Re: T8 B5 BC was Re: Classed Weapons

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Jared Hilal wrote:
> I could have done so - if I had realized at the time that these were 
> the ONLY set-ups your group uses, rather than some EXAMPLES of the 
> many types of set-ups you use. 

You are correct that they are not the ONLY set-ups, but as I said at the

time, they are the vast majority (by which I meant 80% or more).  Next 
time I will be more specific to avoid misunderstandings.

> When I finally did begin to suspect that the set-ups you had listed 
> actually were the only ones you use, and also realized the rather 
> major importance you put on leaving the table in spite of its 
> scrolling (which would prevent a faster ship from catching up with a 
> slower one once it had left the table), I immediately described a more

> appropriate set-up for this particular scenario.

That importance is because we usually use forces totaling 6-20 ships per

side, rather than 1 or 2, so that having ships on both edges of the play

area is not uncommon.  I describe this in more detail in my response to 
your other post.

> Of course this debate isn't nearly *that* bad (the above example is 
> much exaggerated), but time and again you've made what appears to be 
> quite definite statements about how things are in Full Thrust but 
> which eventually turn out to be based on relatively basic gaps in your

> understanding of how the game - including its ship design system - 
> works. (Not how the *rules* work as such, but how they interact with 
> one another.) The relationship between a weapon's combat power and the

> area covered by its fire arc was one such case (OK, that one 
> admittedly isn't a particularly "basic" gap, but it is one I can nail 
> down closely enough to put words on), the relationship between a 
> weapon's "effectiveness" and its mass was another, the relationship 
> between turn rate and value of wide fire arcs a third, and so on. 
> Unfortunately, since we don't know exactly where these gaps of yours 
> are, we only have two ways to fill them in: either we try to give 
> *all* the background detail of which you already know most, 

As for the rotation rate vs fire arcs topic (where this all started), I 
very explicitly stated a) the limited extent of my experience with the 
vector system (3x EFSB, 1x FB1, 0x FB2), b) that I was essaying a 
solution to a problem I had read as perceived by others on this list, 
rather than one from my own experience, and c) the places where I viewed

the problem to be rooted.  From the way the responses et al. flowed, it 
seemed as if most of the members who answered had only skimmed or 
outright skipped that part (my introduction to the post) and then went 
straight to debating my suggestion.  No one pointed out "Your suggestion

flows from a faulty premise of XYZ.  It is actually ABC.  Does that 
change what you want to suggest?".  Nor did anyone say "The limited 
experience that you stated probably makes you unaware of ABC".	As it 
turns out, the "gaps of mine" were expressly stated at the beginning, 
they were just ignored.

In only one case (re: my suggestion in re: Mr. Evans question about a 
more realistic handling of acceleration) did anyone bother to say: "Oh, 
wait, I read that too quickly before answering".

Now, as for the weapons range thread, I probably was out reaching my
grasp.

For that, I am sorry.  But, in the course of the thread, I did learn 
some other factors to take into account.  So that slightly lessens the 
guilt I feel.

However (again), since I expressly stated my starting position at the 
beginning of the vector debacle, I have no guilt over that one.

J