Re: rear firing arcs (was 3-row hull)

Glen Bailey wrote:

 >>>Sometimes I make a mistake in movement orders, sometimes Steve
 >>>does.  It is just more costly for me to make a movement mistake
 >>>since Steve's ships have better arcs.
 >>
 >>And your house rules allowing unrestricted A-arc fire don't help
 >>you any either...
 >
 >It works both ways, as I usually have some 6-arc weaponry
 >(type 1s, some type 2 beams), and the occassional rear firing
 >pulse torpedo (especially on Klingon designs).

Judging from the designs you've posted so far, Steve typically has 
considerably *more* 6-arc weaponry than you do and considerably *less* 
manoeuvrability (and thus ability to keep his (A) arc safe) than you do.

Sure, it works both ways... but since he's got more to lose and less
with 
which to *prevent* losing it, it works a lot more your way than his.

 >He ends up in my rear arc more often due to my overrunning him and his
 >tendency to head for my current position once we've closed;

And also because the rules you're currently using give *you* very little

reason to *attempt* to get into his (A) arc.

 >And, that's a silly rule.

Silly? From a realism point of view, certainly - about as silly as the 
entire concept of ship-to-ship combat in space, really :-)

 From the *playability* point of view OTOH, the "no (A)-arc fire" rule 
makes a huge change for the range of tactics that are effective. 
Specifically this rule is pretty much what keeps the low-thrust/all-arc 
design style Steve favours from dominating the game, by providing it
with a 
potentially fatal weakness which its enemies can exploit. Keeping one 
particular design style from dominating the game improves the variety 
available in the game.

Which rule is the more silly one: the one which tries to increase the 
realism of an inherently unrealistic subject, or the one which makes
said 
unrealistic game more varied? Depends on what you want more, of course -

realism or variety... most players seem to prefer variety if they have
to 
choose at all :-/

 >It does slightly favor him,

I'd suggest that it (ie., your lack of restrictions on (A) arc fire) 
favours him rather more than just "slightly".

 >but getting to rear arcs is not that easy when the opponent uses
advanced
 >drives.

In Cinematic, if your opponent uses thrust-4A or stronger advanced
drives 
(ie., is capable of making 4-pt or sharper course changes) getting into
his 
rear arc is very tricky indeed and staying there is nearly impossible.

If OTOH the Cinematic-moving opponent is 1) restricted to *3*-point
course 
changes or less, 2) moving at all (ie. he doesn't come to a full stop to

rotate in place), and of course 3) actually following the movement rules

(which it seems that Steve doesn't always do), then the area immediately
in 
front of his ship's pre-move location will be in his (A) arc after 
movement. For ships restricted to 2- and 1-pt course changes, the area 
immediately *behind* the pre-move location will also be in the (A) arc 
after movement.

Judging from your posts, Steve tends to use thrust-2A engines on his 
battleships nowadays. That means that he is restricted to *2*-point
turns 
with those ships... so if you can make him follow the movement rules, 
you've got a fairly good idea about where his (A) arc will end up. Your 
thrust-4A engines give you enough manoeuvrability to get into it if you 
want to; it's just that with no restriction on (A)-arc fire you have
very 
little reason to want to do that.

 >One thing that has worked against me is his tendency to make
 >1 point turns closer to 45 degrees than 30.  I've chastised
 >him on this and he's getting better at making the correct turns.

I must say that making 1-pt turns closer to 45 degrees than 30 sounds 
rather similar to "cheating" - a bit like allowing a chess knight move 
diagonally (ie., 2 squares in *each* direction) if it wants to...

 >Also, speed is NOT life in Full Thrust; to change that oft-quoted
phrase.
 >One that took me awhile to unlearn. It's better for my limited-arc
forward-
 >firing weapon-armed ships to go slow on the initial approach so as to
keep
 >him in the optimum arc longer.  And when we starting the maneuvering
 >part of the battle a slower ship does make a tighter turn.

The problem with this approach is that way of "keeping him in the
optimum 
arc longer" tends to be equivalent to "staying in HIS optimum arc
longer", 
as well as "being unable to get out of his range quickly if things go 
pear-shaped". Of course, with no restrictions on (A) arc fire Steve's
ships 
don't really have any arcs that *aren't* "optimal" :-/

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