play style and leaving board question / was Re: Classed Weapons

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 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. 

In my original statement, (not the one snipped above) I had said +/- 30 
degrees between fleet courses.

> 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.)

To me, "facing more or less towards one another" means that the courses 
are within 60 degrees of parallel and also in opposite directions.

> Yes, assumptions. At least I assumed that you had more FT experience 
> than you now appear to have,

Depends on your definitions.  I was introduced to FT in the mid-1990s, 
after MT but before FB1.  However, the group that I play with has been 
fairly constant in size and people over that time.  Further, they (we) 
are on the friendly-sporting side in manner of play.  So that, for 
example, the trick of FB1 vector where one burns the MD, rotates the 
ship 90 degrees and then burns the thrusters to get some extra 
acceleration would not have come up.  Just because it is technically 
possible because of a glitch in the rules doesn't mean that we exploit 
it.  It (this example) would be considered unsportsman-like.

 It sounds like this manner of easy-going and friendly play makes me 
unaware of the full range of both tactics and exploitation of the rules.

 (BTW tactics are good, exploitation: bad)

> 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. 

< snip >

> [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.

What I was looking for is a general guideline that can be used in our 
games, rather than just single ship duels.

Our normal games consist of a division or squadron of capital ships 
(between 2 and 8, most often 4 or 5) and 4-12, sometimes (rarely) more, 
fleet escorts (cruisers, frigates, etc.).  Most capital ships are c. T4 
and escorts are c. T6, smaller up to T8.  All played cinematic.  The 
most common situation is a damaged ship with reduced (1/2 normal) thrust

unable to turn enough to remain on the board, but with maneuvering 
available to * theoretically * get back *eventually * (i.e. engines not 
completely off-line).  A secondary situation is a capital ship or 
division (T4, = maneuvering 2) that cannot turn fast enough to stay on 
the board during a general melee, rather than a pursuit, and on the 
following turn would not be able to get back on the playing area because

of a combination of speed and maximum turn rate.  It is these ships that

are deemed to have "disengaged".  In such a situation, we are not going 
to re-set the game in order to accommodate the one ship.

J