Re: [FT] vector point balance

Beth said (for lines marked >>> and > ; the >> parts are mine):

>  >>And that would be the crux of the matter. Your opponent
isn't going to let
>  >>you sit at that range (if they've got any brains), at least
not on a
>  >>regular basis.
>  >
>  >Rather depends on your relative thrust rating, eh?	An
Alacrity BC (thrust
>  >8, Beam 4) vs anything without fighters is a game that takes
a while, but
>  >only ends one way.
>
> I think this may be coming down to the individual ways we allow
set-ups etc
> in the game. The first game may well end as you state here, but
as we have
> no speed limits at start up the second game would probably see
the
> opposition (or a good portion of it) belt in at speed 70 for
one quick
> thump before leaving...

I never actually _use_ an Alacrity--it's one of those "logic
requires the navy to have them but they'd be no fun for the game"
ships.

>  >> You've still got to decide where you're going to fire.
Against the KV I've
>  >> found it very effective to have two equally strong wings
come in against
>  >> them from opposite sides - they can either turn half each
way and split
>  >> fire or only concentrate on one wing while the other
hammers them.
>  >
>  >The logic here eludes me.  You come in from both sides,
either I face both
>  >sides (and I have parity--or better, if I'm paying for fewer
arcs) or I
>  >ignore one side and maul the other.
>
> OK maybe we're just the weirdest FT players in the universe

Well, obviously! ;-P

> and we'd get
> our butts kicked as soon as we cross the straight < all too
possible
> ;) >...but so far when people have tried the first option above
against me
> their fire hasn't been as effective as they expected because
its too split
> to damage all the ships they want as much as they want.

Depends on the situation but I think my usual choice would be to
wipe out one wing outright.

> Whereas when they
> tried the second option they got rid of their first 'big'
target and a few
> escorts but the second 'big' target was untouched coming into
the next
> round.

So?  It's now outnumbered two to one.
Please note I'm not saying that your experience isn't valid--and
without a doubt you have more experience than me--I'm just saying
that it doesn't seem like the logical progression.  On ther other
hand, I normally play by email have have plenty of time for a
spreadsheet to define my targets' maneuver envelope.

> Either way the next time I ran into them they had at least some
> weapons with multiple arcs suggesting that 1-arc alone did make
them feel
> safe.

you meant "did NOT make them feel safe", I take it.