Re: Classed Weapons

Kevin Walker wrote:

> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:26 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> True to some extent.	On a larger board, with the costs system 
> currently, B1s and B2s still may be worth their costs (or at least 
> close to it) depending upon tactics and other ship design/system
issues.

Yes. I agree.

>>> 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:
>
> <snip>
>
> Understood.  Sometimes I wish some of us could discuss more on this 
> list, but being part of various playtest groups we are bound not to 
> disclose specifics of ideas under consideration, development, and 
> testing.  It's for the best since we throw out a lot of ideas to see 
> which have merit and thus lots of changes happen midstream.

I understand that, but when someone like me (not in the PT group) asks a

question or makes a statement that was covered in that context, I would 
much rather have an answer of one of the following:

A) "We are aware of the problem and are talking about it in the playtest

group.	If you have any ideas we would like to hear them.  Mr. Tuffley 
will decide how much information to release (or not) at this time."

B) "That was discussed during playtesting for Book ABC and we decided on

solution X, as published, because playtesting revealed Y and Z (or 
compromise between problem P and problem Q).  Some people like house 
rules J, K or L."

C) "That has already been discussed on this list (2,3,4, etc.) years ago

and we came to consensus B because of X, Y and Z"

D) "That has already been discussed (2,3,4, etc.) years ago and we agree

to disagree because of X, Y and Z.  Various options are A, B and C"

E) "If you try small change X in the way you set up (or in your victory 
conditions, etc.), the problem goes away (or is reduced to Y)"

F) "Problem A only exists if you play X.. If, instead, you play Y, then 
there is Problem B.  Published rule PQR is a compromise between A & B 
because of Z"

Instead, it came across as:

A) "This has been discussed in the playtest group for Book ABC, but we 
aren't going to say what was said or why the decision was made as it 
was.  We decided X.  Accept it"

B) "A few of us play differently than what was put forward in the books 
as the basic assumptions for the game such that it greatly affects the 
flow of the game and we got the rules changed to reflect our way of 
play, but no mention was made in the new rules of the new situation. 
 You should change the way you play to match ours"

C) "X is the way it works best."  (no information given on why, 
conditions of play, previous discussions, or restrictions to the 
playtest group).

D) "You didn't listen to our discussion (2,3,4 etc.) years ago."  (no 
further information given)

>> And I don't feel like going through the archives to find the 0.01% 
>> that would interest me.
>
> This I can sympathize with.
>
>>> I'd meet this challenge 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 . . .
>
> I'll definitely take the raider (higher speed and weapon range of 25% 
> or greater - maybe less) unless the table size is less than 60 MUs in 
> length or width.  It's a fairly easy battle to win for the raider.  
> Using B4s, the raider matches the KVs spees and direction (or closely 
> so), staying about 44 inches out.  This is enough distance to avoid 
> being surprised by a KV ship's sudden acceleration towards you 
> (assuming it has T6A).  Just shoot away with.  If the KV ship slows 
> down, so does the raider - with the speed advantage, with proper 
> planning and no mistakes, the raider should be able to stay at a range

> of between 32 and 58 MUs if it has at least a 2 drive advantage and 
> there are no other mitigating factors (fighters, terrain, board limits

> smaller than this range).
>
> The reasoning for the 60 inches is you artificially constrain part of 
> the movement advantage any "dancing" ship has if the enemies weapons 
> reach over 1/2 of the length of the board playing area IMO.

I now understand the reasoning behind OO's little ship.

You are the first person in more than a dozen posts on the subject to 
explicitly state the reasons and limitations behind the tactics without 
assuming that everyone does (or should) play the way you do.  You simply

said "it works in this situation because X, subject to condition Y". 
 (this is a compliment to you)

You are also the only one who actually answered the question as if you 
read my explicit description of how my group sets up and pointed out 
(perhaps indirectly) the differences.

Mr. Ohlson has given me some information and changes to try, but I think

it was accidental because they came up 3 or 4 post exchanges after the 
important part was first discussed, was said in passing, seemed that Mr.

O did not see them as being specifically relevant and I made the 
connection to a different topic myself (e.g. "set up in adjacent long 
edge corners rather than adjacent short edge corners", or "vector 
problems predate FB2 changes")

Thank you.

J