Re: Classed Weapons

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
>
>> This is fairly significant.	Especially if design balances are being 
>> made based on a small sampling that does not reflect the majority of 
>> players.
>
> <chuckle> If we were to include notes about how different gaming 
> styles affects the game balance, we'd need a 50-page book to cover all

> variations.
>
> Two observations here:
>
> * Large-table tactics seem to work reasonably OK even on fairly small 
> tables (though 4x6 is border-line) as long as you know what you're 
> doing, but so far I've never met any small-table players who has 
> developed such tactics. OTOH small-table tactics are often disastrous 
> on larger tables, since they tend not to account for the enemy's wider

> manoeuvre envelopes.
>
> * In another post you said that your SDNs are usually much larger than

> those in the Fleet Books. The Fleet Book ship design system has a bug 
> which makes large ships inherently more powerful than their own Mass 
> in small ships (with similar total armaments, hull integrities etc.) 
> no matter what size your table is and which movement system you're 
> using, which means that whether or not you're aware of it, your use of

> large SDNs means that you're exploiting this bug.
> I must say that I find it rather amusing that you're complaining about

> a feature which limits the use of certain weapons under certain 
> conditions (long-ranged beams on small tables in Cinematic movement), 
> while you're exploiting another bug which consistently underprices 
> large ships compared to small ones :-7
>
> And "the majority of players" is defined by... who? <g>
>
> (That's another interesting thing, BTW - why is it that small-table 
> players are so certain that their table size is the "standard"? Over 
> the years I've 'talked' (both IRL and over the 'net) more players who 
> say that they play on large tables than players who claim to use small

> tables, yet the small-table players are far more vocal that theirs is 
> "the standard" way of playing...) 

 From FULL THRUST, pg. 3, right hand column, "Units of Distance"
section:
"Throughout these rules we have used inches as the basic unit of 
measurement, as this seems to work best on an AVERAGE-SIZED TABLE (say 
around 4' x 6' or a bit larger).  if you wish to use an area that is 
significantly smaller or larger than this, then simply change the unit 
of measurement: . . . try using units of 3" (or perhaps 10cm) if playing

on a large floor area . . ."

Additionally, the section on "An important Note on Measurements" (FB2, 
pg. 2) implies a continued view of 4x6 as standard, but suggests the use

of 1 MU = 1cm for "...high speeds and lots of manoeuvering (sic)
room..."

>>>> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
>>>> exit opposite table edge to bombard planet or escape system
>>>> ambush and destroy enemy fleet
>>>> destroy enemy flagship/carrier/convoy
>>>> By "exit" I mean "a full table-length from nearest pursuing enemy" 
>>>> with a scrolling table.
>>>
>>> It is in pursuit battles like this the long-range beams really excel

>>> - *if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. 
>>> Sure, it takes them a long time to whittle the enemy down... but if 
>>> he can't reply, they usually have all the time they need.
>>
>> Six feet,
>
> 72 mu, if you measure in inches. Even a B2 can cover two-thirds of 
> that unless it sits right on the table edge... 'course, if you set the

> ships up in a way which reflects the most likely pre-battle manoeuvres

> which would've taken place on a larger table a long-ranged ship would 
> be able to use its long-range weapons quite effectively.
>
>> and none of our designs have less than T3.
>
> Side note: You are aware that a T3 (standard engine) ship can only 
> make 1-point turns, aren't you? (Not all players are aware that FB1 
> changed this - T3 used to allow 2-pt turns in FT2 - which is why I'm 
> asking.)

Yes I am.  In fact I was the one who pointed out to * you * your 
questionable example of FB2 vector ships using 2 out of 3 thrust points 
for maneuvering.  :)

>> 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.
>
> In this case you'd probably set the B2/B3 force up at one short end of

> the table, facing towards the table edge, and the B5 force at the 
> other short end of the table facing the enemy.
>
Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section right 
above the quoted section about scenario objectives.

Our "converging parallel" courses ar usually set up in adjacent corners 
of the short end of a 4x6 table, moving towards the other short end.

> However, a more realistic situation has the B5 force move up *beside* 
> the B2/B3 force (ie. set the forces up at the opposite short edges, 
> but make both of them face the same *long* table edge so they fly 
> parallell to each other)... try this one and see what happens <g> Keep

> in mind that if either force leaves the table, it won't take very long

> before the B5 ship re-engages under the same conditions as before (ie.

> flying parallell to the B2/B3 force).

We have never tried that.  Thank you.  Adjacent corners of the long 
table edge will be the initial condition in our next battle.

I have noticed that it takes about 4-6 posts of wrangling before a 
significant suggestion or point comes up.  Is this a coincidence, or 
intentional?  This would have been a lot more useful if you had pointed 
this out when I first, explicitly listed our standard setups.

>> Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."
>
> Open space has table edges? I didn't know that :-)

No, buy my kitchen table does (and coincidentally, my gaming area has 
edges that are only about 1-2 feet longer in either direction.

>> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?
>
> 5'x8' hasn't a problem when I've used it - at 80 x 96 mu

do you mean 60 x 96 ?

> it approaches my old table (80 x 120 mu) in size. 4'x6' is borderline;

> the "large-area" tactics still work reasonably well as long as the 
> table scrolls and the set-up reflects what would've gone on before the

> ships reached the table, but you have to be fairly careful about what 
> you're doing.
>
> As mentioned throughout this post it also depends on how you set the 
> game up, since the set-up on a small table essentially replaces the 
> out-of-range manouevring that would've occurred on a larger table. 
> Note that a set-up which puts the long-range fencer in an impossible 
> situation is equivalent to the fencer having screwed up the initial 
> out-of-range manoeuvres completely :-/

<snip>

> How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start (ie.

> how far can the table scroll before you reach your destination), and 
> what happens when you leave the table by moving too far away for the 
> table to scroll? (In 'real' space, as well as on a larger table, the 
> ships would re-engage pretty soon - within a game turn or two - so 
> it's not as if you get away permanently by leaving the table. 
> Particularly not if you leave in some other direction than the 
> infrastructure you want to hit is located.)

The destination is normally an infinite distance away (i.e. the table 
can scroll as much as needed) but if one side leaves the table in such a

way that the table cannot be scrolled to accomodate it, then it is 
considered to have disengaged from the battle and leaves the area.

As I said, I am going to try your suggestion to begin with the two 
forces separated by the long table edge, rather than the short one.

J