Re: Classed Weapons

Kevin Walker wrote:

> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 08:13 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
>
>> Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or 
>> equal Thrust and B3-B5 and the pursued force has a mix of all-B2 
>> ships and all-B3 ships (no SML, PBL) on a 4x6 scrolling table.  In 
>> this case you will find that the * pursuee * gets to dictate the pace

>> of battle.
>
>
> Do you mean the "purser" gets to dictate the pace of the battle.  The 
> side that has the higher or equal thrust and the longer ranged weapons

> should usually be the pace setter unless scenario conditions dictate 
> otherwise.
>
>> Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."
>>
>> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?  LL made no 
>> stipulation, so it should be relevant to the average, not just 
>> special cases.  If the Human is the pursuer (to quote LL: "kill or 
>> drive off"), the KV can force your human ship off the table if he 
>> gets going too fast, then continue on to blow up your in-system 
>> supply base.
>
>
> One thing that has to be addressed - there is no way a balanced point 
> system is going to true in all situations.  The scenario setting, 
> playing area size, and whether the board is "floating" is going to 
> make a huge difference.  If the area is 24 mu by 24 mu, B2's and B1's 
> are much more effective than B3s and higher, while on a larger playing

> surface this favor may switch to the B3s and higher.

On a 24x24, B1s are the most cost effective (3:2 compared to B2s with 
equal arcs), while on a 48x48, B2s are best.  On 4x6, 5x6, 5x8 and 6x8, 
B3s start to be more useful.


> A point system that can take this into account almost certainly would 
> need to change values as the game factors were known, something that 
> is not acceptable to a game system that is being kept simple on 
> purpose (it also invalidates the designs and/or information in the 
> first fleet books potentially, another bad thing).  Trying to work out

> kinks in the system under the constraints mentioned is a difficult 
> task and you should see the discussions that go on about this.

I would love to see discussions like that, but since I have been reading

this list, it has been:

Power Projection
Convention question/news
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ?
Q: about rules
Power Projection
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ?
Look at this site from company ABC
Convention question/news
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ?
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ?
Power Projection
Convention question/news
Answer to Q: about rules, maybe
Mr. Tuffley: Mini XYZ is now finished.	People with pre-orders better 
place orders
A Few: I got my pre-ordered XYZs and I am very happy
A Lot More: The XYZs are really neat, but I can't afford my pre-order, 
so maybe next month/quarter/year
When is Jon going to make mini W?
Power Projection
When is Jon going to make mini W?

And I don't feel like going through the archives to find the 0.01% that 
would interest me.

>> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass 
>> 60, 238 points) into your star system to raid your infrastructure 
>> (using the scenario I described in my previous post) against your 
>> proposed ship on a scrolling, cinematic, 4x6 table with 1 MU =1".
>
>
> I'd meet this change depending upon the conditions placed.  Does the 
> defender get to meet the raider out part way from the resource, giving

> them time to dog the attacker?  Or does the raider surprise the 
> defender at the planet?  Each one of these favors a different party.	
> Both are valid situations, unless your campaign/story lines say 
> otherwise due to technology or limits placed on space travel.

Resource is off-table.	If the raider can get off the "in-system" short 
edge of a scrolling table (i.e. more than a full table length between 
ships, so that the table can't be scrolled to contain both vessels), 
then it is presumed that the raider can destroy the target before the 
defender catches him.  Of course, if the defender is destroyed . . .

J