Re: FT Fleet formations was Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/4/07, John
Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> I would counter propose that this is two formations.	One is a screen
and
> one is your long range hitters.
>
> John

Okay, it IS two formations.  Now tell me what FT movement orders will
keep
the screen in the correct position as the relative bearing between the
heavy
hitters and the enemy changes while maintaining a linear formation
across
the enemy's line of approach.

>
> > A possible situation in a fleet engagement is redeploying a
destroyer
> > screen.  You have a core of ships with devastating long range
> capabilities
> > (graser-3's or HDC-2's) that have sacrificed close in firepower, so
you
> have
> > a destroyer screen loaded with class-2 beams and submunition
clusters to
> > make it really expensive for your enemy to close (Note: unless your
> opponent
> > has your equal in long range firepower, you really do want him to
spend
> the
> > time to blow away your screen, as it keeps the range open).  The
problem
> is
> > having enough destroyers to completely encircle your core is equally
> > expensive, so you need to be able to keep your incomplete screen
between
> > your enemy's fleet and your fleet's core.  The formation may be too
> large to
> > just treat is as a single ship, and you may want to turn in one
> direction,
> > while rotating the screen in the other.  Maybe your enemy has
misjudged
> and
> > moved past your formation and you need to quickly get the screen to
the
> > other side.  Finally, as elements of the screen are destroyed, you
need
> to
> > close up the gaps.
> >
> > If you chose to go the HDC route for devastating long range
firepower,
> you
> > really DO have to exert finicky control of your formation to keep
the
> gaps
> > in your screen facing a likely enemy location.
> >
> > BTW:  I do not think grasers are unbalanced.  At a distance they are
> quite
> > destructive, but at close ranges an equal mass of beam-2's cost less
and
> > inflict more damage.  They very much trade close in hitting power
for
> long
> > range crunch.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>