > of warning of what the other guy's going to bring to the table.
I think If I were your Brother-in-law, and saw I'd brought scissors to
your rock, I'd concede the game and force us both to go back to our
binders until we both came up with a pair of rocks (or paper, or
So the list of forfeits pile up in the pseudo campaign. At least the
that are joined will be fun.

> > The issue of suggesting that the dreadplanet would be nasty isn't
> you
> > couldn't think of _anything_ to beat it.  The issue is that you
> > think of anything to beat it that is itself just as broadly sound.
Can't agree that the Beam-6 fleet is any less broadly sound than the


Prev: Re: [OT] Quincey's website Next: Re: FB2 SV Drone Question