as I recall Mr Lin also wrote a good term paper on the semi-oblique approach that works well for the Lyran.

By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike, glad you liked the paper!

By Troy Williams (Jungletoy) on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Ken has graciously shared his knowledge and web page with me. Now I just have to futz with a live walkthrough so I can 'see' the flow of the games. Thanks everyone for the help and advice!

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 11:09 am: Edit

Peter Bakija:
In your write-up for your latest plat-hat win, I noticed you armed a standard S-torp in turn 4, even though your opponent's shields were "ragged". Would not an enveloper have been better, or did you need the extra power for negative tractor?
Just trying to learn how to be a better Gorn, and for the moment yours is the best brain to pick on that subject.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 11:24 am: Edit

Mostly I wanted the power for tractor.

An enveloper would have been awesome if it could hit at that point (his #3 and #6 were down, #2 was at, like, 5 or 6 boxes, and all other shields had some damage), but as I needed to rearm my batteries and my phaser capacitor was empty, I needed as much power as I could muster. It was not impossible that Ron was going to put upwards of 30 power into tractors (he had 6 drones on the map, all of which would hit before most of my phasers recycled) and grab me on impulse 1 from R3, and I wanted to be able to fight the R3 tractor to weasel. Which meant I needed a maximum of 12 power for anti-tractors (7+5 batteries).

Also, by arming a standard torp, it wasn't impossible that I might benefit by just launching a standard S torp without a tractor that is "obviously" a fake that would just hit. And as he had no strong forward shields at all, that could be all I needed.

On top of that, if I wanted to anchor *him*, I needed to have tractors armed as well--an enveloper that hit a weasel was much less good than a standard that hits with an anchor at that point.

All of this adds up to "standard torp" :-)

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Got it, thank you.
I have to admit, my home group almost never uses weasels, so my tactics generally don't take them into account.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Ah, yeah. Weasels, in tournament play, very important.

Always assume your opponent is going to weasel in the instances when it will hinder you most. And then, if they *don't* do that, you get to be pleasantly surprised and then you are ahead of where you thought you were going to be.

For example, on T2 in that game I just played, when I launched 50 plasma at the Shark, he was in a situation where he could have declared emergency decel, turned in to R3, shot me, and weaseled off the plasma. Which is what I assumed he was going to do (which would have put a big hole in me if he had 4xOL/7xP1 to shoot me with and rolled well), which was *almost* a good trade for me--I would take 10-20 internals in exchange for maneuvering advantage for the rest of the game, which may or may not have worked out in my favor. But when he didn't do that, I was suddenly ahead of where I thought I was going to be.

Granted, it was certainly possible that my S torp at that point was a fake. Especially as I gave him the opportunity to weasel it. So Ron presumably gambled that it was a fake (as it wasn't that unlikely to be a fake), and decided to shoot the plasma (mostly the F, which he knew was real, instead of me) and not decel and weasel (to keep the pressure on, hoping to chase me and get me with drones in a turn or two, rather than shoot me up with phasers and a couple OL disruptors and then weasel, surrendering initiative). As if he decelled and weaseled and the S torp *was* a fake, that would have been bad for him. Given that he only had standard disruptors armed (which I didn't know at the time), his R3 shot would have done, like, 42-48 damage if he OLed 2 of the disruptors off batteries, which after my own battery reinforcement would have resulted in, like, a dozen internals, at which point he weasels, loses drones on the map, and is slow for a while and I get to run off and reload scott free. So given that he didn't have 4xOLs armed, decelling and shooting at that point was risky for him, especially if the S torp was fake. But in fog of war, things are mysterious :-)

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Bill Schoeller, BS (KLI) over David Zimdars, AdmiralDZZI (ZIN)

(report by David Zimdars, 8/17/2011)

David’s tactical commentary is inside the brackets []. This article follows the format where I describe a section of game narrative, follow with a tactical discussion and analysis, alternating through the game. Usually game reports are rather brief recounts of the game which may give little tactical insight about what the players thought and how, after the fact, they may wish to have played differently. In “victory at” articles, the recounts are written by the winner. They say you learn more by losing. The following is something different from a “victory at” article. It is a thorough breakdown of a game that I played (and lost) vs. a two time national champion, providing insight (from the loser) about *how the champion did what he did* and how (as the loser) I could have counteracted his play. I think writing this analysis will make me a better player. The article is far longer than the usual post, but I am sharing it in the hopes that a few of you may generously take your time to read it and that you may find something interesting (to learn or discuss). -Dave

Turn 1

Bill used a 15/16/26 plot with (about) 17 moves and I used a 16/15/23/22 plot with 17 moves. I held 1 suicide shuttle and started arming 2 wild weasels. Bill was arming or holding at least 1 wild weasel.

[Both these speed plots are designed to look faster than they actually are, with speed changes timed to skip 2 sequential impulses of movement that would otherwise be performed at the apparent speed. These plots conserve power and allow scatter pack drones to catch up or pass the launching ship. The second half of turn 23/22 plot for the ZIN may give the ZIN priority if the KLI plots 21 for turn mode 4, conceding the 26 speed since the KLI would have priority at max HET speed due to turn mode B.

I feel that the ZIN has greater need of wild weasels in this matchup for the ECM than the KLI, although 3 special shuttles is an energy drain. Against an expert KLI like Bill, forgoing the suicide shuttle in favor of lower power consumption and an easier third weasel may be the better way to go. Suicide shuttles need to be held from turn 1, but weasels can be more easily armed in a staggered fashion as the game progresses, saving power.]

Bill launched his scatter pack impulse 3, opening impulse 9 with 6 type IM drones. I launched my scatter-pack impulse 8, opening impulse 17 with 4 type IF and 2 type IM drones

[The impulses slipped by here and I didn’t follow my battle plan regarding launching my scatter-pack, boding ill for the evening. My plan was to launch 1 impulse after his (presumed) scatter pack launch but no later than impulse 7; unless I believed he was going to corner-dodge. Bill’s plot did not move impulses 4 and 5 which may have thrown me off waiting to make sure he wasn’t corner-dodging. However, when he moved strait on impulse 6, had I followed my plan I would have launched on impulse 6, and my speed 32 drones would have advanced 2 hexes closer, pressing him a little harder in the later turn engagement.]

Bill moved straight down the 1700 hex column whereas I slipped towards Bill from the 2500 hex column.

[I wanted to keep my #1 shield towards Bill and see if I could fortuitously slip into the gap where the KLI can fire only 4 phaser-1s on the inside of the FA hex spines.]

On impulse 19 I launched 2 additional type I-F drones.

[I slightly regretted launching these drones, as I was slightly concerned that they were gratuitous, although if this launch was an error, it was relatively minor. I launched when my scatter-pack IF drones and I were at the same range. A greater error was that all 6 type IF drones were not in the same hex, increasing vulnerability to the ADD an letting phasers take them on piecemeal. While I could have (and probably should have) combined them in the same hex as I had the opportunity. However, I realized I had maneuvered the initial scatter pack drones too far “westward” towards the 1700 hex column, as I suspected Bill was about to turn “east” and cross my T].

On impulse 25, Bill turned C (east) to cross my T and we ended up at range 8 on impulse 27, he on my #1 and I on his #2. Bill called for fire and shot 4 overloaded UIM disruptors and 5 phaser-1s. I held fire. Bill missed with 2 disruptors and rolled poorly on phasers, scoring only 18 points of damage. I had 14 points of allocated reinforcement on my #1 which I buttressed with 4 points of battery reinforcement so I took no shield damage.

[This was the best luck I was to get for the game. The reinforced “iron jaw” hopes to draw the KLI for a turn 1 range 4 shot somewhat later in the turn so that the ZIN can get a range 1-2 shot early in turn 2. Ordinarily, a range 4 can net over 20 internals if the KLI hits well, but the iron jaw can reduce this to a token amount. By crossing my T when he did, Bill guaranteed that I would get no closer than range 7 (although he had the option of turning back prior to impulse 32), leaving me to deal with his scatter pack drones at longer range. If the ZIN has to toss a wild weasel at range 2 to the KLI to flush the KLI scatter pack drones, it is not too costly to the ZIN’s direct fire. Using the batteries to save 4 boxes and keep the shield fresh was dubious, as it yielded a power advantage to the KLI on turn 2.]

Bill ended the turn by turning and moving direction B twice, while I cruised forward. We ended turn 1 range 7, his shield 3 to my shield 1. His scatter-pack drones were at range 1 to my #1 shield. I fired 4 phaser 1s and 4 phaser 3s to auto-kill all of his drones. By end of turn 1, Bill had fired 4 ADD and used 6.5 points of phaser capacitor. I had used 6 points of phaser capacitor.

[I regard how I ended turn 1 an error. The Achilles heel of ZIN drone defense is that it badly compromises the ZIN direct fire offense when the drones come from the same direction the ZIN wants to fire. I had to charge 6 points of phasers plus 4 points of batteries (in addition to my special shuttles), making it hard to get 4 overloaded disruptors on turn 2. I think my preferred move would have been to turn F on impulse 32 and keep the KLI drones at range 2. I think Bill would have still been forced to turn by my drones and we would have ended at range 9, outside of UIM threat. I could have then fired 6 phasers as phaser-3s at range 2 and 2 phasers 1s. This would have auto-killed 2 drones, and maybe all 6 for just 4 points of power. Turn 2 I would have outrun the drones, at least for a while, getting some use out of my rear phaser 3s. This would have been a very different game, trading scatter-packs.

Alternatively, I should have employed the 4/14 weasel tactic on impulse 1, saving me 6 points of power. I basically plotted 4/14 on turn 2 anyway, and I’m not sure it would have made a harmful difference given the turn 2 results anyway. As it was, firing the 8 phasers on impulse 32 prevented me from firing phasers forward until impulse 8 (while I could fire disruptors) giving Bill an opportunity to tac or HET back into me and fire an alpha before I had enough to bring down a shield. So not using the impulse 1 weasel is a head-scratcher as it seems to have abandoned whatever advantage I got out of the (quasi) successful “iron jaw”.

Unfavorable end of turn timing for me was a recurring theme in this game, as Bill generally had the initiative with more reserve power and more weapons and the patience to fire on impulse 25 or even later – as long as he fired first. Regarding the ADD, Bill would hit with 10 of 10 shots, and considering how the game played out, that probably resulted in 4 more points of internal damage per turn or so for me.]

Turn 2.
Bill used a 26/15(7/3) plot while I used a 4/14/7 plot. The second half of Bill’s plot is an educated guess because he never completed the plot, based on my observation of his turn 1 and 2 energy usage. Bill started the turn by completing his turn mode in direction B, then at speed 15, turning to direction C. I launched 2 type IM drones to complicate his attempt to turn back in. I turned direction B towards Bill. I noticed that if I used 2 points of reserve power to make my speed plot go to speed 14 two impulses early on impulse 10 and gain 1 extra move, I could slip out of the KLI FA when he turned D. I announced the speed change on impulse 9. Bill announced emergency deceleration. He turned D and I slipped out as expected, and on impulse 11 he was stopped. I was trying to maneuver down his FA phaser gap. On impulse 12, he threw a wild weasel at speed 5 which would move out of his hex next turn to be impacted by 2 of 4 drones on the map. We were a range 7. I fired at the weasel with an overloaded disruptor and missed. One stack of drones impacted harmlessly on impulse 13 for 24 points, the other on impulse 15 for 24 points. Bill announced fire control activation on impulse 13 up on impulse 17.

[Although Bill was facing away from at the start of the turn, I had given him the initiative by firing my phasers on impulse 1.32. I knew he could HET or tac into me and try to get an asymmetric range 4 or closer shot on impulse 3 or later with both phasers and disruptors, while I only had disruptors. Therefore, I plotted speed 4 through impulse 12 so I had the option to throw a weasel several impulses after my phasers could fire. Charging phasers and batteries were a challenge, so I was only able to arm 2 of 4 disruptors as overloads, I was relying on batteries in case he came in close, while I might be still able to get 2 standard shots if he ran out of range 8. This plot is neither fish nor fowl, and I knew it usually ends badly, and it ended badly (for the ZIN) here. This is because if someone starts in overload range or could achieve it, it is highly unlikely that they will not try to take a 4 shot overload. They might try to run outside and take standard shots, but it is probably better to let them and just discharge because *not trading equal internals is far worse than a 15 pt. ding on a shield*. Furthermore, the ZIN just isn’t a threat for internals at range 8, and without 4 full overloads, isn’t so much a threat at range 4. If you rely on batteries to fill out the overloads, there is just too much opportunity to scuttle the 1 or 2 overloads into standards.

When Bill started at speed 26, I wasn’t going to take it seriously that he was going to run until after impulse 4. When we got to impulse 7 and he was still moving 26, I was beginning to think he might not have a full complement of overloads himself. Unfortunately, Bill had missed a speed change on impulse 5, when he changed to 15. We backed up and corrected it and I saw no reason to ask for a penalty since the number of moves were the same (as allowed by rule), but I have to wonder if it confused my thinking more than I expected. When I saw the opportunity to pay 2 points for the speed change to get out of arc on impulse 9, I immediately regretted it, because Bill declared ED on the same impulse. I knew that the most likely reason for doing so is that he didn’t have a full turn of 15 plotted, and he had enough power to arm 4 overloads and phasers. And I had just forgone one overloaded disruptor for a standard disruptor.

My goal for shooting at Bill’s wild weasel was to keep the shuttle in his hex and force him to take two hits of collateral damage – 5 on his 1; (and since he could tac on impulse 15, 5 on either his 1, 2 or 6. I had a 66% chance of doing this. In hindsight, after missing, it really felt like a bad idea – although it might not have been so bad had I declared ED myself immediately on impulse 13 one way or the other; I would have been at range 7 for most of the turn and Bill could get no closer than 5. What was a really bad idea, was to continue to cruise to range 4 and give Bill a shot with a 95% chance to score 8 + internal damage and a 50% chance of 20 + internal damage. Had we traded fire at range 6-8 instead, Bill would have had only a 50% chance of downing my shield. I would have hurt 1 (or 2 shields). As a final note in this block, launching the drones early in turn 2 was gratuitous and invited the weasel. I should have made sure they were 5 impulses apart, at least.]

I continued to slowly move towards Bill’s stopped KLI along the hexes only 4 phaser 1s can reach anticipating Bill to tac to bring me in his FA. On impulse 19 I changed speed to 7. On impulse 23 I reached range 4. Bill used a warp tac to turn his FA towards me. I launched 2 drones, one type IV-M and one type I-M. On impulse 25 I fired 4 phaser 1s and 2 overloaded disruptors and 1 standard disruptor at range 4. Bill held his fire, except for firing one ADD at one of my drones (hitting). I only hit with 1 overloaded disruptor, and rolled poorly for phasers, for a total of 21 damage, reducing his #6 shield to 11. On impulse 26, Bill fired 4 overloaded UIM disruptors and 4 phasers 1s at range 1. He hit with all 4 disruptors for a total of 48 points including phasers. He also destroyed another drone with another ADD shot. This did 17 internals 2 me, most notably destroying 2 phaser 3’s and a drone rack. On impulse 27, Bill performed another warp tac and launched 2 type IM drones and fired another Phaser I at me, destroying one of my Phaser Is. I briefly thought about declaring ED but decided to try to ID the drones first. I discovered they were only type I. Feeling I was in the hole, I decided to gamble on phaser 3 fire later in the turn. On impulse 27, Bill announced speed 8 in reverse, 16 impulses having passed between him stopping on 11 and moving on 28. I got lucky and destroyed his 2 drones with 2 phaser 3 shots. I turned to swing my down shield away from Bill, and then slipped so we ended the turn at range 5.

[While trying to stay in the 4 phaser 1 arc of the KLI is cute, it doesn’t work so well when he is parked and he can TAC. The ZIN Phaser 1s at range 1 and from many arcs are pretty well protected by 4 phaser 3s from Mizia attacks, but in the FA, unless centerlined, only has 2 bearing phaser 3’s. When Bill took his shot, the odds were pretty much he scores either 50% 9 internals on me and 50% 17 internals. Regardless of how stinky I rolled, even had I scored max damage of 40 points, I’d only get about 8 internals on him considering I was down 1 and a half overloads. Had I had 4 overloads ready to fire, the ZIN has a 20% chance of matching or exceeding the KLI fire (absent the 2nd Mizia shot), and a 50% shot of doing 8 internals or so, and an 85% shot of at least bringing down the shield. With 3 misses that turn, unfortunately I was in the other 15%, but of course that doesn’t make up for taking the asymmetric shot in the first place. I should have considered slipping into the Klingon centerline, to try to avoid the mizia shot, and take the damage on more phaser 3s. Note that Bill held his alpha strike until after I fired. He probably did that a) because of my division of fire it was safe to do so, and b) to get a closer shot if I kept cruising in, and c) to hold off using reserve in case I had a second iron jaw and an anchor attempt.

How could I have mitigated the asymmetric range 4 exchange with the KLI (particularly now that I had expended and disruptor and had only 2 overloads and 1 standard)? Conventional wisdom is that you should fire an alpha strike on a single shield in the hopes of downing the shield, getting internals, and then maneuvering fire back onto the down shield on subsequent turns. After all, splitting fire on two or more shields may give the other player unrequited internals, and hitting the same shield over and over is the most efficient way to get internal damage. The flaw in this thinking is that when you are unable to down a shield (and the ZIN is often in this position, even when in overload range) hitting only one shield maximizes the number of *fresh* shields the opposing player can bring to bear. In this case, compromising the KLI #6 shield only lets the KLI fight 2 more turns (at least) through fresh #1, and #2 FA shields (he has to use his FA to fire disruptors), minimizing the internal damage suffered from any alpha strike on those other shields. Suppose my ZIN hit with the 2 overloaded and missed with a standard disruptor. I could have easily put 16 pts onto both the #6 and the #1 (and supposing my questionable wild weasel gambit had worked - 21 points each) leaving Bill with 2 compromised front shields and only the #2 fresh from turn 3 onward. The ZIN may still have to shoot out the #2 on turn 3, but from turn 4 onward the Klingon really doesn’t have a shield that the ZIN can’t score internals through, if he wants to shoot disruptors. On turn 4, the ZIN may still have a fresh FA shield, and can shoot disruptors out his 3 and 5 (unlike the KLI). As long as the ZIN lives with enough weapons, the spreading the FA shield damage to 2 shields will get more internals on the KLI a turn earlier than when only 1 shield is (more heavily) damaged. This may not have won me the game (although if it can be done earlier at longer range it might have) , but our turn 4 might have been much tighter for the KLI. I call this spread fire “priming fire” vs. a single shield “alpha strike for internals”.

Regarding timing of fire, this is another aspect I think Bill did very well on. Generally speaking, I would like to make sure my “priming fire” that will not puncture shields (for certain) is completed on impulse 25 or earlier, and generally under circumstances where your opponent can’t wait to get a better shot that turn. Otherwise you run the risk of letting your opponent shoot an unreturned “alpha strike for internals” prior to your weapons cycling (on impulse 1). If you fire an “alpha strike for internals” after impulse 25, it should generally be only when you are sure you’re opponent can’t (significantly) improve his counter shot by waiting after you fire. You can wait after impulse 25, but only if you are sure you can fire first or at the same time say you are out of your opponent’s arc (so your opponent is on the same – and preferably worse- timing restrictions) than yourself. In this case the ZIN fired on impulse 25 and the KLI on 26. I think Bill only did this because he knew the chances of me breaking a shield was slim, and that by use of reserve he could maintain the range (so on impulse 1 I didn’t get an un-returned alpha strike that would have taken out a disruptor and phasers). Suppose my ZIN had been moving faster, further closing the range after impulse 25, and I had fired with 4 overloads and Bill still held his fire until impulse 26. I could score 8 internals, maybe taking out a disruptor and a phaser 1. His shot might get far fewer, or no internals. I think get an unreturned shot on impulse 1 at range 2, scoring 20 or more internals, and Bill might lose 1 or 2 phaser 1s and a disruptor, and now score only a few internals back at me. He’d lose the initiative completely.

I ended the turn at range 5 because I didn’t think, having lost a phaser 1 and some power, that I could get an un-returned shot at range 4 on impulse 1 that would score internals and keep the distance on turn 3.

Lastly for turn 2, Bill was very conservative with reserve power, clearly husbanding it for his plan. Suppose he had used it all to reduce the shield damage on his #6. Then his speed 8 acceleration on impulse 28 would have been impossible, and my ZIN would have closed to range 2, and I may have gotten an unreturned shot on impulse 1, scoring 18-20 internals (due to my loss of phasers).]

Turn 3

Bill (KLI) plotted speed 0 and I (ZIN) plotted speed 0. We started facing KLI #2 to ZIN #6 at range 5. While Bill was controlling the impulses, he purposely declared “Ready” before I did (indicating no activity) through impulse 25. On impulse 25 I launched a wild weasel heading away at speed 5 so it moved next impulse. On impulse 26, Bill announced a speed change to 6 forward (giving him 2 moves, one next impulse). On impulse 27, Bill moves, closing the range to 4. I announce a speed change to 1. Bill fires a 4 overloaded UIM disruptor strike with 5 phaser 1s through my +2 shift, scoring only 18 points to my #6 shield. On impulse 28 I announce that I am raising fire control, and then shoot 4 overloaded disruptors on passive (no change in odds), hitting with 3 for 24 points on his number 2 shield. On impulse 32, Bill moves straight, but I, through virtue of a turn mode of 0, turn then move 1 to a range of 3 (surprising Bill), and still facing his #2 shield, but out of his FA. Bill launched 2 type IM drones. My fire control is active now, and I launched 3 type IM drones. I fire 3 Phaser 1s and 2 Phaser 3s for a total of 16 pts, scoring 5 internals and, but netting just a phaser 2 and a left warp. Bill fired 2 phaser 2s at my #1, reducing it to 24. His ADD killed one of my drones.

[I wanted to wait for Bill to start closing the gap before I fired or tossed a weasel. Had I fired first at range 5, I wouldn’t have broken his shield and he would have closed the gap, chewing through my 2 held weasels. I figured he’d want to wait until after I fire, at least until impulse 25. I cooked up this plan never having tried it before on the spot, and it worked out OK, but it was not effective enough. I would have had to score max damage with my phasers and hit with the fourth disruptor to match the 21 internals Bill had scored on me. This is where losing the phaser 1 on turn 2 really hurt. I considered throwing the weasel earlier, and using 2 weasels, firing on impulse 25, so I could fire an impulse 4.1 disruptor hack-n-slash on whatever shield my phasers struck on impulse 32. Perhaps I could have tac’d towards Bill, speed changed to 4 on impulse 20, launched the weasel on 23, move in to range 4 on 24, called for fire on impulse 24, fired (and maybe he would have held waiting until impulse 25), then thrown the second weasel, then speed change to 0 on impulse 28 so I could tac away on 32. I rather regretted not having 3 weasels on this turn, and regretted the suicide shuttle. I also plotted to repair my phaser 1 as a phaser 1 (which takes 2 turns). I regretted not repairing it as phaser 2, or maybe the 2 phasers 3s. In any case, I figured this was my last hurrah.]

Turn 4
We both plot speed 0 initially. On impulse 1, his ADD kills another one of my drones. On impulse 2, he TACs his fresh #1 shield to face me. On impulse 3, I announce a speed change to 8. I identify Bill’s 2 drones as both type IM. Because his drones and I will both move the following impulse to jump the range from 2 to 0 (and I am out of drone defense), I tractor his drones at range 2. His ADD kills my last drone. On impulse 4, I close to range 2 now with my weakened #6 shield facing his #1. Bill fires 4 overloaded disruptors and 4 phaser 1s. I fire 4 overloaded disruptors. I score 24 to his #1 bringing it down to 6 and he scores 40 to my weakened #6, scoring 24 internals, destroying a disruptor, another drone, 2 phaser 3s and a phaser 1, a tractor. The loss of a tractor forced me to drop one of his drones. On impulse 5, Bill shoots a phaser 3 into my downed #6, scoring 3 more internals (and a phaser 1) in a Mizia strike. On impulse 6, the released drone impacts my #1 for 12 points. On impulse 8, I close to range 1, and having cycled phasers and drones, I launch two type IVF drones. Bill launches a weasel (his drone loses tracking); and bill takes 7 collateral on his #4. On impulse 10, Bill announces a speed change 3 in reverse (perhaps using reserve), he moves, then I move, opening to range 2, with Bill facing may fresh #6 and facing his down # 2 respectively. Bill launches 1 speed 20 drone. I fire my last Phaser 1 and score 4 internals, including a disruptor and a phaser 3. Fortuitously, the drone didn’t move next impulse, and I had a speed change to 4 to announce. Bill fired a phaser 1 scoring 5 on my #5. His drone closed to 1 and I launched a wild weasel at speed 0. The next impulse, I move out of the hex and slip into range 1 facing his down #2, and my weasel is destroyed by his type I drone. I raise my fire control, up on impulse 20. On impulse 19, Bill announces a speed change to negative 5, and can turn or slip out of my rear phaser arcs. This point marked the start of several unfortunate mistakes and client fumbles at the end of the game. I fire my 2 LR Phaser 3s into his down shield, (incorrectly) scoring 7 points, which he counters with 1 point of general, and I net 6 internals including a drone-b, and 2 phaser 1s. Reviewing the log, the fire occurred on impulse 19, and was technically a passive range 2 shot, for only 4 pts. Bill totaled the damage himself and scored it quickly, and I didn’t catch it due to the late hour and the distractions the following impulse. The next impulse, Bill announced “turn with you” and then his connection was dropped. He logged back in, and when the board was reconstructed it showed that he had slipped so that his #1 faced my #2. Bill tractored my ZIN, and launched a type IVF drone at me. I launch my suicide shuttle into his tractor tunnel. He then fires a Phaser 2 into my down shield, which surprised me since I thought I was facing his #1. Bill claimed his client showed he had turned instead of side slipped. Reviewing the log showed he made as statement “we are facing each other’s #6 earlier” so I accept the orientation change and he scores 4 internals, including a disruptor. The next impulse his heavy drone hits through my down 6 and I take 24, destroying the third phaser 1 that turn, a few phaser 3s, and a lot of power. I realize that I didn’t know we had faced down shields during the last impulse, and Bill allows me to retroactively perform 5 hit and run raids rather than 3. I destroy his 2nd drone-B but otherwise miss on guarded boxes. The following impulse, we both move (Bill’s tractor changed his pseudo speed so he could move the following impulse). My suicide shuttle stays in the tractor tunnel, but since Bill can move, it impacts relatively harmlessly for 18 on his fresh #5. I change speed to 0, then impulse tac to bring my #1 to face Bill’s KLI. Bill turns to bring his #4 to face me, firing 2 phaser-2s and bringing my #1 down to 5. I repaired a Phaser 1 and a phaser 3.

[Turn 4 was a disaster for me. I started the turn prior to allocation very pessimistic. I felt I had not achieved sufficiently helpful internal damage on the prior turn, even after a rather nice play. I was (perhaps overly) concerned that my phasers would not cycle until impulse 8, and that Bill would get a strong Mizia attack, with his disruptors and phasers prior to me even firing my disruptors. I was also really regretting my suicide shuttle, and wishing I had two weasels rather than 1.

The hour was late, near midnight. Bill offered to save. I should have taken up on his offer. A combination of pessimism and fatigue; compounded with client problems later in the turn; let me to play a rather poor turn. I could have done better by saving and analyzing the situation, and this undoubtedly would have helped me more than Bill. Don’t get me wrong, Bill still had the upper hand. However, I might have survived another turn and hurt him worse.

I think people subscribe to several theories about whether to continue to play from a strong disadvantage. Some think it is polite not to waste your opponent’s time, or perhaps find it very un-enjoyable – these players are inclined to resign earlier rather than later. I tend to think I just might feel too pessimistic, or that may be underestimating my opponents chances of really screwing up. Most importantly, I think playing well from behind can really teach you a lot. However, in this case, I’m not too happy with my play.

I allocated the speed change to 8 on impulse 4 and moving in closer, expecting Bill to alpha on impulse 3 when his alpha strike weapons cycled, thereby taking a better shot later in the turn. Bill however, could easily afford to trade alphas until impulse 8, when I got my phasers back, so he had no reason to fire until I called for fire (calling for fire, just by me raising the ia box, was a “tell” that helped him). While it would have been supremely annoying, it would have benefited me to have called for impulse activity just about every impulse in the game – so that Bill couldn’t use it as a “poker tell”. Furthermore, I had to announce the speed change on impulse 3 anyway, before fire. I had to move straight, bringing trading my strong #1 for my weakened #6 . If this would have had any chance of working, I should have delayed it an impulse. *But* my plans really didn’t for the drones. Tractoring the drones at range 2 was entirely predictable, and wasteful of power, and I was likely to have to drop a drone from damage, and I used 2 points of reserve (demonstrating I didn’t predict it).

I think a better plan would have been to realize that Bill had to hold fire until impulse 3. Go speed 0 and tac (waiting to plot an acceleration until later in the turn, if at all, and hopefully with reserve). On impulse 3 I could throw my weasel. Bill probably would have let the drones hit on impulse #4 rather than waste 2 phaser 1s or an ADD shot. This would give me a 2 shift of ECM from impulse #3 to impulse #7. Bill would have been unlikely to fire his alpha through a 2 shift on impulses 3-7, counteracting the fact his weapons cycled earlier than mine. I could have used warp and impulse tacs to keep my strong #1 facing him. On impulse 8 and after, I could have launched my drones 1 at a time, committing his weasel(s) or phasers, or tractors to my drones (launch both the same impulse was a mistake,. I should have spread them out to keep him under weasel), or use them as drone defense. I could have used his announcement of impulse activity to “time” my shot (hopefully) to coincide with his. If I had waited for him to close to range 2, I could have downed his #1 and given him 20 internals and taken less than 15 ( with some reinforcement). He’d still be 20 internals ahead, but I might have been able to make it out of turn 4 with both of us having 2 down FA shields, and me having a slightly stronger #6 compared to his #4. This is when the ZIN tries to fight with his screwball disruptor arcs through is #3 and #5. A second weasel available that turn would have allowed me to take care of a drone, and I may have enough phasers left to kill both if he still had them.

Again, if I had repaired my phaser I as a phaser 2, I could have sent 3-4 points into his down shield impulse 1. He would have had to use inefficient general reinforcement or a weasel to counter it. Or if I had repaired 2 phaser 3s, I would have had some more drone defense, or close in phaser threat.

Recalling my discussion of “priming fire” in turn 2, had I spread half the 21 pts scored onto his #1, and used the above plan, I might have scored 30 internals on Bill whether he chose to defend the #1 or #6. This would have been 10 more internals in turn 4 than I could have gotten no matter what I did after I shot only at his #6 in turn 2. Given that the KLI has about 12 fewer internal boxes than the ZIN, I may have actually been roughly even or ahead internal-wise at that point.

I hesitate to note that while Bill allowed me to “retroactively” use 5 transporters after the client drop up, when I actually hit his drone B rack, and a true “retroactive” shot would have prevented the type IV drone from hitting. At the time, I decided it was gratuitous to argue this point as I was too badly mauled from Mizia damage to be very effective (I think). In the future, when something like this happens (vs. any player in general), I think I will ask to back up and re-do each impulse, purposely taking a few minutes to consider the ramifications. Again, I think the late hour and fatigue degraded my response.

I sent some of the H&RR to disruptors. They were guarded. Knocking out phasers which are not likely to be guarded can be more effective.

All in all, a sub optimal turn.]

Turn 5
At this point my ZIN had suffered nearly 70 internals, and was down to only a drone, a disruptor and the newly repaired phaser-3 to shoot at the KLI. Bill’s KLI had suffered 20 internals or so, and had lost some nice weapons, but still had plenty to do me in. I allowed Bill to maintain tractor, and he rotated me to range 0. On impulse 1, I launched a type IM drone. I fired my alpha of 1 overload disruptor, 1 phaser 1 and 1 phaser 3, scoring 19 points, finding 2 reinforcement, dropping his #4 to 6 but doing no internals. He fired 3 phasers 1s, 2 phaser 2s and one phaser 3 (using the Klingon special arcs) scoring 37, adding 4 from my feedback, did a total of 36 internals on my ZIN. This gutted the ZIN and hit a few excess damage (I was surprised I didn’t explode). I played one more impulse to see where my drone would hit, he TAC’d and the drone hit is fresh #3 for 12. I resigned.

[After the conclusion of turn 4 I knew I had no chance of winning. Bill was surprised that I allowed him to maintain the tractor, but my only point to proceed to turn 5 was fire a few parting shots in a game which was going to conclude within minutes one way or the other.

Because it was late perhaps, I failed to ask Bill to reveal his EA. I am not too concerned about errors. Rather, this would have helped me to learn from him and I regret not doing it. I try to make a point to ask in most games.

Looking back on the several factors of my loss I would rank them as follows (roughly from greater to lesser importance):

#1) Bill played a very shrewd game, taking advantage of my sub-optimal moves, his good luck, and my back luck, maintain initiative for over 2/3rds of the game.
#2) I had not had experience for over 20 years flying the ZIN vs. the KLI vs. a player as shrewd as Bill. While leading up to the tournament I had the opportunity to practice (and analyze) several big plasma games vs. top ace opponents (which helped tremendously in my win vs. Chris Proper) I had not had the opportunity to lose (and perform the analysis you see here) to refine my opening moves and gain perspective for the course of the game.
#3) I was more adversely affected by fatigue as the evening progressed; and psychological uncertainty (see #2); and the several circumstances of confusion than I realized at the time. I was misjudging the lack of options (see this analysis) and would have benefited from saving to rest and think about it.
#4) Bill had sufficiently good dice rolls when he really needed them, and after going in the hole, mine tended towards below median to median when they really needed to be above median.
#5) Bill hit with 10 of 10 ADD, which, among other good tactics, meant that he was draining phasers into me at every opportunity rather shooting my drones. Through turn 4, this was worth at least 12 internals.
#6) I was not able to press Bill hard enough to make him waste reserve power on reinforcement, allowing him to seize the initiative with some well time speed changes and other actions. This is a direct consequence of items #1-#5.

In conclusion, Bill played an excellent game, and I wish him luck as he proceeds through the tournament. I hope to play him again in the future, when, I hope, I can turn the tables.]

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Very interesting analysis. I'm solidly in the camp the The Klingon is a solid 6-4 over the Kzinti due to the ADD and UIM, and if the Klingon can manage to keep out of R2 for extended periods of time, the Klingon will win. It also helps that Bill is apparently extra good at hitting with his ADD :-)

(I had the same experience the last time my Kzinti fought his Klingon...)

I'm confused by this, however:

"While Bill was controlling the impulses, he purposely declared “Ready” before I did (indicating no activity) through impulse 25."

I'm not quite sure what that means in the context of this game.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Peter,

Bill was controlling the impulses. As you know, the usual protocal on SFBOL is that the non-controlling player declares "Ready" if he does not plan IA and it is OK to advance to the next impulse. This was the norm up until turn 3. On turn 3, Bill started quickly hitting the "Ready" button himself as the controller, broadcasting to me that he planned no IA or fire that impulse (unless I initiated IA). I took it as a "poker tell" or gentlemen's agreement that he was OK with advancing to the next impulse if I was.

While I did not discuss this with Bill, so I don't know for certain, I surmise Bill didn't want to fire first prior to impulse 25 since if I held back and he choked I might cruise in closer than range 4 and really smack him or anchor him with no return threat. Whereas if I fired first, the same thing might happen vice versa. After impulse 24 you generally want to fire first (or no later than your opponent), perhaps waiting to impulse 27 as a decision point (as Bill did)to see what end of turn speed change may be plotted. So I suspsect on 27 he thought he could keep the range with my speed change to 1 (1 move) and his to -8 (2 moves), so he fired. This guaranteed his weapons would cycle no later than mine on turn 4.

As the game proceeded, I tuned in that Bill was trying to delay fire (as tactically desirable, nothing wrong with that) and that he was looking for the IA up as a "tell" so that he need not have an "itchy trigger finger" and fire too soon. While it is slightly obnoxious sounding, I might have brought the IA window up every impulse on turn 3 as a counter, but as I was planning to move no faster than 1 anyway after impulse 25, I didn't see the point

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 05:22 pm: Edit

I've only gotten through turn 1's anaysis (and need to get some more work done while I'm actually at work) but one question for the future:
Witht he iron jaw as effective as it was, would it have been a good idea to a) not reinforce the extra 4 points of damage away and b) use that power for a late speed boost to get closer to the enemy?

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 05:40 pm: Edit

David,

Yeah it seemed like a couple things bothered you that had little to do with the actual tactics. I was surprised by a number of things that occurred in your post thuogh and I'll point them out for constructive critism only ie throughout it I thuoght you still had a chance til the disasterous T4. I am going first person as well.

T1 Pre-stuff I load 4 fast drones into scatter to limit my fast launches later..I really do not get this one at all.

The KLI went 17 moves. (note you could care less about his plot- 17 moves is 17 moves).
I closed to R8 to allow the KLI to play his game(I actually do this a lot as well so no big deal). I threw 4 batts in to hurt my T2 allocation(big deal).

(Most likely from your description other than throwing 4 batts in it all worked out OK. Personally(not knowing the hexes) it feels as though after the KLI turned to B to Flee you coulda turned to B as well to keep his drones off your #6(instead of your #1) allowing for 4 P3s to come in as well as letting you manuever to keep them away for the first 8 imps).

T2 I surrender the initiative by going spd 4. That one confused me, but with your weasel plan it was passable. I think tying to stay outa the P1 FA zone is difficult as well as the batting up for spd 14 an imp early would be unwise(as yeah you stay outa FA for a couple imps but a spd 15 KLI will get you there soon enough).

The rest of T2 was pretty good.

T3: You totally did great here! My only negative comment would be on your rprs. I think you had 2 P3 and a P1 down at this point. I woulda rpred the P3 first and then put 2/5 to the P1(to be finished T4). Evidently you rpred 4 to the P1 this turn. Getting the extra P3 is helpful and one of the main reasons the WBS and KZI are so hard to kill.

T4: Again actually not that bad except for some key things.

Your spd plot. You see his drones from an imp 32 launch and know what spd 20 moves. You coulda easily did a spd 7/ whatever plot to ensure they reach R1 before tractor needs.

Once you trac his drones I woulda fired at least one P3 at one at R2. You pretty much know he's gonna get ints through the weak #6 and the P3 is dieing anyway. I woulda been sorely tempted to not fire the pair of them but one is a must.
When you close to R1 and each are moving like 8 and 3 I woulda liked to see single drone launches from the KZI. The pair draws a weasel when launching seperately may have drawn a second weasel or used his waist phasers for killing the drone.

Your eventual suicide launch. I was reasonably sure(from memory only) that the suicide coulda been launched against his T4 drone. That T4 drone hitting for 24 internals did a ton of serious damage to you(like 3 p1, disr, drone, and 15 power). Instead of hitting a shield for 18 taking out the drone woulda kept you in the game.

T5: well no kidding with a P1, P3, Disr and 13 power vs 3 P1, 2 P2 P3 and 3 disr(not bearing)+30 power the game is up.

Up til T4 the KZI damage absorption abilty was keeping you in it, and woulda given you a great shot at a win without the T4 internals.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Troy,

Good question.

I agree that saving my reserve for some other use might very well have been a good idea.

I changed speed to 23 on impulse 18, and then changed speed to 22 on impulse 26. The fire occured on impulse 27. I would have had to use 2 reserve power and could have raised speed to 30, which would have gained me 2 movements the impulse prior to fire. I thought about it, and it would have let me move the impulse after to avoid an mizia strike, but I was assuming he wasn't going to puncture my shield with my 14 pt brick.

Had this guaranteed me a range 4 shot on a rear shield on impulse 1, I may have done that, but sadly, I could get no closer than range 5.

I think that I would have been better served by saving the 4 batteries for the following turn. Consider at a minimum I would have had 4 pts of power to reinforce the shield he actually punctured that turn (the #2). I could have used the power in other ways. Also, as I mentioned, using my phasers and spending more power on impulse 32 when there were alternatives was regretable.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>On turn 3, Bill started quickly hitting the "Ready" button himself as the controller, broadcasting to me that he planned no IA or fire that impulse (unless I initiated IA). I took it as a "poker tell" or gentlemen's agreement that he was OK with advancing to the next impulse if I was.>>

Well, sure, but if you pull up IA at that point, he can always change his mind. I don't know if this is a "tell" so much as just trying to move the game along quicker.

Like, as this has come up over and over again (to the point that we aren't even actually allowed to talk about parts of this subject :-), the basic reality is that most folks know what their plan is when playing, and it is unlikely that their opponent is going to do something that will change things. But if they do, the way the IA system works, you can always adjust.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Kerry,

I think you may be saying I was being harder on myself than I needed to be?

The idea behind putting 4 fast in the SP is to guarantee that I have some drones on him at the same time or prior to his turn 1 overload strike at range 1. I was upset I hadn't launched them early enough in turn 1 to get a little farther. They were all type I, conceding I would soak up the ADD. Bill used far fewer ADD shots on my drones on turn 1 than some might, a wise move. I expected that after turn 1 most of the game would be well under speed 20, and in these circustances fast drones are nice, but their key advantage isn't needed so much. I did reserve 4 fast drones. As I said, my 2nd launch of 2 fast from my racks may have been unnecessary. Klingons have a pretty easy time getting a few internals each turn once you get to range 8. I sort of expect to loose a drone rack too (which may contain fast droens). You may be right that reserving the fast drones works out better - just explaining myself.

I didn't actually use the weasel plan on turn 2. I shot the drones and having spent the batteries I was power starved. I could have gone into turn 2 with an power advantage over the Klingon but I didn't.

On turn 4 you point out I didn't use a good plot to avoid his drones. I agree. Fatigue. I didn't have any facing P3s that could cycle before impulse 8, though. I agree, the two drone launch on turn 4 was also dumb. Fatigue.

IIRC seeking weapons can only be launched at the tractoring unit, so drones and suicide shuttles can not be used to counter seeking weapons fire. I think I looked that up during the game. Had I realized he had turned his down 6 I might have (with real luck) killed his drone rack and/or tractors with H&RRs.

Again, you may be right, as I discussed, that I was too negative going into turn 4, even as things stood.

Thansk for reading my post and all the comments everybody.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Peter,

To be fair to Bill, I reviewed my log, and after impulse 3.6 he stopped hitting "Ready" first. So I apologize if my memory exagerated the situation. This was no biggie, I'm not complaining, I just was explaining my interpretation of it. Since I can't ready Bill's mind, who knows? Maybe he will tell us?

I'm not sure how how the controller declaring "Ready" first speeds up the game unless you interpet it as the caller bidding "no activity". The non-calling player still has to consider his fire independently, and then declare "Ready" indicating no activity or raise the IA window before proceeding anyway. If you don't consider the other players's "Ready" in your thinking (meaning it has no meaning) it should take the same time one way or the other to get through the impulse. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the speed is because it communicates no fire.

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I do think Bill was playing a conditional game, waiting until I tipped my hand or until a certain time later in that turn to take his actions. Again, maybe he will tell us.

Don't take this as a complaint about Bill, just as how I interpreted the play.

SFB has has a lot of poker in it - this is part of the poker (and FC takes all the poker out). Regardless, this turn actually worked out in my favor.

Likewise, when the glitches occured I did a poor job of evaluating whether we needed to back up. This was not Bill's fault. Just a note to myself that I probably need to back up to see the play as it unfolds, I can't see it well enough in hindsight to know whether I should change moves or not in the heat of the moment. I thought I could, but I don't think I really can unless I see it unfold.

No-one should take anything I wrote as a complaint about Bill, he played an excellent fair game.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:25 pm: Edit

As controller, if my opponent has already said Ready, and I have no IA, then there is no point in me saying Ready before advancing the impulse. If things are moving quickly, it is likely the non-controller will hit Ready before I have moved my mouse back to the Ready button from the Next Impulse button, anyway. If my opponent has not hit Ready or Thinking within a few seconds, I'll hit Ready.

I think some players like to hit Ready as controller, just to remove any perception of advantage to the controller. For example, in certain situations, you would like to know if your opponent is going to shoot you or not. Your opponent could bring up the IA window each impulse, and go through calling for fire each time, and fire, or not. But this slows things down, and most people don't want to go through the extra tedium for what is arguably a small advantage. So usually, he'll just say Ready if he is not going to fire, rather than going through the effort to bluff every impulse. In cases like this, being controller and waiting on your opponent's response could be construed as an advantage, so hitting Ready would be a courtesy.

In any case, always waiting for your opponent to hit Ready or open IA, just to gain some "tell" is obnoxious and slows the game down, but my experience is most people are more interested in keeping the game moving than doing things like that.

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Oops on the suicide shuttle. Only DF weapons can be fired at opposing seekers while under tractor.

Yeah overall you were in it til the T4 drone hit on Turn 4. If you coulda avoided that it was anyones game.

My KZI games tend to go a little differently.

Usually KZI slips out and lets the drones get 1-2 hexes in front on T1 and ships end at R10-12 with the KZI firing 4 stds.

T2 the KZI chases behind his drones at spd 20/14 using a ton of phaser 3's, a couple antidrones, and trcs vs the KLI drones with 2+2 disrs. KLI tends to just run ADDing stuff.

T3 it's the close and hose from the KZI against the weasels+ DF of KLI.

T4 it's duke it out time with the KZI better damage taking giving it an even advantage vs KLI better fire. Of course from R2 all disr act as if using UIM.

KZI usually comes out on top but it is close and a single mishap(letting a T4 through) is the deciding factor.

Overall it wasn't like the game was a wipe til the end of T4 and then it was just "clean-up on aisle 5".

I think the whole spd 8 thing hurt you badly ie if you had done spd 0 til 8 and just tractored drones at R1 or taced to get the rear p3s into it(using like 3 tacs to turn away and then back again while increasing spd on imp 9) you woulda been in a really prime position.

Fatique does tend to catch you at the oddest moments.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>To be fair to Bill, I reviewed my log, and after impulse 3.6 he stopped hitting "Ready" first. So I apologize if my memory exagerated the situation. This was no biggie, I'm not complaining, I just was explaining my interpretation of it. Since I can't ready Bill's mind, who knows? Maybe he will tell us? >>

Now to be clear, I'm not thinking that you are implying that Bill was doing anything unsavory. I'm just thinking that you were probably reading too much into the situation. Generally speaking, in a game, for example, I know what I want to do and when I want to do it. Sure, my opponent might do something that makes me change what I want to do, but when, say, I plan on launching a plasma when I get to R5, and I'm not at R5 yet, I'll just move and hit "ready", not 'cause I'm waiting for my opponent to tip his hand by announcing IA, but 'cause I until something changes, my plan is set, and just moving and hitting "ready" makes the game move a bit quicker.

>>I'm not sure how how the controller declaring "Ready" first speeds up the game unless you interpet it as the caller bidding "no activity".>>

It isn't a matter of the controller doing anything. It is simply someone moving and saying "ready", as they aren't planning on doing anything in that impulse. Sure, if their opponent does something, they might change their mind. But moving and saying "ready" quickly, controller or not, is usually simply a matter of wanting the impulse to move along.

>> The non-calling player still has to consider his fire independently, and then declare "Ready" indicating no activity or raise the IA window before proceeding anyway.>>

Sure. But this means you can:

A) Move and then sit waiting for your opponent to say "ready" and then respond with "ready" and move on.

or

B) Move and hit "ready", indicating that you are (unless something changes) ready to move on.

With (A), more time passes before something happens, even if nothing happens. With (B), your opponent still has time to consider what they are doing (as, generally speaking, the agreement is "we move on when both people say ready") anyway. The vast majority of the time? It is simply a matter of someone not planning on doing something that impulse (unless something changes) and wanting to move things along.

>> If you don't consider the other players's "Ready" in your thinking (meaning it has no meaning) it should take the same time one way or the other to get through the impulse. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the speed is because it communicates no fire.>>

Well, it communicates no anything. Unless something changes. Which is different than hoping to have your opponent tip their hand by saying "Ready" quickly and then seeing if they hit IA.

>>Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I do think Bill was playing a conditional game, waiting until I tipped my hand or until a certain time later in that turn to take his actions.>>

Yeah, see, again, I think you are reading too much into this. Calling "ready" quickly doesn't mean that you are hoping to see your opponent tip their hand first. It means that you know what you want to do and when you want to do it, and you aren't planning on doing anything that impulse once you are done moving, and by saying "ready", you let your opponent know that you are ready to move on. Unless something changes.

Like, again, for example, say I'm a Gorn with a bunch of plasmas and I'm barreling down at my opponent, hoping to get to R5, launch some plasma, and then fire and bolt the rest. Until I get to R5, I'm gonna move and hit "ready" quickly. As unless something changes, I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do, and it has nothing at all to do with hoping to see my opponent tip their hand first. I mean, if they do something unexpected, I'll react accordingly--i.e. if they see what is coming and emergency decel, my plan will change. But my use of the interface, i.e. move and then hit "ready" quickly, controller or not, is indicating little more than "I'm moving and I'm not planning on doing anything this impulse. Unless something changes."

>>SFB has has a lot of poker in it - this is part of the poker (and FC takes all the poker out).

I suspect that there is less of that than you are envisioning.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Kerry,

The late T4 drone hit cost me a bunch of power, and a facing p1 and a disruptor. This may have given Bill 10 internals in addition on impulse 1 (rather than 0). With some reinforcement I could have reduced his strike to maybe 15 internals instead of 30, had I stayed out or range 0. But he'd still have disruptor fire later in the turn and I'd be done. I think I'd be stripped out and lose even if the drone didn't hit. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly thought that at the time, and I agree that fatalism may have set in; and when it does, you just don't find out what really might have happened.

I absolutely agree that the beginning of T4 was a poorly plotted by me. Again, perhaps fatigue and fatalism. As I discussed, things might have been different, maybe not prime, but my fate wouldn't been sealed.

Your battle plan certainly seems reasonable, and is probably the more recent doctrine. I considered it, but in a practice game the Klingon got off a good T2 UIM shot at R4 and weaseled taking care of most of the drones without tying up the ADD. Timing and geometry seem important to this ZIN attack, something hard to describe briefly on the BBS. I should try it again sometime.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Peter,

During T3 EA, looking at the range and the relative number and effectiveness of each side's weapons, I judged that Bill would want to wait to fire after I fired until sometime after impulse 24, and then he'd want to fire first or at least at the same time. Likewise, I wanted to do the very same thing.

When Bill declared "Ready" first past impulse 3 or so, he was indicating he wasn't planning to fire first, at least on those impulses he did so. I figured it indicated he didn't want to fire first, and I could accept a "gentlemen's agreement" to wait to fire for a while if I agreed. This is actually consistent with Andy's comment that it is more gentlemenly not to goad the IA when you want someone to fire first. This was one possibility, and perhaps it came off too much in my writeup that I was sure Bill intended that. Perhaps Bill wasn't trying to communicate that, but rather just executing a plan not to fire first, just as I suspected. So in that way it might have been just more of a "tell" that he was thinking the same way I was, because he had no activity. Maybe communication, maybe just execution of plan. Now, perhaps I really should have fired first instead of waiting. Had I declared IA sometime prior to 25, then that would have been a "tell' that I might be firing- but it wouldn't mean much as I think he would have held fire. Regardless, I took it that we both saw it to our *mutual* advantage to wait until later in the turn to do something, and pull something out of a hat to break the standoff. After impulse 24, instead of waiting until impulse 27 as the judgement point, waiting to fire until I bring up IA would ensure the same cycle time (or earlier).

I don't think Bill was trying to goad me into tipping my hand with his Readys at all. Rather it just suggested to me that he had no intent to start executing his plan until much later in the turn, and indeed, he did nothing until impulse 27. The quick Readys told me that Bill was just executing a plan (of waiting), and had nothing to think about, until, at least I raised IA and did something he might want to respond to.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 09:28 am: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>Regardless, I took it that we both saw it to our *mutual* advantage to wait until later in the turn to do something, and pull something out of a hat to break the standoff.>>

Oh, sure. You both had a plan (fire late, probably fire after your opponent did) which added up to a standoff. But the particular use of the interface was, I suspect, irrelevant to that dynamic.

In the situation you describe--you both want to fire late in the turn, and you both wanted to fire after your opponent--eventually someone will do something (and eventually might be impulse 32 'cause you both were unwilling to tip your hand earlier) and things will happen. If the game were FtF, the game would work exactly the same as in SFBOL--someone reads the impulse, someone moves or TACs, and someone says "next" first. And the impulse advances.

Saying "ready" is just saying "I'm not planning on doing anything now, unless something changes", and if you are in a standoff situation, that is just going to continue. You could also call up IA every impulse and call for fire and fire nothing and accomplish the same thing, but it would take longer. Especially in a situation where someone is willing to take their opponent's shot and then fire the next impulse.

>>After impulse 24, instead of waiting until impulse 27 as the judgement point, waiting to fire until I bring up IA would ensure the same cycle time (or earlier).>>

But it is just as likely that after impulse 24, you could bring up IA to launch a drone or a shuttle or just to call for fire and fire nothing. This is a risk of relying on your opponent bringing up IA to do something. And consequently, less of an issue in SFBOL than many people envision. You just do what you are gonna do and don't worry about how the interface is being used.

To be clear here, I'm in no way trying to be combative. I'm just trying to point out that the "mind game" aspect of SFBOL is considerably less significant than many people envision. And that most of the time, a "ready" is just a "ready".

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:56 am: Edit

But sometimes a "Thinking" is a "my wife stopped by to give me grief for being such a gaming nerd..."

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Peter,

I think by and large we are in general agreement. But I am posting to be clear that I never really thought that Bill or myself were playing in "mind games" that had any negative connotations (that is they were something client related rather than just part of the game).

SFB has a lot secret things (seeking targets, EA, where your brick is, etc) that are slowly revealed. These are by nature kind of "mind games" in the way bluffing in poker is a "mind game". Completely legal and a non controversial part of the game.

Of course, there are other kind of "mind games" like suggesting moves to your opponent, or acting rudely, or hurring, or prodding, keeping your SSD hidden, or a myriad of other "gray" things that skirt the bounds of annoying and unethecial depending on the circumstances. Nothing that I've written should be construed that I thought Bill (or I) were trying to use the client to create this kind of "mind game."

The particular circumstance could have easily happened in a face to face game. There was nothing special about SFBOL. Suppose an opponet had been the controller and he had thoughtfully paused at each impulse throughout the game. Then for a sequence of impulses at the beginning of a turn he starts stating quickly "I have no activity, next impulse?" Same effect verbally.

Now, could the change in pace be a mind game? Hopefully not and probably not. But I do think a shrewd player has to either ask the question "am I being hurried?" or become immune to the attempt as a matter of course. Forget the intention, its the effect hat counts. Hurrying is a terribly gray area, as it can happen and be completely unintentional. If you are a disciplined player executing your plan to the beat of your own drummer, then it won't matter at all - if you have discipline you can't be hurried. The controller just probably decided he had nothing to do for a few impulses. Now in this particular circumstance, it never occured to me that Bill was hurrying me (and I hesitate to bring it up BUT while hurrying can be "mind game" I want to be clear I wasn't implying this kind of "mind game"). But a shrewd player has to be aware that the pace has picked up.

To be clear, in this particular circumstance I simply took Bill's quick "Ready" as confirmation of my assesment that Bill would choose (like I did) to want the stand off to proceed until the end of the turn. The way the game unfolded is consistent with my conclusion. However, it is only a correlation. Without asking Bill I can't know if maybe he made up his mind to have activity earlier in the turn and changed his mind, so that in fact I really didn't undertand his intent at all. I think that is unlikely, though, since we did go through the impulses quickly, so Bill didn't have time to think about changing it.

I do not think it is a "mind game" in any negative or unethical sense to watch your opponents behaviour in how he executes his actions for "clues" which predicts his tactical intentions. There is no clear line seperating what you do in the game from how you communicate it. The objection, I suppose, is that one might think a player is playing "outside the simulation" if he does this. Intentionally wearing blinders and not making correlations to his behaviour is just simply impossible. Trying to intentionally ignore a "tell" seems unfair - how do you know your opponent is ignoring yours? Is he even conscious of how he is reacting to your "tells"?

It is true that SFBOL is in effect somewhat a disinterested intermediary seperating the man from his actions to a much greater extent than in a face to face game. But SFBOL doesn't "wash away" all the inadvertant "tells" that there may be communicated in a face to face game. A lot of them, yes. And that is probably a good thing.

Responding to this aspect of tactical analyis is probably shooting me in the foot. It clearly grabs the imagination in creating a debate, but is a small portion of the tactical thinking I was trying to communicate. I do think reading y our opponent and handling client issues is "good advice" but I think they are getting overweighted in the discussion. Its a shame if they are too controversial to be safely mentioned without overshadowing the rest of the analysis. So as best as I can saw for my part of dragging it on is "oops".

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Dave wrote:
>>Now, there is some disagreement around the edges by certain players.>>

Well, as most of these players are me, I figure I'll respond :-)

>> Some say that you can play really quickly through the "Voldemort" stage so that a period of "Voldemort" is immaterial (and those who play for 15 hours through the "Voldemort" are slowpokes, they should be able to get through it in 3 hours).>>

(I'm a little confused by the use of "Voldemort" here--did you previously establish what you mean by that? Is it just "not shorthand" for "Ballet"?)

Again, to be fair here, what I said was that most non plasma vs EPT games move reasonably quickly. Not that people who can't do it in three hours are slow pokes. A Romulan vs Hydran game, say, even if the Romulan is pitching EPTs, can be played pretty quickly as a lot of the turns (even though there will be many of them) will be short ones of "I move 26 and run all turn. No one fires anything significant other than maybe a plasma torp". Which means the games go reasonably quickly. I've played a lot of games like this. I've been witness to a lot of games like this.

The ones that are virtually guaranteed to take forever are plasma vs plasma, simply 'cause what would otherwise be 10-11 turns, of which a bunch are quick, rapidly can become 18-20 turns, of which a bunch are quick. Which is still a game that is twice as long as the first one.

>>Others say that the matchup is only going to be a lengthy example of "Voldemort" when the cloaking device is involved, so only the Romulans are "Voldemort" and the Gorns are not "Voldemort" when executing this strategy because the Gorns don't have the cloaking device and they just might screw up being "Voldemort".>>

That other also being me, I'll again point out that games with a Gorn playing EPT vs a non plasma opponent tend to not be significantly longer than non EPT games vs a non plasma opponent. As without the cloak, as you note, the game is a lot more likely to come to a decisive end a lot sooner. One way or the other.

>> the nature of the beast is that the S-EPT forces your hand - you have to be "Voldemort" and play for 20-25 turns in an S-EPT vs. S-EPT game.>>

I have had plenty of success as a Gorn not using EPTs vs Romulans (in hopes of gaining advantage from a lack of symmetry). It can be very effective as the Gorn. But the games are still long ones. as it is plasma vs plasma.

Again, I'll point out that the main culprit in all of these situations is the cloak.