Prev: Re: [GZG] Sheep con Queso Next: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@x...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:17:11 +1200
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

>> The general concept, when last we saw, is that anti-ship weapons will
>> able to fire (with reduced chance to hit) on fighters, missiles, etc.
>> devil is in the details, as always, but I think most of those who 
>> initially opposed the idea (including me) have been persuaded that
>> the way to go.
> Addendum: of course, if St Jon doesn't like it, then we pitch it out
> try again...

Does not the effectiveness of carriers and ordnance carriers depend on
kind of deployment and initial velocity you use?

In our campaigns we have 2 types of game. In our real space engagements
play on a rolling table and initial deployment distances are ~70MU apart

with a maximum initial velocity of 10mu.
We also have hyperspace engagements. In these, the table is a 48mu
circle. Fleets enter during the movement phase of the first turn with
initial velocity set between 1 and 10 and proceed straight ahead. Ships 
enter from the edge of the playing area with a random placement.
With a mixture of hyperspace and realspace engagements to design ships
you can't just consider one set of scenarios. Tactics are also

Hyperspace games are very different from normal games and are often to
B5 "a disaster for both sides". Also in our games if you want to flee a 
hyperspace battle you have to use your FTL to get you out but it has to
activating the turn you get to the edge of the hyper bubble.

We have found that presenting players with a mix of deployment options
goes a long way to counter people designing ships with a very extreme 
viewpoint. If someone wants to have an all carrier fleet they have to be

prepared for how to get past a hyperspace blockade.


Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] Sheep con Queso Next: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update