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

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

From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@r...>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:13:07 +0100
Subject: Re: FT Fleet formations was Re: [GZG] FT vector movement systems

Richard Bell wrote:

>>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".

Um... Richard? A day or two ago, you stated that you had only played FT 
twice - once in Cinematic, and once in Vector.

If as you say you have only played each FT movement system *once*, then
it 
is no surprise if you can't work out correct formation-changing orders
on 
the fly.

If OTOH you had played half a dozen games with either movement system,
then 
I would've mildly surprised if you *couldn't* work out appropriate 
formation-change orders with at most a few seconds' extra effort.

And if you had been a veteran FT player with scores or hundreds of games

under your belt, then I would've been *extremely* surprised to hear that

you had problems working out formation-change orders on the fly - with
that 
much experience it would, as Roger Books wrote, be trivial.

FWIW I'm prepared to bet quite a lot of money that I would not be able
to 
work out correct formation-change orders in my first-ever game of AT:V
or 
SITS without doing some experimentation first.

>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.

And at least for Full Thrust, a few games will give you enough
experience 
to do that working-backwards stuff (or at least it has for all FT
newbies 
I've taught over the years, so I would expect it to do so for you too).

Since I've neither played nor read either AV:T or SITS I can't compare
how 
easy or hard it is to learn formation-flying in those games, but IMO
you're 
making an entire henhouse out of a feather over how hard FT formation 
changes are supposed to be <shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se

"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

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