Re: Classed Weapons

Jared Hilal wrote:

>>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).

<chuckle>

You may want to consider that this quote comes from the FT2 rule book, 
which was published in 1992. That's eleven years ago, and it hasn't been

updated since. By that time Jon had no idea how big a success Full
Thrust 
would be, or what table sizes people would use to play it. You should
also 
consider that the largest beam weapon available in basic FT2 was the "A"

battery, which had a max range of 36 mu - ie., corresponding to the
current 
Class-3 battery.

Fleet Book 1 was published in 1998. By that time we had a better idea of

what table sizes people were actually using, and because we did we wrote

that the FB1 ship design system accordingly.

>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,

Hm? The only thing in that section which implies anything about any
assumed 
standard is that 1" is considered to be the standard length of 1 mu.

>but suggests the use of 1 MU = 1cm for "...high speeds and lots of 
>manoeuvering (sic) room..."

"...on your normal size of table." is the continuation of that sentence.

Note "YOUR normal size", not "THE normal size". No implication that
4'x6' 
is the "standard" here.

(In fact, since I was one of those who made Jon put this section into
FB2 
this particular sentence refers in no small part to my own old gaming
table 
- which was a mere 2'8" x 4' in size :-/ 2'8" x 4' is ~ 80 x 120 cm,
which 
allows plenty of high-speed manoeuvres since I measure in cm. That's the

very reason why I started to measure in cm in the first place :-/ )

>>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.  :)

That's right, you did. Of course, since FB2 *vector* allows you to use
your 
entire main drive rating for rotations and pushes, my example was
perfectly 
correct :-)

(If you read the second FB2 vector example carefully, you'll note that
it 
describes a thrust-4 ship making 2 rotations, 1 side thruster burn, and
a 
1-pt MD burn.)

>>>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.

Those scenario set-ups all looked as if the two sides were facing more
or 
less towards one another, which made them rather odd-looking for a
pursuit 
situation.

>>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?

It is mostly because many of us have already gone through this debate at

least 3-4 times and often more over the past several years. (Eg., I've
been 
on this list and its predecessor for close to ten years now.) In several

cases, I at least honestly didn't realize that you hadn't already seen
it 
before.

Now that we know that you've only been on the list for a few months, and

haven't yet figured out how to use the search tools in the archive to
find 
the older discussions which might interest you, then we could try harder
to 
explain things to you from the start. But then again, since you only
seem 
to consider what we're trying to tell you to be "sputtering, spurious, 
sarcastic straw man arguments", why should we really bother?

>>>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 ?

Yes, sorry. Typo :-( Big enough to use high-speed tactics on, anyway; in

particular it is wide enough that a B2 can't reach from one long edge to

the other.

>>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

In that case the T8B5 has an infinite amount of time in which to
re-engage 
your KV raider if either ship leaves the table - unless of course your 
raider goes FTL and leaves the system completely, but that means
conceding 
defeat. IOW, if you want a realistic assessment of what the T8B5 can do
you 
probably need to reconsider the "if a ship leaves the table it
disengages" 
rule :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry