Prev: Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update Next: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

From: "Roger Books" <roger.books@g...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:22:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAssuming there are
no small ships to soak damage that thrust 2 ship has to
be in 1 of 3
places.  Those places are close enough that I can easily narrow my
choice of
SM placements
to two.  A placement  that covers a left turn of one and a placement
that
covers a right turn of one.
Both will cover the no turn option.  The ships actual thrust is so small
as
to be fairly irrelevant.

And I can probably narrow it down to one placement by table
configuration
and my estimate
of my opponents best strategy.

It's pretty hard to get a thrust 2 to 24 without flying out of the
battle
anyway.

What absolutely wipes out a SM player is K'rvak.  The dodge circle is
huge.

Roger

(Did not work out the math on the thrust 6 ship but I bet the possible
location circle is much bigger.)

On 6/30/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> And the velocity. A Thrust 6 ship poking along at speed 4 isn't as
safe as
> a Thrust 2 ship at speed 24.
>
>


Prev: Re: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update Next: Re: Fighter Fixes was Re: Re: Re: [GZG] Revised Salvo Missiles Update