Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 06, 2006	25		01/07 06:04am

No MJC, I'm not having an attitude with you what you did; it was kind of rude. There are lots of things that remind me of whatever but if it is off topic I don't post them when the focus is something else. And to make your own proposal in a thread someone else started is poor ediquette. And I won't bring up the other factors of posting propsals that aren't my business.


That said an HET for Close Combat Maneuvers is an interesting idea. Perhaps it could be discussed elsewhere though along with other Range Zero Combat concepts. This thread is about the proposal at the top. Those are interesting ideas however.

Two impulses are involved, and ya you can fire before or after. ALL at R0. Where is the trade off? If there is one it is some infinitesimally small it's really not worth mentioning, IMO.

A starcastle is one thing and one thing only. It is speed zero using impulse and warp tacs. Anything else is not starcastling. I really don't care about slow movers since they are greatly less threatening since they cannot tac.

Did I say neither ship can move? Maybe read that line over again OK?

Tac's whatever, what's the point? I am aware of how to change shield facings. You CANNOT tac at speed one. It takes time to tac after Ed'ing. This is a different sort of maneuver that has it own bennefits and costs (which doesn't include energy).

No, not hard for pre-warp Romulans at all. All they have to do is move speed one and refuse a mutual flyby. It's in the rules above. Only stationary units cannot refuse a flyby.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 01:12 am: Edit

I recognise that TACs can't be done at speed 1 or higher and the TAC after the other guy moves thing is an advantage but a ship moving at speed 6 can still HET on any one impulse (except #1) and it'll be that one impulse's action that causes the entire game to be settled there and then so a ship moving at say speed 3 can still be considered to be adopting a starcastle like motion.
Perhaps it should be called a "star-tortus".

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 02:30 am: Edit

"No, not hard for pre-warp Romulans at all. All they have to do is move speed one and refuse a mutual flyby. It's in the rules above. Only stationary units cannot refuse a flyby. "

That means the rule will be suicide for sublight Romulans. Having to move at speed 1 means completely sacrificing the single opportunity to TAC. Or equally, the Romulan will have used the TAC earlier in the turn resulting in a very vulnerable position when the opponent slides into the hex. (Clever use of tractors seems to be an easy way to get in the hex while maintaining a low speed.) Hobson's choices are not fun.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 03:33 am: Edit

RW: I don't think it would be suicide. As per the rules above:

The bennefit goes also to the target (during R0PB the target gets a return shot with equal bennefit. The target also get any of three oppertunities to fire on the attacker as it flies by.)

You cannot perform the R0PB maneuver against a cloaked vessel. This would go for earlier versions of cloak too.

In sublight years the attackers won't be gaining so much damage against Romulan targets enough to matter. And when they do it won't the anything more that a part of the overall battle.


=======================================


MJC: In any case it's not starcastling which is what I'm talking about. The primary weakness in your maneuver is that a second HET is very dangrous in most cases. Otherwise you're maneuver can be performed at any speed where you only trading maneuverability for shield reinforcement points. Starcastling, on the other hand, sacrafices no maneuverability and get all the energy for weapons and reinforcement. It's primary sacrafice is possition on the map but not facing since it can react to enemy movement many times a turn. Your maneuver is a one shot maneuver that is part of any good player's repetroire. This is not a maneuver that is a problem in SFB. You attack is simple use of an HET at the right moment. I'm not trying to address any such thing.

Good use of an HET is fun, starcasteling opponants aren't. This rule would make such a tactic disappear either and it shouldn't. But I think it would be nice to see something that makes it a little harder. A little something extra you could do easier to a starcastler than to someone else. I balanced it by giving a lot of advantage to the target since the attacker gets to choose when and how the attack takes place.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 06:04 am: Edit

I'm not so sure a starcastler needs a counter manouver; there's already a pretty good counter attack:-SS!

Two 14 point SS will do about as much damage as the other guy is jamming into reinforcement and even if they're phasered down, the four Ph-3 shots at R1 needed to do it will take out (assuming two are doenfired Ph-1s ) about 20 points of damage which is again nearly what the starcastler is pumping in!

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:01 am: Edit

Loren. RW has a point about sub-light Roms. This R0 rule doesn't benefit them at all, as their lasers won't get more than a 2 point advantage, even with EW. Plus, the primary tactic for SLRs is to go speed 0, allowing for an imp-tac off batts OR a speed increase to 1 on i.27. This will leave them always vulnerable to this tactic. The cloak exception will help, but there are periods in EY when ph-2 armed Gorns are facing laser-armed, pre-Mask sub-light Romulans.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 11:48 am: Edit

Hmm, will it mean that Romulans will be unable to win or destroyed more often?

The reason I ask is becuase to make a difference the Romulans will have to be able to impose an EW shift for it to pose any worth while results.

I has been pointed out that the Ph-2 doesn't gain as much as a Ph-1 from this and I replied that in an EW environment the Ph-2 gain significantly off the bottom end while the Ph-1 suffers from the top end.

But are the sub-light laser armed Romulans able to put up EW enough to encurrage the Gorns to use this maneuver? Because if only armed with Ph-2 and not facing an EW shift there is little point to the R0PB maneuver except possibly for the maneuver aspects, which against Sub-Light Roms I suspect won't be much needed.

So the Gorns could use it but I don't think they would. In this case range plays much greater to them that it does later in history.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Loren. The earlier Roms have plasma bolts, so the Gorns tend to do bricks and reinforcement. They have little power left for ECCM. A 1-shift is common; a 2-shift is not that rare.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Who has little power for EW?

I take it the Roms don't have power for EW because sub-light ships don't have a lot of power. I'll have to review later today.

Since the Gorns won't be facing EW then there is no real bennefit to using R0PB against Sub-light ROms in the EY period.

I have to conclude for now that R0PB poses little or no practical impalance for Roms in the EY period since the weapons used against them a Ph-2 and the fire bennefit for Ph-2's is negligable unless you are facing and ECM shift.

Why would a Gorn in prior to Y88 get closer than five hexes anyway?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 11:36 pm: Edit

One major reason for the Gorn to use R0PB are the bonuses of passive fire control. A ensured die roll of 1 when the phasers are fired at effective range 5 can yield noticeable damage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 02:33 am: Edit

To perform R0PB you must have active fire control. If that is not in the rules above, my BIG bad. I had always intended that.

I think I mentioned you must have a lock-on which means active fire control.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 02:39 am: Edit

In any case you guys have helped me refine what needs addressing. I will try to get standard format rule set done soon.

Thanks so far...

Keep it coming, please!

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 03:36 am: Edit

Err, I must have incorrectly explained myself. The ship choosing to conduct fire will have active fire control. The slow moving target unit might not have active fire control running; indeed, the target unit becomes very likely to qualify for the (D19.33) range bonus. With R0PB, a Gorn YCL would generate 12 points of damage (instead of averaging 4 points as under current rules) against S or W Romulan unit operating unmasked but keeping fire control off.

A whole range of EY Romulan tractor tactics will become suspect if the Romulans can't rely of PFC protection. (D6.624) is the cornerstone which allows Romulan ships to both move and TAC on the same turn with modest safety but (G13.433) switches the emphasis from fancy gadgets to reliable PFC.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 11:58 am: Edit

PFC is something I'll have to review but I suspect I will try to keep the safties intact. It is something that takes considerable effort to accumulate so should not be countered so easilly.

My thinking on R0PB is that you are making a very close flyby on the target, so close you can miss but also so close your heavies can't arm (or will feed back into your tubes and cause major mayhem). At SFB speeds this is not all that fast when range is long enough (even R0 is thousands of KM) but the flyby itself is very quick because of the close proximity. Everything has to be spot on so you need an approach (announcement impulse) the fire point and the flyby. You have to have a percise lock-on to both gain the bennefits of fire and to make the appraoch.

I suspect that a ship at speed 0 isn't really ate speed 0 either. It may be flying a 1000KPH on thrusters, at SFB scales this is certainly speed 0. Even a base is drifting. TO make a 1KM flyby at .9C you have to have everything pinpointed.

That wouldn't happen with PFC. So my thinking is that you cannot gain the R0PB fire bonus against a unit having gained PFC protections. You could still perform the maneuver on the units possition to put it on you rear shield but you would gain no fire bonus. Consequently the target would still gain his bonus since he see you coming and can line up on you.

Still, I should review the PFC rules to catch everything.

Thanks Richard, that was a very important point to address.