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

I've played SITS a number of times, but only played AV once.  I did not 
find it to be any easier to hold formation in SITS than it is in FT.

What I find is that holding and turing lines is fairly difficult, but if

you make a diamond or circle, it's fairly easy to stay on station in 
either system.

<shrug>

J

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Richard Bell wrote:

> On 3/5/07, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> There is no indivdual order that accomplishes this.	You get to give
>> orders to each ship, like everyone else, and try to manuever them
>> appropriately to your plans.
>> 
>> Then again, if there IS a "group order" that maintains formation, you
give
>> each formation appropriate orders so that your screen goes where you
want
>> it to.  If the enemy doesn't cooperate and outmanuvers your screen,
then
>> you suffer.
>> 
>> Or do you maintain the screen is omniscient enough to always know
where
>> the enemy will be, so that you can give it an order like, "Screen us"
and
>> they will then always be in position?
>
>
> You have nicely hit the point that I was trying to make.  If you have
not
> experimented with it beforehand and "drilled your ship handlers" (by
writing
> down what actually worked onto a reference card), you are not going to
get
> it right during a battle, without immense amounts of luck  or analysis
> paralysis.  The most important word in your first paragraph is "try".
>
> Expanding my point somewhat, I was taking issue with the claim that
the FT
> rules for movement and order writing were hands-down better than
trying to
> handle a fleet than the AV:T rules.  The FT rules, as written, lack
the
> granularity for some kinds of finicky formation handling.  Shifting
the
> relative bearing of the screen to the core and rotating the screen's
line is
> no easier in FT than any other system (except Fear God and Dread
Nought,
> which conveniently provides examples of many of the coordinated
maneuvers
> that a formation of WWI warships would execute[which are easier to
port to
> AV:T than FT, but still rather difficult]).  The only advantage FT has
is
> that each order is easier to write and the results of each order are
easier
> to predict.  The sticking point is working backwards from the desired
> endpoint of a formation to orders needed to get there from the current
> point.  Being able to predict what each possible order will do is of
> marginal utility if none of them do what you want.
>
> Useless trivia:  the order given by the german admiral to the High
Seas
> Fleet  of "Combined Turn, [180 degrees] to starboard" , at Jutland was
an
> act of desperation, as no one expected that it could be pulled off in
poor
> visibility, while under fire, without somebody ramming someone else.
> However, the consequences of doing a turn in succession of the entire
> battleline, under the guns of the British Grand Fleet, were too
horrible to
> contemplate and everything else took too long to organise and
communicate to
> each ship.
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l