Re: Classed Weapons

Jared Hilal wrote:

>>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.
>
>Then I would have suggested adding something like:
>
>"Although a 4'x6' area is workable, we have found that the game, 
>especially with the new design system, plays better with a larger
maneuver 
>area.	We suggest either using 1 MU = 1 cm on 4'x6' or an area larger
than 
>4'x6' if using 1 MU = 1".  In the latter case, at least 60 [or 70 or 
>whatever] MU in each direction is recommended."

Something like that will most likely go into FT3, yes. As and when it is

finally published, that is <sigh>

>>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.)
>
>Since my group does not play vector, I had not noticed.

Which makes your critizism of this particular example look a bit 
over-hasty, doesn't it...

>However, I would point out that no matter what the * intentions * were,

>what is actually written does not state that maneuver can consume the 
>ship's entire thrust allotment

Space was at a premium, and it was felt that the example following 
immediately after the rule (together with the paragraph about the 
difference between Advanced and Standard drives in FB2 Vector being the 
legal direction of an MD burn, implying "instead of the difference in 
thrust available for manoeuvring") would make the intention clear to the

players. Appearently we were wrong in your group's case; sorry about
that.

>>>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.
>
>One was ambush of a group in the center of table.
>One was perpendicular courses entering from adjacent sides
>One was parallel courses entering from adjacent corners.
>
>And I also said "we specifically avoid 'line up your minis and joust'
type 
>of set-ups".
>
>Which one did you think was "facing more or less towards one another"

All of them.

If both forces *enter* the table on perpendicular courses their courses 
have to be converging (unless your table has a very strange shape), thus

the forces are "facing more or less towards one another". They're
certainly 
not moving (and, since you play Cinematic, facing) *away* from one
another 
at the start of the battle.

The word "ambush" strongly suggests that the force being ambushed is not

moving away from its attackers, nor that the attackers are moving away
from 
the ambushed party. (They might all be stationary, but in that case the 
ambushees have unknowingly stopped right in the ambush area which
doesn't 
seem all that likely.)

Finally your description of the "parallell" courses scenario, combined
with 
the statement that ships which move so far off the table that it can't
be 
scrolled without at least some ships leaving it means that the ones that

leave have "disengaged", also implies that the forces move on converging

courses rather than "parallell" ones. Otherwise you wouldn't have a
battle, 
after all - unless of course one or both sides have weapons which can
reach 
clean across the table, but that means using B4s or larger batteries and

your previous posts had implied that your group doesn't use such weapons
much.

(Note that "facing more or less towards one another" does not mean "on 
directly opposing courses". It only means "on converging courses", as 
opposed to a classic pursuit situation where both forces move at roughly

the same course one in front of the other.)

>>>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.
>
>assumptions.

Yes, assumptions. At least I assumed that you had more FT experience
than 
you now appear to have, and therefore would understand more of our 
explanations than you appear to have done. Because of that I left out 
details which I considered to be either obvious or beside the exact
point 
under discussion, in a vain attempt to keep the length of these posts
down 
at least somewhat. For that I apologize; now I know better. I've
discussed 
this in more detail in another post today.

>>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?
>
>Actually, that statement was about Mr. Laserlight alone.

Whatever you say. The rest of us you seem to accuse of giving you
answers 
only by accident and/or after long delays, or you come up with
explanations 
based on an occasionally limited understanding of the rule interactions 
involved (see my other post today) to tell us why the answers we give
you 
are wrong. Considering that we're doing our best to answer your
questions, 
I must say that I don't find that response of yours to be very much
better 
than what you told Laserlight.

>>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.
>
>I presume that you mean that a ship with B2s in the center of the
(5'x8', 
>1" = 1 MU) table does not cover the entire short distance from edge to 
>edge with a 360 degree weapon?

A 180-degree weapon is sufficient if it is oriented in the right
direction. 
(B2s, of course, never come with less than an 180-degree fire arc.)

[On the raider-vs-T8B5 scenario]

>>>The destination is normally an infinite distance away
>As in "infinite" = "undefined"
>
>>  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 :-/
>
>Do you have any suggestions on how to determine when, where and how the

>ship re-enters the play area?

Simply repeat the set-up process. On a large enough table it will
usually 
not take more than 2-3 turns before the T8B5 is back in position (unless

the raider it is harrying changes course completely and starts moving 
*away* from the infrastructure it is supposed to be raiding in which
case 
it can take a bit longer for the T8B5 to catch up). Unless the 
infrastructure target is at a more-or-less defined and fairly short 
distance - within a few table-lengths, give or take some depending on
the 
velocity the ships move at - the T8B5 will be able to catch up before
the 
raider can hit its intended target.

>I would like to hear how you handle this situation, because i expect
that 
>even on your 80x120 MU area you have encountered such a situation.

I have, but it doesn't happen very often even in larger battles and it
is 
quite rare in two-ship duels. The extra table size usually allows the 
pursuer side in this kind of battles one turn in which to react (ie., 
change course to follow the enemy) before the pursuee can leave the
table 
by turning aside.

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