Re: "Custom" fleets

Oerjan wrote:
> stiltman@teleport.com wrote, in reply to Laserlight:
> >>>On the other hand, I've seen both Oerjan and Noam suggest with a
> >>>straight face that someone make a strategy out of using a
> >>>long-range beam and abuse the floating edge to ping away at
> >>>people.
 
> >>On the other hand, I've seen you suggest with a straight face
> >>that "space has an edge".

> >Hey, dude, watch your tone here.
 
> Laserlight only used the tone that you had already established, by
> recycling the very phrase you had just used about us. If you don't
like
> this tone directed at you, why use it on others?

It wasn't that comment alone I was referring to... it was also his
sarcastic
comment that he has a house rule where his ships (and only his ships)
get
to regenerate a full row of hull boxes each turn.  THAT, I objected to,
more
than his comment about space having an edge... I have not objected to
anything
more that you've written than what I commented about in the first
letter.
Since then, you've generally kept a pretty civil tone (and I've
endeavored
to do the same).

> FWIW, the only reason your dreadstar is vulnerable to a long-range
beam
> sniper is that it has so weak engines. If you put some engines on it,
> or escort it with a bunch of faster ships (like those thrust-8 needle
> cruisers of yours), Noam's snipers are a marginal threat at best -
even
> on an infinitely large table.

In just about any larger-scale battle where it wasn't alone, that's
probably
about what I'd do.  (Heck, I might give it slightly better engines
anyway,
but it'd probably be simpler to just give it longer ranged beams so it
can
answer in kind.)

> Let me point out two final things, though: 
 
> First, your critiques of FB2, in some places phrased in a tone which
> suggested "what idiots wrote this - it's completely out of joint" (not
> quite that sharp, but approaching it at times), were based on your own
> house rules which no-one else here knew anything about (since you
> hadn't told us about them by then).

Well, first off, I think I gave a pretty exhaustive list of our house
rules
in the first post or two I made to the list on the subject.

Second, I was careful after your somewhat offended tone of your first
letter
(which is somewhat understandable, being that you were a playtester and
might
take it personally if you thought I was impugning your testing of the
system)
to try to establish that those comments were just initial thoughts and
nothing more.  I even went so far as, a couple of posts later, to state
that
several of them seemed to be completely wrong.

> Since some of those house rules
> have a quite significant effect on the game balance, many of your
> comments simply didn't make sense to those who didn't know exactly
> which rules you were actually using. During the about three years of
FT
> playtesting I've done, one of the most important things I've learned
is
> to always make sure your readers/listeners know which rules you use as
> a basis for evaluation of new systems or rules, in order to avoid this
> type of misunderstandings.

Well... that's what I tried to do in the beginning.  At risk of sounding
contrary, I'm not sure very many folks paid attention.	I know that I've
repeated a few of them.

> Second, during the debate you have successively changed your
> descriptions of the tactics and design styles you and your gaming
group
> use. One example: One of your first claims in this discussion was that
> you were "infamous" for using massed fighters, and that your opponents
> usually didn't bring enough point defences to survive them for fear of
> your other design styles. Interestingly enough however, later on you
> claim just the opposite by stating that fleets regularly carry some
> 100+ PDS.

Okay... let me clarify a bit here.

The usual fleets have generally settled into a mode where they do in
fact
carry somewhere upwards of at least 60-80 PDS, usually not (much) more
than
100.  That is enough to give a serious carrier force a run for its money
under
our rules but not enough to completely shut the door.  If the carrier
force
brings needle help to take out a few ADFC's with an high speed needle
beam
strike that would likely make you blush with pleasure at the homage,
they
can re-seize a fairly dominant advantage.

What _is_ generally not done is to bring PDS somewhere in the 150+
range,
which will pretty much completely shut down fighters but leaves the
ships
sporting them fairly well outgunned by more reasonably armed
battleships.

The happy medium we've generally settled into tends to sport PDS in
about
the 60-100 range.  100 is usually overdoing it a little, and I've been
known
to burn that plan with slow-speed ships by overwhelming them with SMs
and
the "Warbird" strategy is also very good for fighting in such cases as
well.

In a nutshell... yes, I'm somewhat infamous for carrier forces.  Yes,
it's
true that no one tends to put _really_ gross amounts of PDS on their
forces
in hopes of spanking my carriers for fear that I'll bring battleships
instead
and render it all kind of pointless.  No, merely 60-100 PDS is not the
amount
I was referring to as "gross".	Yes, that's more than FB1 ships
typically fly
even if I don't consider it "gross".  Yes, we generally find a fair
balance
in it (I've been known to get out-fightered and win anyway).  No, I'm
not
changing my descriptions of the tactics I use, I'm clarifying them
because
it's difficult to sum up four years' worth of evolution in our tactics
in a
week's time on a mailing list.
 
> >Consider yourself ignored.

> I'll try to return the favour in the future :-)

That was directed at him, not you... and even then, only on that one
particular set of comments he made.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The Stilt Man		      stiltman@teleport.com
   http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>