Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> What I am assuming, however, is that you have a large enough gaming
table
> that the FSE is not automatically forced into a head-on collision but
> instead have some room to manoeuvre before entering weapons range - I
find
> tables of this size to give a lot more tactical variation than the
smaller
> tables.

(In a thick mexican accent) Table?  TABLE?  We don't need no stinking
TABLE!
I play on the floor, about 8" by 16".  Tables are too confining...

> In order to answer that, I must first ask you to define exactly where
"8
to
> 12 inches behind his battle line", when my two squadrons approached
from
> either side close to perpendicularly to his capital ships' course...

Well that answers that.

> Simply put, if the NSL BJs had tried to position themselves 8 to 12
inches
> behind his battle line from the perspective of my light units, they
> would've been roughly 6 to 10 inches *in front of* his battle line
from
> where my heavies approached and vice versa :-)

That easy if you start from a flanking positions.  If you start head on
and
then try to use the FSE supperior thrust to get to flanking positions,
it's
a different story.  I drove several ship into a planet back accident
once
while zooming around at 18" (or some high speed in that region) trying
to
flank him.  I haven't had much luck using high speeds to flank or get
behind
my opponent.

> "A few fighter squadrons" will have certain difficulties crushing
5-700
> points worth of light ships in time to stop them from killing BJs,
> particularly if the light ships in question are themselves accompanied
by
a
> few fighter squadrons of their own :-) (Which they tend to be if
they're
my
> light ships...)

Then you send more fighters...

> Sure. Which is why you want to fly fast enough that the Ibizas hit
their
> own weapons range at the same time as the enemy gets to shoot at them
-
> once again see the "big enough table to manoeuvre on" comment above
:-)

The problem with Ibiza's and high speed is that you have 6" range bands
on
the submunitions to work with.	It's really easy to goof or have the
enemy
make just the right speed adjustment or turn.  There's nothing like
having
them fly in fast and windup just out of arc of what you most need to
kill...
And the watching them get lit up...

> Sorry, but one-shot high-damage weapons won't help the light ships at
all.
> Thanks to the big-ship advantages, those one-shot weapons are more
> effective on large ships than on small ones (just like any weapons
are),
so
> if your opponent puts those one-shot high damage weapons on large
ships
> he'll still beat your small ships carrying the same one-shot high
damage
> weapons...

True, but big ships tend to have lower thrust which restricts their
ability
to turn at speed and keep those weapons in arc.

> Your WW1 analogy fails in one critical aspect: in WW1, MTBs were
usually
> faster than their enemies. In Full Thrust, that's not a given. (WW1
MTBs
> also didn't face the strict initiative-order sequence of fire their
Full
> Thrust relatives do!)

I know, but I'm the only one I know of who habitually starts
superdreadnoughts out at a speed of 12, or higher...

> What the small ships need to be effective in equal-points battles is a
> points system which takes the big-ship advantages into account -
unlike
the
> current one :-/

True enough.

ias