Of course, someone (or someones) could go onto SFBOL, play the game with the TAC proposal as listed here against a Romulan and a Lyran (or, heaven forfend, in a small squadron action on a floating map), keep a log and take screen shots of the map once speed 0 is declared, then mail them to SVC or SPP...

Or at least, get some actual tests in rather than blowing hot air.

That may not be what's desired, however...

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Pete:

>>Having to TAC *before* the seeking weapon hits will, in 95% of all cases, not be an issue--you can see where the seeking weapon is going to go before it moves. <<

Except in cases where there are two or more possible targets in the same hex. Seeking weapon impact is announced before TACs occur (C1.313-5). Which allows ships that aren't hit to maintain their facing.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 11:55 pm: Edit

At least you guys seem to have figured out that, for good or bad, the change is MASSIVE with wide-ranging effects. A whole bunch of tactics will have to change. That alone makes me think this is a really awful idea.

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:41 am: Edit

I certainly don't think the change is massive. I certainly don't think the effects are that wide ranging.

I can't ever remember a game, ever, in which I was playing and thought...."Holy crap, thank god the TAC rules allow me to change after movement so I can determine which shield the ESG will hit.

I can't ever remember a game in which the seeking weapon impact made any difference whatsoever when I TACced.

Like I said, though, suits me fine not to change it, since I am the one who abuses it more than anyone else.

Speed is life? Not a chance. Parking is life!!

By David Cheng (Davec) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:01 am: Edit

The irony is thick in that I just played a game tonight where my opponent parked and TACed for 3 straight turns.

His rationale (which I do not argue with, but find amusing none-the-less) was "we were within effective weapons range the whole time". Please note this was not a knife-fight situation. My speed plots were 25/14/9, 4, and 14/9/4.

The Gaming Gods intervened by sending my foe lots of negative karma. I would clearly have lost if his DAC dice were not terrible (how can a Hydran ~not~ lose a single Hellbore or Fusion in 3 volleys of internals?). But his DAC dice _were_ terrible, and thus he was punished for his Starcastling tactics.


On another note...

I would like to suggest a sense of perspective in this discussion. I really don't think the proposed TAC rule change (which I wholeheartedly support) is that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

So it would be a little harder for a speed zero ship to keep his preferred shield facing the enemy? Too bad! It _should_ suck to be caught going speed 0!

So it would be a little easier for seeking weapons to hit with effectiveness? Is that so bad? It's hard enough to hit with the •••• things! I guess you'll just have to hold back a few more phasers to shoot 'em down. You've obviously got the power, since you're not using it for movement.

So it would be a little easier to get an ESG impact? Good! It's harder to get a good, solid, satisfying ESG ram than it is to hit with drones! Anyone caught going speed 0 vs an ESG should be throwing shuttles, drones, probes, the kitchen sink _and_ the Cook out the hatch to help absorb the damage. If they don't, then they deserve to get blown up. Give the poor Lyrans a little bit of satisfaction.


This proposed rule fix would not change the whole balance of the game. It's not like Peter started this thread proposing:
* All ships should be Turn Mode 1 at any speed
* Batteries should be able to hold any amount of power that you decide to place in them
* Phasers should be able to fire several times a turn (8 impulses apart, of course), and you can allocate your whole engine output to the phaser capacitors if you so choose.

I have a habit of thinking in metaphors. Here's one I've just come up with.

You're standing by a lake. This rule change would be like you picking up a rock and skipping it across the surface. It would make little ripples with the impact, but the lake is pretty much the same.

This rule change would not be like a 50-ton meteor coming down from space, vaporizing both you and the whole lake.

It's a good suggestion.
* It fixes a flaw in the logic of the game (Slower always moves first, _except_ when you're TACing).
* It rightfully puts ships at speed 0 at a disadvantage.
* It helps reduce the risk that you'll feel uncomfortable looking like a crybaby when you ask the judge to make your opponent "play the game the way it's supposed to be played" (as if that's not fraught with fraughtness already).

Speed is life! More than one product that ADB sold me says so!

-DC

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 05:53 am: Edit

Peter, let me try to re-start from the beginning. Note that I'm only referring to non-tournament play.

Currently in standard SFB, stopping is a viable (and even good) strategy when used at the right time. But this is not common (unlike what you are describing in tourny play). In some cases it is a desperation strategy, with only a small chance of success. But even in this role it is important (since it does sometimes allow the player to salvage something from a bad situation). I should note that I've most commonly seen people stop in desperation. This is usually seen as an ED/WW maneuver (thus my concern with its effects on such a maneuver).

In my experience (ignoring tourny here), being stopped is generally very dangerous. Thus the prime issue is surviving while stopped/accelerating (and being able to do so before running out of vital resources like WW).

The power of TACs is a large part of successfully surviving being stopped. If that is removed, then recovering from being stopped is going to be much more difficult (and in many situations will change from difficult to impossible). This is why even though stopping is not common in standard SFB (and thus TACs are not common), changes to TACs will have a major effect.

The net result is that modifying TACs will reduce the number of available strategies. This is especially the case when stopping is used as a desparation tactic. While changing the chance of success from 5% to 0% (or even 1%) is a small change in absolute terms (5%), it is a huge change in relative terms--moving from some chance to no chance (or "only" a factor of 5 in the 1% case). And the change will have a ripple effect since players now don't need to account for the possibility a player might stop (basically the easier it is to deal with a "situation" the less effect it has on prior planning).

Since there is no intrinsic problem with stopping in standard SFB to be fixed, changing TACs only has a negative effecs.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 06:19 am: Edit

Peter, my discussion of movement plots was in response to your suggestion to just use a 4-14 speedy weasel to use WW instead of an ED. I was trying to show that it is not sufficently flexible to fulfil the need. Thus being able to recover from being stopped is important in standard SFB. Note that for standard SFB, speed 4 is almost as bad as being stopped (although a speedy weasel plot will minimize the vulnerability) and in my experience, speed 14 is on the low side. And yes I do know how to do a 4-14 plot, but doing it often requires wanting to weasel early in the turn, not late.

My frigate example was to show that in standard SFB there often isn't a large power advatage to being stopped, so anything that makes being stopped more difficult is very bad for the game. Since the change in the sequencing of TACs will make being stopped more difficult, it has a negative impact on the game. As such I not only see no reason to change how it works, but a major reason why it should NOT be changed.

Tim, the point was not to prove anything about TACs, but about parking (bascially that parking is NOT a problem in standard SFB). Your goal would be to park in the game and win. Now I am rusty, so you would probably have an advantage.

And just because TACs are uncommon in standard SFB, does not make the change irrelevant. Remember that the potential can be as important as the actual use. And in this case, I feel that the change will have a signficant negative impact on standard SFB.

As far as Origins goes, it doesn't help that I'm on the West coast...

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 07:40 am: Edit

It appears as if the TAC change has two noticable impacts:

1. ESG Impact
2. Multi-units vs seeking weapons

ISSUE #1. With ESG impacts, if you are stopped and facing a ship with ESGs, unless you use your Impulse TAC, the ship with the ESG will get a choice of which of two shields the ESG will hit.

COMMENTARY. I just don't see this an issue. IMO, EDing should not be a valid defense against the ESG RAM. Considering how much the ESG rules have been clarified in the last couple of years, I don't see this one impacting game balance at all. Yes, a few people will have to change their anti-ESG tactics, but IMO, this is a loophole, not a necessity.

ISSUE #2. So, we have a situation where 1.) unidentified seeking weapons are headed toward 2.) multiple units in the same hex and those units are 3.) stopped and 4.) have not launched Wild Weasels.

COMMENTARY: So those units would have to use impulse TACs in order to change their facing after the seeking weapons hit and the target is identified. Of course, Warp TACs could be used PRIOR to impact to change your shield facing in anticipation of possible impact. Sorry, but if you're dumb enough to be caught in a situation where your force is stopped, with incoming, unidentified seeking weapons, and you have no weasels, you deserve what you get.

There has also been a discusson of Seeking Weapon impact in general, specifically the "ring around the target" scenario. Well, unless there is major errata on (F2.131), you will ALWAYS know one impulse ahead of time when the seeking weapon will hit you (possible exception: Plasma Sabot). So, SW HETs. Next impulse, you WARP TAC, SW hits - no problem.

By Jay Paulson (Etjake) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit

David Kass I don't think we're comparing a plot to ED, we're comparing a 4-14 to the plot TAC5 or TAC3/10. But you are right that part of the problem is the doomsday ED rules. Where the energy used for movement was previously lost, now it is channeled into shield reinforcement.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:40 pm: Edit

David wrote:
>>Currently in standard SFB, stopping is a viable (and even good) strategy when used at the right time. But this is not common (unlike what you are describing in tourny play). In some cases it is a desperation strategy, with only a small chance of success. But even in this role it is important (since it does sometimes allow the player to salvage something from a bad situation). I should note that I've most commonly seen people stop in desperation. This is usually seen as an ED/WW maneuver (thus my concern with its effects on such a maneuver).>>

All these options are maintained if TACing happens before moving ships move. The only really significant change here is when you have a single ship stopped that is being stalked by a single opponent, desperately trying to get on a down/weak shield. Barring this circumstance, I simply don't see a change to TACing as that big of a problem.

You are still stopped--giving you lots of other power to do things. You still can TAC, meaning that unless you are facing a single opponent at relatively close range, it will be fairly simple to keep an up shield towards your opponent, even if you have to TAC first, especially if you TAC in the direction of your down shield.

In terms of seeking weapons and ESGs, yeah, the ESG's get a boost. Which is good, as ESGs (and Lyrans) generally suck. The interaction of seeking weapons and TACing opponents is changed in only a limited fashion, and, generally speaking, only when you have multiple targets in ne hex and you haven't managed to identify the target of the seeking weapon (as even in the "ring around the target" situation, you know exactly what shield the seeking weapon is going to hit the impulse before it hits, allowing you to TAC to get a good shield facing the impact.

I'm simply not seeing the huge impact this will have on the game, other than making parking in a duel situation much less attractive.

>>In my experience (ignoring tourny here), being stopped is generally very dangerous.>>

In my experience, in both tournament play and non tournament play, parking is usually very advantageous, barring scenario specific vicotry conditions (i.e. having to be somewhere at some specific point or having to leave the map at time X). Heck, to use a very concrete, universal example--a few years ago, our group played Cavalry Charge. The guy in charge of the Coalition rapidly realized that due to the Alliance's different weapon suites and heavy reliance of seeking weapons, the best possible strategy for the Coalition was to stop and TAC. If the Alliance tried a long range attrition game, the Coalition *substantially* out gunned them. If the Alliance tried a close and hose game, the Coalition had a power and manuverability advantage by parking, and could weasel off seeking weapons with impunity. And what happened? The Alliance was slaughtered.

Yup. Parking is dangerous.

>> Thus the prime issue is surviving while stopped/accelerating (and being able to do so before running out of vital resources like WW).>>

Yes. That should be a huge issue. And changing the TACing sequence doesn't really change that--you aren't TACing while you are trying to accelerate.

>>The power of TACs is a large part of successfully surviving being stopped.>>

I'm simply not seeing it. Being stopped gives you:
-More power than your opponents.
-More manuverability than your opponents.

Even if TACing comes before movement, you *still* have better manuverability. Again, the only real disadvantage comes when a single parked vessel is being stalked by a single opponent.

>>This is why even though stopping is not common in standard SFB (and thus TACs are not common), changes to TACs will have a major effect.>>

I play almost as much non tournament SFB as I play tournament SFB. Parking is very often just as useful as it is in completetive play. And unless you are in a duel situation, changing the sequence just isn't going to make that much of a difference.

>>The net result is that modifying TACs will reduce the number of available strategies.>>

Parking will still be effective in the appropriate situation--you need to shake the drones? Park. You have a bunch of overloaded FEDs running at you? Park. It is still a viable strategy. It is just less sucessful in a duel situation.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:49 pm: Edit

David also wrote:
>> Peter, my discussion of movement plots was in response to your suggestion to just use a 4-14 speedy weasel to use WW instead of an ED.>>

Currently, the 4-14 weasel plot is moderately common in certain circumstances (most of which involve a plasma ship launching some envelopers and turning off). It works fine currently in the appropriate situation. If TAC sequencing was changed, the draw of simply parking, rather than doing a 4-14 or something, would be reduced. A lot.

>>I was trying to show that it is not sufficently flexible to fulfil the need.>>

It works in the appropriate situations. Some times you have to decel. And you could still decel, and you could still TAC, and still gain huge advantage, if the TAC sequence was changed.

> Since the change in the sequencing of TACs will make being stopped more difficult, it has a negative impact on the game.>>

But it won't make being stopped actually that much more difficult--in a few situations, it will (like in a duel), otherwise, I can't really see it being that much of a change. If I have 5 ships moving towards your 5 parked ships, I spread them out by, like, 2 hexes, and suddenly I can shoot 2 shields at once, making "TACing the strong one towards the enemy" a much less effective game. And unless your opponent is very close, a single TAC, even before movement, is going to be very easy to hide the down shields with.

>>And just because TACs are uncommon in standard SFB, does not make the change irrelevant. Remember that the potential can be as important as the actual use. And in this case, I feel that the change will have a signficant negative impact on standard SFB.>>

Still not seeing it.

-The impact (ahem...) on seeking weapons targeting a parked ship is minimal.

-The impact on ESG interactions with a parked ship is probably a good idea anyway, as the Lyrans always need the help.

-The impact on multiple ship engagements is minimal.

-The impact on a duel situation is significant, but that is what the main focus of our argument is anyway.

-Peter

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 02:10 pm: Edit

tacs vs esg, the tac occurs before sheild determination anywho (specific tac rule). So whether tacs come before or after movement has no real relevance in the case of esg impact.

And further I think the objections to tac rules come because some tourney ships are just very good at parking (ISC, thol, rom). I think parking for most ships is a questionable tactic. Most players hate to park, and generally do it only if its the only good idea, when their opponent has backed them into a metaphorical corner (or maybe thats just me)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Mike Mendick:

Incorrect.

If the tacing ship is required to tac before the ESG ship moves, then in those cases where the ESG ship has the possibility of hitting either of two different shields on the tacing ship DOES become a factor. As tacs work now the ESG hits the target, the target can then tac a shield of its choice (either maintaining the current shield or tacing one of the two adjacent shields) to face the ESG, the shield facing the ESG at the time of resolution for Damage During Movement is the one that is damaged.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

A question about the origins of the TAC rule.
This question is for SVC and SPP only: WHY did you make tacs move last?
Perhaps, the answer to this little riddle of ours is not how it will impact the game, but rather why the rule was written in the way it was in the first place.
Perhaps, the answer to this issue will resolve their line of thinking.
Note: I'm for the change but I'm also open minded.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

I remember another rule change sold as having minimal effects on play except in certain rarefied conditions and easy work arounds to the limitations being proffered. I recall slightly later that rule change had to be rescinded because the problems no one could see then turned out to be more severe later. I refer to the ancient attempt to cut back on the number of Wild Weasels that could be armed at once.

Even though no one can point to obvious game system collaspe of changing TACs, they might well exist for some races and conditions, even if players who have developed tactics for different races will never see the harmful effects.

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

whoops.
I was refering to a ships inability to avoid direct fire and esg damage hitting the same sheild on an impulse. wasn't thinking of the two potential sheilds thing.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit

Peter wrote (in two separate messages):

---

Quote:

The only really significant change here is when you have a single ship stopped that is being stalked by a single opponent, desperately trying to get on a down/weak shield. Barring this circumstance, I simply don't see a change to TACing as that big of a problem.

---

---

Quote:

But it won't make being stopped actually that much more difficult--in a few situations, it will (like in a duel), otherwise, I can't really see it being that much of a change. If I have 5 ships moving towards your 5 parked ships, I spread them out by, like, 2 hexes, and suddenly I can shoot 2 shields at once, making "TACing the strong one towards the enemy" a much less effective game.

---

---

Quote:

And unless your opponent is very close, a single TAC, even before movement, is going to be very easy to hide the down shields with.

---

---

Quote:

>> [I wrote:] Thus the prime issue is surviving while stopped/accelerating (and being able to do so before running out of vital resources like WW).>>

Yes. That should be a huge issue. And changing the TACing sequence doesn't really change that--you aren't TACing while you are trying to accelerate.

---

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 09:41 am: Edit

David wrote:
>>I would appreciate an explanation (or ideally a proof) of why you do believe your statement to be true, becuase I cannot see it.>>

If there are mutliple ships in play, then either A) you have enough concentrated fire that it doesn't really matter what shield you are shooting (if you are firing 16 OL photons and 20 P1s, it doesn't matter if you are shooting through a 30 box shield) or B) by having your ships a few hexes apart (2?) you can force a shot on a weak/down shield.

>>The mere fact that you've spread your ships across two shields has weakened their fire. Sure you can do some damage to the weak shield in this situation. But you can't do ALL your damage to the weak shield.>>

In multiple ship engagements, it doesn't matter that much. Due to there being more firepower than a single ship can actually aford to take flying around usually (even in a 3 ship v 3 ship game, no single ship can take fire from 3 ships inside of R8 and survive, shields or no). The need to keep the down shield away from your opponents is much less important and getting on that weak shield is much less critical. Sure, if you really want to, you can spread your ships around a bit and insure a shot on a weak shield. But if you simply concentrate fire, the existance of a weak shield is mostly irrelevant.

>>The range is irrelevant.>>

Given 2 ships, one is parked and TACing, one is moving on the shield boundy of the #1 and #2 (say the #1 is down). If the two ships are at range 4 and the parked ship TACs in the direction of its #6 (to hide the down #1), the moving ship has to move 3 hexes to cross the #1/#2 boundry again, forcing a second TAC. If the two ships are at range 10 in the same situation, the moving ship has to move 8 hexes to do the same thing (i.e. force another TAC) the difference between 3 hexes and 8 hexes is, generally, another earned TAC.

Range is vastly relevant.

>>But if you cannot partly mitigate the damage WHILE stopped, you will never get a chance to start back up.>>

A change in TAC sequencing does not prevent the mitigation of damage. If you stop and TAC with 3 adjacent up shields, the change in sequencing has no real bearing on anything. If you have a down shield, it'll take some doing to keep it away from the opponent, sure, but that is the whole point of the hypothetical change in the first place.

>>I believe that the Alliance has the greater drone throw weight as well as more ph-1. So they should move to range 31 (or so) and use drones and phasers.>>

At which point you have *two* fleets sitting and TACing. This is good how?

>>Or if the Coalition range 40 disruptor superiority is still an issue, move to range 45 and just use ph-1. Op Cav is on a floating map.>>

Sure--both of these are options. But both of them are options that generally involve both fleets just sitting and TACing at the appropriate range and grinding away through each other's rienforcement and ECM. Why not simply place 2 starbases on a map 35 hexes apart and play from there? Why even have the ability to move?

I'd simply prefer to have a game that encourages moving, considering how much effort is put into defining the movement rules.

>>Maybe it is because I've faced a player who parked a lot and therefore worked out the ways of defeating a parked fleet (it helps that I don't mind a patience game, so ph-1 at range 50 with a Gorn fleet is a fine tactic).>>

Which I find preposterous--mind you, not that you personally are willing to do such a thing, but that the game is structured in such a way that sometimes the best possible option is to sit your fleet at range 50 and hope that your average damage of 1/3 per P1 will eventually beat out your opponent's rienforcement and ECM over the course of 50 turns.

The current TACing rules simply encourage this sort of goofy play. I suppose it is just me, but I vastly prefer a game with moving ships actually engaging each other. I would like to see a game that encourages active engagement, rather than passive TAC/Rienforce/ECM games that are often the best option in a given situation. Changing the TAC sequencing would go a good long way towards doing this.

-Peter

By Ed Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit

The positioning of tacing in the movement process is probably unfortunate, but it may actually be correct. Each hex you move represents 10,000K. The ship is spinning in a central location.How long would it take for him to rotate 16 degrees which at any range is probable a matter of meters rather than Kilometers. I cant remember enough of my math to work it out now. It may be a valid tactic in some cases. I have not seen in the regular game(non-tournament) anyone be consistantly successful with it. All of a sudden you have a base sitting there, one that does not have all of the bases advantages. I guess you have to look at your base attack tactics. In the tournament it is different you dont have the options of maybe transporter bombs and such that can be used to attack a down shield. It sounds from everyones comments that it is a tournament problem. Like some have said maybe make it a tournament change not a regular game change. That has been done with other rules.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I'm still wondering if tactics can't be found to minimize the advantages of parking.

By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 04:13 pm: Edit

There are several tactics that minimize the effects of parking, but they are difficult to employ. Here is a partial list of possible options:

1) plasma him. If your plasma ship is at long range draw out his weasels by launching envelopers from range 10 or so until he has no more weasels(parking not good against loaded plasma) ;)
2) shield spine. Get on a shield spine and slip off it every other impulse. Difficult to employ because you have to guess what shield is bricked. If you guess right the entire benefit of parking is eliminated.
3) range bluff game. Reach range 8 and offer firing decision. If opponent fires and you don't turn in and roast him at end of turn with a big heavy weapon shot from point blank range. If you fire and he does not you have done some damage to his bricked shield, while you took no damage. Unfortunately, If you both fire your weapons do similar damage, and he has a 15-20 point brick to mitigate the damage. If neither fires you can set up to do this later in the turn at the next oblique range opportunity.

The general benefit of parking is that it allows you to put 15-20 points into reinforcement while your opponent wastes the 15-20 power on movement. The disadvantage is that you can not control the range. When facing a parking opponent try to find ways to minimize his benefit(extra power for reinforcement/overloads), while maximizing your own benefit(range control).

By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Parking will generally give you a short term advantage. On the turn you park, your opponent has probably spent power to move on the expectation that you would move.

When you know your opponent is parking(or at least limited to speed 10), it is much easier to tailor your ea to deal with the parker. If your opponent parks, and you are not prepared to deal with this situation, I would recommend turning off and waiting until your ea is properly tailored.

If you are already at range 4 or so it is difficult to turn off because you will get hit with a shot to you rears and it will take a while to turn back in without a het. Try to slip away from him waiting until you are at range 8 to turn off and leave your opponent stewing in his own overloads.

Parking does not work well(in general) agaisnt the following opponents(Plasma, Andro, Hydran(he will take you shot at range 2-4 and get range 0-1 centerline on you), Tholian(He can set up a firewall and get a range 5(or closer) unreturned phaser shot)).
Parking works very well against (Lyran(split esg-almost automatically),a big drone wave in a single stack(scatterpack), Feds(2nd attack), Orion(burn engines), and any opponent who is not prepared to deal with this situation.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 11:26 pm: Edit

There is also a disadvantage to parking that is relevant to campaigns. If one fleet parks and is gaining the upper hand in the battle, the other fleet can usually disengage and live to fight another day. But if the parking fleet starts losing the battle, it may have difficulty accelerating quickly enough to disengage without having some ships destroyed. Thus, against certain opponents, parking may increase your chance of winning but make your defeat much more severe if you do lose. This doesn't matter in a battle that is not part of a campaign, since losing the battle has no effect on next week's battle. It also depends on the specific strategic situation in a continuing campaign.

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:02 am: Edit

why do you say split esg?
if you are parked, the esg will hit you on same sheild as DF(that impulse) every time. unless I am badly mistaken.

By Ken Stuart (Kps1ca) on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Coming late to this thread, but having read all of it just now...

First, TACing after movement seems silly to me, but changing that rule may break too much, so let's assume it stands.

One of Peter's frustrations is the ability of opponents to Starcastle. For those who remember the arcade game and what this means (quick reactionary turns), a simple but different rules change would make this tactic less promising in a tourney.

Simply force a delay of 4 impulses between TACs of all types (this may be what Conroy suggested, but no one picked up on it).

One of the big advantages of Starcastling in a tourney is that the parked ship usually uses TACs to keep a good shield to the moving ship as it approaches, and then just as the moving ship crosses the hex spine, it TACs back the other way to keep the bad shield away.

It's the double or even triple TAC that's so frustrating to deal with in a tourney setting.

There's little as discouraging as making a battlepass (either at range 9 or closer) against someone who flip-flops with TACs, and it often feels cheesy to do it -- no sense of cleverness there, really, even though doing so can save the game.

Continuing to allow TACs to occur after normal movement but with a 4-impulse delay between them would still let Starcastlers turn shields to ESGs and seeking weapons as needed after they move, but would allow parked ships fewer advantages against a moving, aggressive player, which makes sense and the game more fun.

The poor man's HET still works, it just takes at least 12 impulses to pull off, rather than the minimal three.

Even if a global 4-impulse delay between TACs isn't a solution, perhaps a 4-impulse delay between warp TACs would work, preventing three TACs in a row, and weakening the Starcastle tactice.

Would a 4-impulse TAC delay break any other part of the game? TACs can still be earned on the speed 8 column. They would not expire sooner; just if you saved an earned one and used it, the next could not be used until 4 impulses after that.

-Ken (Eagle)