Prev: Re: Combat Point Value Revisited Next: Re: Combat Point Value Revisited

Re: 3-row hull costs

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:52:51 +0200
Subject: Re: 3-row hull costs

Glen Bailey wrote:

> >How can they be "the exact same design" if the hull configuration is 
> different?
> >
> >Steve's 3-row ships are NEW designs. While they're *similar* to his
> >4-row designs, they are NOT "the exact same".
>Same configuration except for hull.  Close enough to be the same to me.

Same configuration except for hull, but when that "except for hull"
them behave quite differently from one another on the gaming table I
consider them to be "the same". If they *behave* differently, then in my

eyes at least they *are* different.

> >Then you haven't played around enough with designing 4-row ships - or
> >least you haven't looked closely enough at the 4-row ships you have 
> designed.
>Excuse me.

Statement of fact. If you had played around enough with 4-row ships
looked closely at the options the 4-row hulls already give you, then you

would have noticed that your suggested hull costs were making the 3x18
more expensive than the more powerful 4x18 ship before Dean and I
it out to you.

> >>I've tried the [...]; and all for nought.
> >
> >Sorry for asking this, but could one of the reasons for your repeated
> >defeats be that Steve is a more skilled *tactician* than you are (in
> >addition to having better luck with his dice than you do)?
>Thanks for the insult.

As several others have already commented this was intended as a
not as an insult.

>I run rings around Steve when it comes to movement. But movement
>out do firepower.

Running rings around the enemy is not the same thing as "better tactics"

when the ring-running results in your own force getting defeated
(which seems to be what happened in this battle), nor when it lands you 
outside your own weapons' range but inside the enemy's. Movement is only

*part* of "tactics", not *all* of it.

>Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve does. 
>it just more costly for me to make a movement mistake since Steve's
>have better arcs.

And your house rules allowing unrestricted A-arc fire don't help you any


>Also, pulse torpedo and rail guns have a maximum range of 30 while
>beams and
>long-range pulsers have a maximum range of 36.  It's amazing how often
>in the 30-36 range band so I'm getting hits, [...] Steve's superior 
>"tactics" in this case is in ship design, not movement.

Er... Glen, how exactly do you end up at range 30-36 if not through a 
combination of your movement and Steve's movement?

> >OTOH, Steve's weapons were all screen-degradable whereas Glen's were
> >screen-skipping ones, and neither of them had any screens... so the
> > Glen spent on screen-skipping ability for his weapons were wasted.
>Steve used to have single screens on his capital ships.  But with my
>use of rail guns and pulse torpedoes has caused him to remove the
>His designs were new to me.

And his lack of screens contributed to your defeat by increasing his

>Do you know that the proposed cost for 6-row hulls make soap bubble
>carriers even cheaper?

Yep; all the way up to about .8333... pts cheaper per fighter group for
TMF 60+ soapbubble carrier (since you need at least 6 hull boxes to use
6-row hull). The "classic" TMF 12 single-bay soapbubble OTOH gets one
*more* expensive, since it must pay 3 pts for its single hull box rather

than just 2.

> >>I didn't fire the class-1 rail guns at Steve's  BB as it was wasting
> >>shots.  The class-6s would pretty much ignore his ship's massive
armor belt
> >
> >Um... according to your previous posts, that "massive armour belt"
> >the battle consisting of 6 armour boxes, and had already lost some
> >prior to the salvo we're discussing here. [...]
>I messed up the design I gave (the numbers are correct, the systems are

>His capital ships have a lot more armor than 6.




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

Prev: Re: Combat Point Value Revisited Next: Re: Combat Point Value Revisited