Re: Re: [GZG] Re: Jon's question on rotate/thrust/rotate

David Billinghurst wrote:

>OK.  I understand FB1/FB2 ships were designed with Cinematic movement
in
>mind (as Vector is only offered as an Option in FB1 and was still
considered
>optional in FB2).

Understanding *that* they were designed for Cinematic is a good start. 
However (and I hope I don't offend saying this), several of your
comments 
below suggest that you don't yet fully understand what that *means*, 
particularly in terms of ship design concepts.

>I also understand from the Designers Notes on Pg 2 of FB1 that the FB
ships
>are designed as average members of their classes, and from a design
>philosophy of what a real navy would design for real missions, and
haven't
>been munchkined to win one-off games.

The "one-off game" issue refers is irrelevant for this discussion if you

consistently stick to one movement system. When your entire universe
uses 
FB-style Vector movement, then building ships for that kind of movement 
can't be considered "munckining to win one-off games".

> >>The problem in Human/alien fights is not the rotating thing, but how
the
> >>opposing drive systems handle rapid changes in direction.
>
>I was talking about how Vector treats the A drives specifically.

And what I was talking about was that how Vector treats the Advanced
drives 
is merely a consequence of the fundamental Vector weapon arc vs 
manoeuvrability issues. You can't cure the symptoms (Advanced drives) 
unless you first cure the illness that causes it (weapon arcs vs 
manoeuvrability); yet focussing on the course-changing capabilities of 
Advanced drives like you did *is* trying to cure (one of) the symptoms.

>If the 'drive systems of Kra'vak ships seem to be very effective for
their 
>size,
>and make full use of the KRA'VAK MASTERY OF GRAV TECHNOLOGY (emphasis,
not
>shouting) to permit rates of manoeuvre FAR IN EXCESS (ditto) of those
>possible to human ships' [...]

Like all the Fleet Book background blurbs this one was written for 
Cinematic, based on gaming experience with Kra'Vak under Cinematic
movement 
(the More Thrust KV used the same movement rules as the FB2 ones) - and
in 
Cinematic, it is accurate: an MD4A ship like the Ko'Vol is considerably 
more manoeuvrable than an MD4 ship like the NAC Victoria, since the
Ko'Vol 
can make 4-pt course/facing changes while the Victoria can only make
2-pt 
course/facing changes.

Unfortunately background blurbs like these are not very good indicators
of 
*game balance* problems like the one this thread is about - particularly

not when the blurbs make players say "it is SUPPOSED to be like X" when
the 
"X" in question obscures the real problem or even is part of it.

> >But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with
the
> >balance between weapon fire arcs and engine power; it only becomes a
> >"human/alien" problem if you use the "official" Fleet Book fleets
because
> >the FB2 Kra'Vak are so heavily geared towards narrow fire arcs and
powerful
> >engines while just about all of the other Fleet Book fleets use
weaker
> >engines and wider fire arcs.
>
>Last point first, drive ratings by class (CL, BB, CV etc) are pretty
much
>identical across both alien and FB1 ships.

*Main Drive* ratings are similar by class; *manoeuvring thruster*
ratings 
are not. As I noted above, in Cinematic an MD4A drive is considerably
more 
powerful than an MD4 drive.

In current Vector it isn't, but that's beside the point *since all the 
Fleet Book design concepts were created for Cinematic movement*. The 
Kra'Vak concept is built around unusually powerful engines and lots of 
single-arc weapons - and they're the only published Fleet Book fleet
which 
uses weapon arcs as a main distinguising component of their design
concept. 
That is why they stick out from the other Fleet Book fleets in Vector: 
they're hit in a quite different way by the weapon arc vs
manoeuvrability 
issues than the other Fleet Book fleets are.

>I don't really understand your comment about using "official" Fleet
Book 
>fleets.

The "official" Fleet Book fleets only feature a limited sub-set of the 
design styles you can create with the Fleet Book ship design system -
and 
NONE of the design styles featured in the Fleet Books is really suitable

for FB1/FB2 Vector combat. If you've only played with and against
published 
designs from the "official" Fleet Book fleets, then you have very little

experience with the game balance issues this thread is about simply
because 
you haven't yet seen what those *other* design styles can do. John
Atkinson 
discussed this in a fair amount of detail in his post.

>As all the human ships move and manoeuvre
>in essentially identical fashion under Vector (as one would expect,
given
>that they're all coming off the same technology base), I personally
don't
>see a problem with the wide arc/narrow arc debate.

And all the human ships in FB1 also have very similar *fire arcs*, which

gives players who only use the "official" designs even fewer
opportunities 
to experience the full extent of the wide arc/narrow arc/manoeuvrability

issues.

>This sounds like a philosophical debate between Dead-eye Dicks and
folks 
>less confident in guessing the exact location of the enemy, but who
would 
>still like a crack at 'em.

It isn't philosophical at all. In my experience - not just myself, but
my 
opponents as well - it takes less than a dozen games to learn to predict

the enemy's location accurately enough to target him with single-arc 
weapons as long as the range is longer than about 12 mu. Closer than
that, 
the wider-arc weapons are better - but they must first *get* to close
range 
without getting hammered flat during the approach.

>Or between maximising your points per ship (all 1 arc weapons) and
trying 
>to cover yourself if you find yourself outnumbered.

The only time single-arc weapons make you unable to cover yourself
against 
superior numbers is when your entire fleet consists of one single ship.
If 
you have two or more ships, you can always face them in different 
directions if the enemy splits up - assuming that you don't want to
hammer 
one part of the enemy fleet flat before turning your attention to the
other 
part(s), that is.

>When it's resolved, can we have a look at the Kra'vak, please?

When the main weapon arc vs manoeuvrability issued have been resolved,
we 
hopefully won't *need* to take any particular additional look at the 
Kra'Vak :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l