Tactics Discussions Archive 2006
By Ray Belanger (Rug) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 12:00 am: Edit how come no one uses this firum any more?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 04:31 pm: Edit 'Cause no one has come up with a good tactical conundrum that needs discussing recently, I'd figure. Any ideas?
-Peter
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 09:39 pm: Edit ISC Vs. Hydran
How should the ISC handle the determined H that is determined to close and moves to take the plasma on diff shields.
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 11:46 pm: Edit === Concentrate std G('s)/F combos, or EPT? ;)
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 01:34 am: Edit Concede. The Hydran is invincible. (Except when he gets to range 0 and the HBs miss...)
Seriously, though, if the Hydran tries too hard to charge and you are ready for it, he will lose. String launch plasma, OL the PPD, park, launch shuttles -- if he charges through all that, he will not have enough left to hurt you as much as you have hurt him.
The key is to figure out at what point to stop trying to stay away from him and brace to receive the charge. If he catches you while you are still trying to run away, things will not go well for you.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 01:55 am: Edit I don't think string launching plasma is going to work that well--between the ship gatlings and the two tractored fighters gatlings, it'd be pretty easy to chop them up and lose a couple flank sheilds.
I'd think that launching both G torps so that they'll hit inside of 10 unless he turns off is the way to start the game--if he turns off, you might be able to score an OL PPD on his aft sheilds. If he doesn't turn off, shoot the PPD as a standard, blast up his fronts with phasers and a rear launched F as he closes, and plan on keeping the range open as long as you can. On T2, run as far as you can and reload, plan on parking either by hitting the wall or starting that way on T3, and hope you have shot him up enough by the time he corners you. -Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 02:16 am: Edit String launch the torps (standards + pseudos + an F if you can), OL the PPD. Do NOT stop. The Hydran likely won't be tractoring the fighters (power+vulnerability). Turn 2 - RUN!
Still, this IS a tough matchup for the ISC; one hex of position off on T1 and its all over.
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 09:03 am: Edit I've tried mass launches. String launches etc.
The Methane head still kicks my hinie
So any help/arguments etc will only increase my understanding of this match up.
One tactic I used to use was a Fast/medium/Fast speed plot with a PPD shot ending at R10 with a dual G launch with a ready HET, and a F chaser.
I'm thinking on going back to it but unless I get some decent internals the H will chase me down before I can rearm and ream my ship
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 11:15 am: Edit There are many ways to play it from both sides - overall pretty even. However, the ISC has the capability to be the aggressor on the 1st pass. If the PPD is firing at R15 (sounds like you are trying to entirely avoid r8), that is taking a lot of the pressure off the Hydran because he doesn't have to worry about your phasers.
How about fire the OL PPD at r8, with some combination of torps out 4-5 hexes in front of you, and holding your phasers for r5 (if he contnues to close) or r8 (if he turns off). Believe me, that is a lot for the Hydran to deal with, and if he crashes through, you still have plenty of additional torps to chuck at him.
Give it a try, and report back.
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 02:19 pm: Edit The last time I took the ISC against a hydran, I took a Paul Scott approach. Oblique at R10, launch the F and G torps on that side, turn in (ideally to R8 for a PPD OL, maybe just 5 pulses). Continue stringing out torps, including pseudos. ISC timing must be perfect, but he can strip the hydran of weaponry before the hydran gets close enough for the kill.
Unfortunately, the hydran thought my setup was so good, he turned off and maintained R9 for the rest of the turn. Sigh.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 04:03 pm: Edit Peter,
String launching has its risks, but so does mass launching. The difficulty with facing the Hydran (in any ship) is that it doesn't have to make as many decisions in EA, but can react during the turn. If you launch en masse, that simplifies the decision-making for him. If your timing or board position is off just a little bit, he can gain a big advantage.
If you string launch, then he has to make more decisions - turn off or charge through. If he decides to turn off, then you still have plasma on board. If he decides to charge through, he can end up taking a lot more damage than intended when you launch more. If he charges through one and then turns off when you launch more, he has eat one for no gain. String launching can take away some of his advantage in reactivity.
The charging Hydran can be brutal. In one memorable victory I had, when the ISC conceded, I was down about 120 shield boxes, and he had one down shield and 75 internals. The key there was that after I had evaded/gatted down/taken on the flank his torps and cornered him, he was still trying to run, rather than stand and fight. An important thing to realize is that the Hydran can't just blindly charge anyone. He can't have the speed, and the fusions armed, and the gats ready to shoot you, and the gats used on torps, and the gats available to knock down your suicide shuttles, all in one turn. He can end up at the doorstep with less firepower than his opponent.
At the start of the game, mass launches make more sense. If you can delay the close-in fight for a couple turns, you can maybe take care of the fighters, wear down his forward shielding a bit, let him slow down a bit to rearm phasers, and so on. After that, I think the string launch is best.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 04:52 pm: Edit I think your focus as the ISC player should be controlling the range (w/speed) and sanding off the Hydran's front shields. No ship is more vulnerable to the mizia thang.
You have a one P-1 advantage so it will come down to a race between your ability to get his front shields down before he makes a hole in your shields... to let his hellbores chew on you.
Good luck.
By hughes b hoyle iv (Skein) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 04:54 pm: Edit Hydrans always get me My general approach for the attempt is offside g launcher as an enveloper range 10 to tempt the turn off. PPd at 15 to chew through shield . Turn towards far my start corner and launch the g and f together.
Hydran just eats it all. Even with 20ppd dammage , 40 from enveloping g , and a stacked 40 g and f. He will phaser use his 4 phaser g`s on the torps and just degrade them too much. You just cant make him turn away.
He will get the range 8 shot in return and you cannot engage any farther away and do any dammage at all with your puny plasma. His 4 fighter fusions beams and his 5 phaser ones will drop a shield and then two overloaded hellbores will hit.
On turn one he will brick to stay with the fighters while overloading the bores.
Turn two he runs and setups the turn 3 impulse 1 instant kill. Not a dang thing you can do about it.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 08:12 pm: Edit Prior to saying this I should mention that I've only played one tournament game (my hydran vs. his andros). He said he'd never been beaten so I beat him :-)
Hughes: Why are you enveloping the G on turn 1. You've already said it won't scare him away, so it would probably be better to just launch it normal. It also forces him to try to decide which G is real. If you overload you've given him all the info he needs to keep coming in.
By hughes b hoyle iv (Skein) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 11:18 pm: Edit Because he only needs one shield the front one to keep me from miziang all his weapons away. When you string launch which you MUST do as a ISC you allow him to take 2 plasma sets on the other two front shields.
You can never stack more then 40 pts of plasma together. 40 pts is not enough. He intends to use 4 phaser g`s on the first turn to degrade plasma. That eats 30 points of plasma. You can only launch 60 points of plasma the first turn and 20 of it will not be stacked.
The best use of the offside plasma g is as an enveloper (or a shotgun versus the fighters). Then your ppd will 4 pts, your enveloper 6 pts, and your stack 40 minus his phaser g`s. It is the most dammage you can do and it is just not enough to make him even think about turning off. Against big plasma he would have to turn , a 100 points of plasma minus 30 is still plenty to wreck his ship but 40 just dosent cut it. Plasma tastes good in moderation nice an spicy. If you had room to run you would be ok, but Isc vs hydran is just a fight your going to lose. The biggest problem ISC always has is no crunch power. They are a finesse ship and do not do well versus brawlers on closed maps
To reiterate the offside g enveloper, the ppd, and the stacked g and f is the highest crunch you can get against one shield. He isnt going to turn off. He will claim the middle of the board turn one, and after a pass the best you can do is range 6 running away full steam towards a wall.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 05:13 am: Edit Range 15 PPD and Envelopers is the worst opening for the ISC against the Hydrans. You are just asking to be mauled by a ship whose shields you will barely pierce with your phasers.
Oh, and FYI - the ISC is arguably more Mizia vulnerable than the Hydran.
By hughes b hoyle iv (Skein) on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 12:27 pm: Edit
Ok what is the best start then ? You tell me mine sucks and since I always lose this particular fight I am more then open to suggestions. How as an ISC do i pacify this hydran :p
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 05:05 pm: Edit I'd still think play agressively on T1 as the ISC--go fast and launch 2 standards. And then maybe 2 more if he keeps coming to keep him guesing. If he turns and runs, hit him in the back with OL PPD and press him, trying to follow up with phasers. If he closes, try to get as much PPD and phaser damage, hopefully shoot through the sheild the G's hit, and turn and run tossing more F's out the back.
-Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 05:47 pm: Edit "tossing more F's out the back."
Can't you only launch one F per turn out the back?
I don't have an SSD handy, but are there enough racks to warrant lauching them at the fighters? It seems to me that having 5 Fs (not including fakes) coming at him will make it dificult to decide where to shoot.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 06:39 pm: Edit
Quote: Can't you only launch one F per turn out the back?
Per turn, yes. You did arrange for a turn break at the right time, didn't you?
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 07:03 pm: Edit Nevermind. I just checked the SSD and there's only two rear torps, not even enough to make him afraid of losing his fighters, much less punch through shields with enough damage to do some decent internals.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 07:05 pm: Edit I don't ever actually plan on playing in a tournament (there aren't any anywhere near me) but it might be an interesting diversion sometimes fr my group. Aside from the wall in space and no ECM*, what are the differences between tourney and standard play?
* Are erratics allowed?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 07:57 pm: Edit hughes. Try to set up a T1 OL PPD shot and launch standards plus pseudos, preferably string launched. You want to give him lots of things to shoot at so that the real torps are more effective. Don't expect to necessarily cause any significant internals with the torps and PPD, what is important is significant shield damage to his fronts. When he closes hit him with your phasers and hope you knock enough off that you survive his return fire.
James. Those 2 rear torps will either 1. force the Fighter gats to shoot those plasmas 2. force the Fighters to turn off or 3. cripple/destroy the fighters. None of those are bad options. What you lose by launching both in one turn is telling your opponent that at least one is launched at a fighter (which is probably a good option - launch both, 1 at ship, 1 at a fighter and watch him squirm).
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 09:47 pm: Edit James wrote: >>Can't you only launch one F per turn out the back?>>
Yes. But you can launch 1 at the end of T1 and another early on T2 if it becomes useful.
>>I don't have an SSD handy, but are there enough racks to warrant lauching them at the fighters?>> Nah. Only 2.
>> It seems to me that having 5 Fs (not including fakes) coming at him will make it dificult to decide where to shoot.>>
Only 2 rear F launchers, and no psuedoes for them.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 09:52 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>Try to set up a T1 OL PPD shot and launch standards plus pseudos, preferably string launched.>>
Like, I'm not saying that it isn't going to work, but I guess I don't understand what you mean by "string launch"--I am taking that to mean "launch a G, see what happens, launch another G, see what happens, launch a 3rd G" and so on. I can't see how that is any more effective than launching 2 G's at a time. Like, if you wanna launch psuedoes to let him shoot fakes, launch 2 psuedoes and 2 real (or vice versa)--I'd figure that launching a stack of 2 G's might actually knock down a sheild, where spreading them all over the place will probably end up mangling a few sheilds, but not bust through anything.
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 10:13 pm: Edit Peter. By string launched I mean forming a line of plasmas in adjacent hexes. It makes it pretty hard to avoid taking one on the #1 that way and the #1 is what you will likely be seeing when you get your phaser shot. It is actually one of the mindgames of this matchup as the ISC tries to set it up so a real one hits the #1 while the Hydran tries to outguess him by "ramming" before he "needs" to.
By Kraig Uhl (Runningman) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 06:25 pm: Edit My personal favorite ISC V. Hydran approach is to shotgun the Left side G torp, standard load the PPD and the other G torp. Approach to range ten and launch right side G torp (real or fake to liking)and fire PPD for best hit numbers and damage. Then continue to close behind the G torp to range 5 and launch shotgun torps and leftside F torp, one shotgun F torp at ship and one at a fighter, Leftside F torp at ship. This approach leaves the Hydran with 60 points of inbound plasma, and one fighter in danger, and big ppd and phaser damage on the front shields. This sets up a turn three PPD shot with fast loads in the G torps, hopefully with a gasping Hydran trying to run you over.
By Norman Cruz (Cruiser) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 07:40 pm: Edit I too think the string launch is very effective but feel like I need to have an F torp out in front to accompany the Gs. Without the F, I would be relying too much on the TLM guessing wrong on the fakes. I like to go range 10 oblique (at speed 16 or so near the end of the turn) and throw out the F torp (and possibly a G as well). Next impulse, I turn in. If the TLM goes forward, we will be at range 8 on that impulse. If the TLM gets to range 8, it has pretty much committed to charging (since barring a HET, it cannot get out of range 8). So over the next several impulses, I would be throwing out G torps. At range 8, I fire an OL PPD. If you go speed 16, it is possible to bump up your speed late in the turn to 17 or more (either allocated or unallocated) and miss 2 moves in a row. With this plot, you can get 5 impulses of OL PPD even where the TLM goes speed 31 at you (which is not likely anyway). If the TLM does a few slips, you can get 6 impulses, but 5 is sufficient. As the torps are ready to hit, the TLM must guess at which are real and which are not, or it can fire at the F torp. Even with perfect guesses, the torps will do enough damage to whatever the facing shield ends up being to allow a phaser mizia (which means you don’t necessarily need to launch any fakes, although why not throw at least one out there to make the TLM sweat). Once the damage is done, HET away (you must allocate this) and perhaps launch the remaining F torp at a fighter.
Keep in mind that this is not an easy maneuver to pull off. Timing is very important, and very little room for error. I recommend taking a PBEM map and plotting out the whole scenario to see the various possible outcomes and to memorize what you will need to do. Done right, the TLM will not win if it charges. Best piece of advice though on this maneuver, DO NOT MISS with the PPD.
By Norman Cruz (Cruiser) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 07:46 pm: Edit James, if you end up liking tourney play, you can always play tourneys (as well as non-tourney) online at SFBOL.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 08:23 pm: Edit How can I know if I like it if nobody will tell me what the differences are? :-)
I've yet to find the time to check out SFB Online. I'll head over to those thrads and check it out. Thanks!
By Norman Cruz (Cruiser) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 09:27 pm: Edit Regarding my post above, you may want to launch at range 11 oblique instead of 10 if the TLM is moving very fast (i.e., where it may be moving every impulse). This will allow you to get more plasma (real and fake) out in front. Actually, range 12 is even better but the TLM may end up running, which may not be as good of a result (if you tossed out a real G).
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 02:00 am: Edit My big focus T1-T2 is neutralizing the stingers. They can chew up your plasma and double the TLM's fire power close in. Keep in mind that the TLM at high speed has trouble using his stingers. I think Kraig's approach is best to encourage early deployment of the stingers. Lots of Hydran players like to rotate their Stingers into their bays on the last impulse... while maintaining high speed. It lets them chase you across the map with their stingers safe inside on T2. If you get inside R8 on T1 while the TLM's fighters are out... waiting to chew your plasma... use your P-1s on them. All you need is 7 points to cripple the stingers and the TLM will either have to cut the tractor or death drag the fighters. Three P-1 on each does the trick on average. You might try two P-1 on each if you've shotgunned a G to avoid an outright kill and loss of your F torp.
This are my general thoughts on ISC vs TLM. Every game is different and the same tricks rarely work on the same person twice.
By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 08:17 am: Edit Obviously most of those tricks will help a Gorn against a Hydran, but lacking a PPD, what would the differences be?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 08:24 am: Edit James wrote: >>How can I know if I like it if nobody will tell me what the differences are? :-)>>
A very limited rules set. Each race gets (essentailly) 1 slightly modified (for balance) CC to use in the tournament. You can download the Tournament SSDs on this here web site. You use a closed map. Plus:
-Drones are very restricted. No reloads. All drones are IM, with the Kzinti and Klingon getting a few points to make some fast, and everyone can swap for a couplt type IV (Kzinti gets 3). Only Kzinti and Klingon get a SP.
-No EW at all. Except a weasel gives you the +2 shift. No erratic manuvers.
-Klingon gets no burnout UIM. Lyran gets 1 use UIM. No one else gets UIM.
-Orion has no stealth bonus. Optional weapons are very restricted.
-Andro is completely different that in the real game. And mostly unplayable.
-Not all plasmas get psuedoes (usually the F torps on CCs).
That is most of significant changes off the top of my head. I'm probably missing something important, but that'll cover most differences.
-Peter
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 09:15 am: Edit -No Narrow salvoes -No mines (except Andro, TKE) -No hidden cloak -No legendary officers -No Commandos -No H&R on shuttles -No MRS
... pretty sure there's more, but Peter covered most of the big ones.
Note that tournament ships and rules are geared towards balance/fairness, as well as getting games done in a reasonable amount of time.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 09:47 am: Edit Troy wrote: >>Obviously most of those tricks will help a Gorn against a Hydran, but lacking a PPD, what would the differences be?>>
I've never really had much trouble vs the Hydran in the Gorn. It is a pretty even fight (like, I don't think the Gorn is significantly advanatged or anything), but pretty much any reasonable strategy is good. Which is weird, as the ISC seems so hosed, but I guess the S torps and ability to fire everything at once is significant.
An enveloper on T1 and staying outside of 8 can work, but can give the bold Hydran too much pushing room. I like a couple standards on T1 from 12 or so and going inside of 8--I trade a sheild and maybe a few internals for either the Hydran eating a lot of plasma and getting shot up a lot or being burried in the corner for my next plasma launch. And usually I get to kill a fighter or two at range.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 09:48 am: Edit Andy wrote: >>By string launched I mean forming a line of plasmas in adjacent hexes. It makes it pretty hard to avoid taking one on the #1 that way and the #1 is what you will likely be seeing when you get your phaser shot.>>
Oh. Ok. That makes sense.
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 05:42 pm: Edit Peter, do you reinforce a shield T:1?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 06:45 pm: Edit Carl wrote: >>Peter, do you reinforce a shield T:1? >>
Nah. I just go fast. Something like turn on the ship, 25-26 move, hold standards, a couple shuttles, maybe some energy in a contingient HET or something. Launch a couple S torps at R12 or so. Manuver so they get ahead a bit. Let the Hydran choose between shooting at ~8 and turn off or get R4-5 by eating the torps. Usually they shoot the facing sheild at 8ish, which usually about knocks a sheild down, maybe doing a couple in or not if I wanna spend a couple batteries to soak some.
If the Hydran closes, he might take 20+ internals if the first torps are real, he might lose a sheild and possibly get shot through it while running into another 50 if one is fake while not really getting closer than 3 or 4 anyway.
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 01:41 pm: Edit Peter, how do you fight the LDR? Myself I have possibly even less experience fighting the LDR than the Hydran. I don't like the ESGs and GAtling and phasers and disruptors and dual SS etc etc
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:25 pm: Edit I only have actually ever fought the LDR once, and it was flown by Tom Carrol, but I mostly lost 'cause I was stupid (we got to R2, and during the call for fire, I was like "Huh. I'll not shoot this impulse and save my phasers for next impulse...", and then when he shot me with a bunch of phasers, I took a bunch of internals, when I could have shot his half sized sheild with, like, 5 P1, a P3, and a bolt F if I had not been incredibly confused at the time), and even then he won 'cause he made a second HET.
Basically, I just chased him around a lot. I never landed any significant launched plasma, but he had to move fast the whole game, and I launched plasma to keep him running, and took phaser and bolt shots when I could.
The Gatlings and ESGs and SS's (anything that required him to get closer than 3, really) didn't come up that much, as he could never close without eating a bunch of plasma, which he didn't seem to want to do.
So I don't really have any good advice, apprently :-)
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 01:12 pm: Edit Oh, well tnx for sharing anyway. I guess I will have to play better than well if I face Ken Lin.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 04:53 pm: Edit As I just sent this out via e-mail to Carl, I figured I'd bring it up here for entertaining discussion purposes:
Let me start by saying I hate Gorn vs Romulan duels. I realize that they are "classic", and theoretically completely balanced. But one of the main reasons I am reluctant to play Gorn in competition (although I keep doing so) is 'cause every once and a while, I'll have to fight a Romulan. I don't think the game is an unfair one from the get go, I just think that they tend to be incredibly long, incredibly boring, and the Romulan (more so than most other fights due to the lack of long range sniping potential from the Gorn) has the ability to play incredibly, incredibly defensively (ya know, launch an enveloper and run, launch another enveloper and run, if cornered, decel and weasel or cloak out, and so on). The Gorn can play just as defensively (without the cloaking), but the end result is a game that goes 15+ turns and nothing significant ever happens till someone gets frustrated and does something reckless.
So to avoid this, as the Gorn, I often try to force some action, which is risky, but can work. Generally, what I find myself doing in these games (as the Gorn) is going fast with standards, figuring the Romulan has envelopers. Assuming a generic enveloper ballet for the Romulan, I'm going faster and getting to the center of the map sooner, forcing him to fire earlier and turn off. I'll launch a standard to push him into the corner, and run from the enveloper. I usually can outrun the enveloper on T2, while my standard will usually hit in the 5-10 zone (minus phasers). T2 we come back around, and again, he launches an enveloper and I launch a standard (likely a pseudo) and try to take the high ground while he likely runs off. T3 is the tricky one--to force the action, I generally have to eat the enveloper, so I plot, like, 26 all turn, eat the enveloper, and chase him into the corner as best I can. Assuming things go well, by the end of the turn, I'll have a bunch of sheild damage (but few, if any, internals), and I'll have blasted him with a couple of F bolts, as many P1s as possible (usually causing 15-20 internals in two volleys--something like 5 P1 and an F bolt on impulse N at R4, followed by a HET and a couple more P1s and another F bolt on impulse N+1 at R5), with a launched S chasing the Romulan into the corner, forcing him to either cloak, weasel, or eat the torp on T4 as I run off to reload. It is risky, 'cause the F bolts can miss (1 hit is reasonable; 2 hits is a winning position), and you lose a lot of sheilds (enveloped S for 60 or 44, plus an F or two somewhere), but if you fly well and get a bit lucky, it can make a game that isn't incredibly boring and 15 turns long--I lose a bunch of sheilds, but do 15-20 internals and force the Romulan to stop, giving me room to reload and initiative for the next few turns. However, if the Romulan can figure out what is going on, he can decel and weasel just as you get to R5, which totally screws you. Any other ideas? Again, I think the game is totally a 50-50 match up from the get go (assuming Gorn vs TFH), but a lot of the 50-50 comes from the game defaulting to a 15 turn grueling nightmare a lot of the time. My RAT19 game vs Paul yesterday isn't really a good example of anything (I haven't made a basic rules mistake that stupid for *years* in actual play...), so please ignore it for this discussion :-)
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 05:44 pm: Edit It's hard to see how a Gorn and a TFH are evenly matched. They have the same power, but the Romulan has a better turn mode, better phaser arcs, and a cloaking device. The two ships have the same plasma; which one has better arcs is just a matter of preference.
The Gorn does have one more p1, versus the additional two p3s on the TFH, which is a slight advantage for this matchup (and a disadvantage in several others). It also has a better hull layout, but these things certainly don't make up for the cloaking device, phaser arcs and better turn mode.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 06:32 pm: Edit One more p1? Try 3 more p1s (although only 1 more at best in arc).
The Gorn is quite durable compared to the TFH, so it always needs to be ready to swap relatively equivalent damage.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 06:56 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>It's hard to see how a Gorn and a TFH are evenly matched. They have the same power, but the Romulan has a better turn mode, better phaser arcs, and a cloaking device. The two ships have the same plasma; which one has better arcs is just a matter of preference. >>
The Romulan has a better turn mode and a cloak. The Gorn has more phasers (8P1/2P3 vs 5P1/4P3), better internals and dual shuttle bays (not huge, but something). The Gorn has no cloak, but conviniently, whenever the Romulan cloaks, it is just like the Gorn cloaking, but the Gorn doesn't have to pay for it and can keep his speed up and continue firing (if at reduced effectiveness). And you can usually guess when the Romulan is going to cloak like clockwork.
I have won countless Gorn v Romulan fights during the sub hunt phase by overrunning the cloaked Rom and shooting phasers through down sheilds--even a couple internals here and there can make a huge difference.
This being said, the match is pretty even, but again, often where the game is decided is by whoever gets bored first and does something reckless and/or stupid. The Romulan cloaking device is huge in the fight, but primarily 'cause it allows (like in all games) the Romulan to play super, super defensively which leads to games where the Gorn can:
A) Play super defensively also, which leads to endless stalemates.
B) Play recklessly and agressively, which can work for the Gorn but requires good luck.
C) Complain to the judge about non agression on the part of your opponent and wait for time to run out. Which is lame.
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 07:39 pm: Edit D'Oh! That's what I get for going from memory. I was thinking the TFH had the K modules.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 08:04 pm: Edit Is option C really that lame? Is it more or less lame then showing up to a tournament where people (including you) will be playing in duels pitting one ship against another in mortal combat and you decide not to play in the match?
Not that cloaking in itself is a bad move,or even remotely unsportsmanlike. But if you use it so much that someone needs to complain to the judge its most likely you being "lame."
In the above I'm using the general "you," not trying to reference any particular poster.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 08:35 pm: Edit James wrote: >>Is option C really that lame? Is it more or less lame then showing up to a tournament where people (including you) will be playing in duels pitting one ship against another in mortal combat and you decide not to play in the match?>>
Well, it is certainly lame that sometimes games come to that. It is a necessity a lot, especially with the Romulan, which is, ya know, lame. See, there is a very thin line between "prudent and appropriate use of cloak" and "excessive non engagement". And a lot of time, the best possible option vs a Romulan is to just fly around while he is under cloak and wait for the time limit to run out and hope the judges land on your side.
But in any case, I mostly looking for ideas for how to make this particular match up (i.e. Gorn vs Romulan) more entertaining. Or at least less of a game of "let's toss plasma and run away from each other for 12 turns till someone makes a mistake". -Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit Couldn't a range 0 barrage of bolted plasma and phasers have a pretty good chance of ruining a cloaked romulan's day?
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:28 pm: Edit Firehawk wants to sprint to the center and lob an enveloper then lope away to watch the fireworks. Assuming the gorn has standards he can outrun the plasma into the corner, but your
Quote:
I'm going faster and getting to the center of the map sooner, forcing him to fire earlier and turn off.
is false in that the romulan can move twelve of the first thirteen impulses while arming an enveloper. The gorn ain't getting to the center of the board without eating sixty, but he should have more in movement after the launches since he saved four points on his torpedo. This translates into better board position on turn two, until he spends the power phasering down twice as much plasma. As a romulan I'd be tempted to eat twenty-two minus phasers if it would give me a better launch point for the second round of torpedoes. Once the gorn launches and turns away he ain't coming back unless he HETs. Getting the gorn to do that screws up the bolt-HET-bolt-decel-weasel strategy.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:34 pm: Edit Let's see: Centerline Gorn bolt of 100 plasma, .5 for bolt, 2/3 chance of hitting = 33 expected damage pre chart, chart reduces by about another 40% = about 20 expected damage.
Feeback damage is 12.5 * 2/3 = 8.33
Are you sure the 12 points more that you do to him is worth having empty tubes?
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:41 pm: Edit I never said I was sure, I just asked a question. :-)
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 07:16 am: Edit I think the main problem is your premise that a ballet game is inevitablely "15 turns in which nothing happens." The ballet is all about possitioning. It is not a game of pure defense.
IMO, forgetting about your choice to ram the second EPT, I think you lost the game on Turn 1 when I launched and EPT and you replied with a standard. If you noticed, at the end of the second turn, I was in the middle of the map and had more room to run than did you. Absent a WW from you, my EPT was going to hit you for 30 had you tried to run from it. Additionally, since the second torp was an Impulse 26, T2 launch running from it would have put you against the wall, and since you launched a standard torp in response again (fake this time), I would have been turned around and at the start of T4 would have again had you in a possition where I could launch an EPT that would have done real damage (or forced a WW).
It does not take much to start to gain a possition advantage in this game. The apx. 4 hex advantage (magnified by the superior TM and FH arcs of teh TFH) given up every time you launch a STD to the opponent's EPT will quickly result in your opponent being able to do damage to you while being able to largely escape return damage.
The other issue was your choice to arm FC mid-turn and fire 4 p-1 at 9-15. This cost you 5 power out of capacitor systems that effectively made my T2 EPT cost the same as your T2 held S-torp and all I gave up for it was 3 shield boxes (avg. is 4 shield boxes).
I do not think your basic plan outlined above can work. In fact, you mention that you normaly just go 26 so that you can HET. Had you not gone 31, however, in our game it would have meant me never HETting, you eating 100 plasma, instead of 80, while closing, and you still never reaching R5 (though I would have been in the dead corner and forced to WW+cloak on T4 - but not before TACcing once and launching another EPT). A bolt strategy or a "torp advantage" strategy is something the Rom can try, but is not a realistic option for the Gorn, as more often than not the Rom cloaking device will prevent success.
My last comment on the "15 turn" games - it is certainly true that a plasma v. plasma ballet game in terms of Turn numbers tends to be longer - though I can remember few that have gone to 15 turns, but 9 to 12 is pretty common. That said, most of those 9 to 12 turns is spent with both players running from torps. These turns tend to go pretty fast and finishing such a game in the three to four hours allowed at a tournament is very reasonable.
In contrast to plasma v. plasma (which reduces the kind of games the Judges have in the past allowed out of a Rom - where it moves slowly mos tof the game and launches torps at long range all the while having 13 of the 18 points of cloak paid) is Rom v. Fed or D&D. The most notable example of this kind of play was that of Paul Kramer in Philidelphia, though I have since seen others mimic it as well. That situation should always result in an adjudication against the Rom, but for whatever reason the adjudications in the past at Origins have been in favour of a the Rom playing this kind of game. That kind of sanctioned "cloak" abuse is just not possible in plasma v. plasma. Additionally, the other kind of very "passive" or "defensive" plasma play - where the plasma launches come from long range (around range 15) followed by a turn off - again can be taken advantage of by a plasma opponent in ways harder for others to do so. If your opponent does this all you have to do is close on the incomming EPT for several impulses and then launch your own EPT in response. Over the course of several turns, you will gain a map adavantage that will result in your plasmas hitting him while you have pleanty of room to run.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:40 am: Edit Paul wrote: >>I think the main problem is your premise that a ballet game is inevitablely "15 turns in which nothing happens." The ballet is all about possitioning. It is not a game of pure defense.>>
Reasonable.
>>IMO, forgetting about your choice to ram the second EPT, I think you lost the game on Turn 1 when I launched and EPT and you replied with a standard.>>
For the most part, it is best to forget that game ever happened :-) Like, granted, my overall plan was one that I have used before successfully vs Romulans, but my implementation in that game as deeply bad. So for the most part, we'll just forget it happened.
>>It does not take much to start to gain a possition advantage in this game. The apx. 4 hex advantage (magnified by the superior TM and FH arcs of teh TFH) given up every time you launch a STD to the opponent's EPT will quickly result in your opponent being able to do damage to you while being able to largely escape return damage.>>
Interesting. Again, ignoring the game we played, as it was a bad one, the basic plan of cornering the Romulan on T3 after eating some plasma to do a good chunk of internals (~20 in two volleys assuming my phasers are loaded) has worked out pretty well in the past. Not always perfectly (sometimes the bolts all miss...), but at least in my mind, not a totally invalid plan.
>>The other issue was your choice to arm FC mid-turn and fire 4 p-1 at 9-15. This cost you 5 power out of capacitor systems that effectively made my T2 EPT cost the same as your T2 held S-torp and all I gave up for it was 3 shield boxes (avg. is 4 shield boxes).>>
Heh. My AFC was paid for in EA--I turn it off early just to make people think I turned it on with battery. The phasers were totally stupid, but mostly came from me being confused by the interface. As I mentioned, I wanted to try out the shooting controls. A semi-final tournament game was probably not the best time to try that out, but ya know, mistakes get made :-) >>I do not think your basic plan outlined above can work.>>
Interesting. Again, I have pulled it off a few times. Usually much better than I did in our last game which we are pretending never happened. My second turn positioning was not that good (probably 'cause I shot those phasers at you on T1...), and your second turn position was probably better than my previous opponents.
>>A bolt strategy or a "torp advantage" strategy is something the Rom can try, but is not a realistic option for the Gorn, as more often than not the Rom cloaking device will prevent success.>>
Which leads to the question--so what is the realistic option for the Gorn in this match up?
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:49 am: Edit Chris wrote: >>is false in that the romulan can move twelve of the first thirteen impulses while arming an enveloper.>>
True. But he is then mosving that much slower in the latter half of the turn.
>> The gorn ain't getting to the center of the board without eating sixty, but he should have more in movement after the launches since he saved four points on his torpedo.>>
The Gorn can get as close to the center as the Romulan, and have more movement to run later on than the Romulan, so he isn't eating anything.
>> This translates into better board position on turn two, until he spends the power phasering down twice as much plasma. >>
Heh. Reasonable.
>>As a romulan I'd be tempted to eat twenty-two minus phasers if it would give me a better launch point for the second round of torpedoes.>>
I'd generally be inclined to launch both plasmas, of which 1, 2, or 0 might be fake, to convince the Romulan to run further. Or at least be less likely to run into them.
-Peter By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:24 am: Edit From a tactical standpoint, I agree with everything Paul said. Having said that, I somewhat agree with Peter’s comment that:
Quote:
often where the game is decided is by whoever gets bored first and does something reckless and/or stupid.
SFB is such a complex game that it is rare that two opponents play the “perfect game”, even between 2 Aces. More likely, there will be mistakes made on both sides, and the player who capitalizes on his opponent’s mistakes more will win the battle. This is one of the reasons that SFB is so exciting, because of its unpredictability and adrenalin. To me it has more the feel of the chaos of battle rather than the calm reasoning of chess.
In my opinion, one reason players like Paul, Tom, and Norm continue to have amazing success over the years in many different ships is because they don’t tend to make a lot of mistakes. They seem to be always calm and collected, cerebral, and analytical. They’re not likely to make hot-headed or rash decisions that are not tactically sound (*).
(*) As opposed to me. Ramming speed!!
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 12:28 pm: Edit My Tnx to everyone! This discusion has vitalised my memory(mostly about past PBEM duels), and I might not be so clueless about Plasma vs plasma figths as I thought. Considering the likely match-ups for me in RAT 6 that is undoubtely a good thing.
And second best is that PS is flying the Hydran
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 06:34 pm: Edit
Quote:
Heh. My AFC was paid for in EA--I turn it off early just to make people think I turned it on with battery. I don't have my SOP with me, but I do not think that works. See, on the turn before the game started FC was on. (We know this because of WS3). The first opportunity to turn off FC is in the sensor step of Impulse 1. However, there is a turn break that happens as the game starts and the first (post-EA) step involves pre-impulse 1 sensor lock on rolls.
If FC is paid for, it will be up during this step and prior to Impulse 1 you will have to roll a 6 or less (e.g. automatic) to maintain lock on. If FC is not paid for, then it is off prior to impulse 1 and you do not make this lock on roll.
The deception can only work for turns that are preceded with an Impulse 32 of the prior turn with FC off. Since this is not the case for Turn 1, if you pay for FC and then turn it off on Impulse 1, you should announce that.
Of course, as a technical matter you should tell people specifically in the case where you DID NOT pay for FC, but convention is such that Impulse 1 is called as essentialy the first thing done after EA. As a result, by convention most people who do not pay for FC announce it after Impulse 1 is called. So as not to take advantage of convention, if FC is paid for and dropped on impulse 1, that should probably be announced, since that payment cannot be hidden on Turn 1.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 06:35 pm: Edit
Quote:
I'll launch a standard to push him into the corner, and run from the enveloper.
Not so good.
Quote:
I'd generally be inclined to launch both plasmas, of which 1, 2, or 0 might be fake, to convince the Romulan to run further.
Better. Thirty points of plasma isn't enough to scare a healthy cruiser, but sixty (whether enveloping or not, real or not)should make you think twice. Making your opponent guess "is it real or memorex" can induce the mistakes Old School is talking about. I would comment though that highly skilled players not only reduce mistakes, but also see opportunities others would miss. Running from plasma can be the right move, but it depends on the situation.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit
Quote:
Which leads to the question--so what is the realistic option for the Gorn in this match up?
Play the ballet and do a better job at it than the Rom. The advantages the Rom has in the ballet (TM and FH torps) are not large enough to make up for errors. They represent a small advantage in a "perfectly played game" - which game is, as noted by Ken, a myth.
The phaser advantage of the Gorn on those few turns it will come into play (this advantage is both one of total p-1's and often more importantly a 2 point capacitor advantage) can often be taken advantage of by the Gorn and in most games represent as large of an advantage as the TM and FH torps.
The most significant advantage the Rom has is the claok that gives the Rom greater ability to employ a wider array of tactics and allows the Rom to more easily take risks to take advantage of opportunites. But this advantage does not come into play much in a pure ballet, if that ballet is performed well by both players.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 07:16 pm: Edit Paul wrote: >>I don't have my SOP with me, but I do not think that works.>>
Huh. Interesting. I'll go ask on the rules question list.
-Peter
By Allen Phelps (Agphelps) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:33 pm: Edit I thought I would throw in my 2 cents on the Gorn/Rom fight.
I think the Rom is advantaged in the fight, but its not a huge advantage (it certainly isn't the Gorn's worst fight). Its turn mode is better, and although I like the funky Gorn plasma arcs in this particular fight I think the FP arcs are probably a bit better. The cloak is certainly significant, however the main the advantage the cloak gives the Rom is it reduces the cost to the Rom for making a mistake. So if both players are playing very well, it becomes less of a factor. It is always there though, since the fact it does reduce the cost of mistakes means the Rom can afford to be more aggressive. Peter said earlier the Rom can play a very defensive game, and he can if he wants. But I think it is a mistake for the Rom to do this since all of his advantages allow him to be more aggressive, and if you play the defensive game you are largely giving up those advantages.
Although I realize many don't like it, I personally think that the long ballet fight between these two is pretty interesting. Its a very position/manuever oriented fight, both ships have to work for every hex they can. It may not seem very signficant when the two ships are spending a fair amount of the fight 10-20 hexes apart, but those hexes become very significant over the course of the fight. Its also a very strategic fight as both players need to be thinking 2-4 turns down the line. Particularly the gorn since the one thing it really can't afford is to be at a serious torp disadvantage when the Rom is in a position to capitilize on it so you have to make sure that launching a plasma is going to be enough of a benefit now that you won't be really missing having it ready a couple turns later.
I'm not too sure of your plan Peter. I think that even if everything goes perfectly, and you get 2 F bolts (that both hit) and all 8 p-1s on the same shield I am not sure that it is that great of a deal. You will have downed a shield and gotten 20 or so internals. Most likely the most significant thing about the internals will be 1-4 or so power that you can get. That certainly can be significant in this type of fight, but I am not sure it will be worth what you have to take to get it. You will be taking the EPT for 60, one, possibly both Fs and potentially phasers from the Rom. That is a lot of shield damage. Plus, there is a lot of opportunities for things to not go perfectly. The bolts can miss. You may not be able to get all the fire on the same shield, even with a HET. Plus, given usual positioning going into turn 3, it will probably be pretty late in the turn and if the Rom can draw it late enough then he can take the wall, weasel to prevent an unshifted shot this turn followed by a cloak next turn. Then you aren't going to get much back at all for all the damage you take.
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 04:51 pm: Edit ===
Aww, what does Allen know about flying Gorn, anyway...
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 09:38 am: Edit Looking for advice for the lyran vs. ISC. My standard is run through everything and hope the ISC doesn't HET to keep me outside range 5. My record in this matchup is no better than 3 wins in 10, so I'm open to suggestions.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 11:48 am: Edit Always threaten the ESG overrun, but don't necessarily do it. Make him react to you with launches, etc. so that when you do charge in, you can really hammer him. He has to respect your range 8 firepower and can't hope to match you at that range without good PPD use (and if you threaten a range 8-fire-range 9 oblique move, it'll mess up his OL chances). Unfortunately, unlike the Hydran, you can't just run through everything and expect to win. You have to make him expend resources against the possibility of you charging in so that when you do charge in, he doesn't have enough to stop you with. If he launches enough plasma to stop the overrun, just fire OLs at range 8 and turn off. Your disruptors can fire every turn, his plasma can't.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 12:20 pm: Edit Disclaimer: for full disclosure and to give credit where credit is due, I learned the Banzai Attack 100% from Jude. I used to think the ISC dominated this matchup, but using these ideas I think the Lyran can make it (at least) 50/50.
I usually plot one of the following 2 plots as LYR vs ISC:
BANZAI
HK:4 Disr: 12 (3 OLs) Reinforce: 2 (on #1) Move: 22 (16:1-19, 31:20-32)
FAKE BANZAI
HK:4 Disr: 0 Reinforce: 14 (on #1, #2, #3) Move: 22 (16:1-19, 31:20-32)
The idea behind the Banzai is to eat everything the ISC can dish out on T1 in exchange for 2 OL shots late turn 1 and early turn 2 (the 1st OL shot must come from r5 or closer on the rear shields in order for this approach to succeed). For most ships, eating everything usually results in an ISC victory. The Lyran, however, can succeed because of its extreme damage output at r4, as well as having weapons (ESGs) which makes it dangerous for the ISC to overload the PPD. If the Lyran can get 2 OL shots on the rears from range 5 or better, this usually results in 2 medium sized volleys on the ISC, which is very vulnerable to heavy weapon Mizia, and which loses fastload ability if the batteries are destroyed. It’s very important for the Lyran to approach as “head on” as possible. You don’t want to let the ISC execute an oblique approach. Fortunately, because the ISC has to keep you in FA for the PPD, and because of the Lyran’s speed advantage, this is usually not too difficult. Approaching Semi-Oblique at first may allow the Lyran to take a couple of pulses on the off shield before turning in. Let’s say for argument’s sake that the ISC has an EPT and a standard armed. Let’s look at some typical damage, after the Lyran runs through everything. The Lyran will also eat a F torp after the ISC turns/HETs away, but the Lyran can usually arrange to take it on a rear shield.
2 pulses on #2: 2/8/2 2 pulses on #1: 2/8/2 EPT G: 40 Standard G on #6 after 2 P3s: 17 (or 0, if fake) 6 r5 P1s on #1: 21
Total: 37/17/9/7/7/25
If the ISC has 2 standard Gs instead, it looks like this:
2 pulses on #2: 2/8/2 2 pulses on #1: 2/8/2 2 x Standard G on #6 after 2 P3s: 37 6 r5 P1s on #1: 21
Total: 31/10/2/0/0/39
After 7 reinforcement (2 allocated, 5 batts), this results in ruined shields but little or no internals. The ISC will be forced to turn (or HET) away because of the ESG(s), resulting in the 2 OL shots that we discussed at the beginning (late on T1 and early on T2).
Of course, if the ISC HETs away before r5, or if he engages so late that the Lyran won’t get to r5, then the Banzai plot fails. Thus, the Fake Banzai plot – for ISCs who engage very late, do not plan to get to r5, or throw out an F torp before turning in. The idea behind the Fake Banzai is to draw the PPD and torps, avoid r8 and substantial damage, and reengage on following turns.
Side note: Jude allocates the Banzai a little different than me, but the idea is the same.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 10:57 pm: Edit For what it is worth, I don't care for either of the above. I think you are setting yourself up for real problems with an aggressive ISC and there are a lot of assumptions being made about where those torps are hitting and how easy it will be to spread the PPD damage. There also seems to be an assumption that the PPD is being fired before torps are launched.
Personally, using either of the above I think you could easly be looking at 2 EPTs + an F or an EPT followed by a 40 stack. I would not fire the PPD with the Lyran being turn enabled. I'd launch a range 12ish EPT and watch what the Lyran did. I'd gladly accept a range 8 shot from the Lyran, since my OLPPD is going to be much worse, so I don't care at all about giving the Lyran range 8 or trying to play keep away with my torps. If the Lyran charges in and puts up ESGs, I'll dump out all my plasma left and get as many PPD pulses on one shield with the phasers as I can. I don't think the Lyran comes out very well in that situation - which is the situation I think most likely if you commit to charging on T1.
In the Lyran, I prefer taking a high speed, STD disruptor game against the ISC, using some reenforcement on turns when he has the PPD up. I play for position and look to be able to do an overrun before I have taken too much damage on my #1. The game is really tough and can be very frustrating as you could easily end up dead without having done much to the ISC if you cannot find a way to capitalize on his torp rotation. But I think it is a lot better than commiting to charging when the ISC is at its strongest.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 08:49 am: Edit The thing is, the Lyran’s window of opportunity in the ISC’s torp rotation is exceedingly small because of the fastload capability (the ISC pretty much *always* has torps ready, at least until the batteries are gone). Most times if the Lyran flies around for several turns waiting for the right time to charge, the shield damage he’s taken means the Lyran dies before he gets close enough (been both the happy ISC as well as the frustrated Lyran many times in this kind of matchup). I still do this on occasion (the 2nd plot is designed to draw ISC resources, play for position, and look for an overrun on a later turn - so I think this is similar to what you are describing in your last paragraph Paul).
However, I still consider the Banzai tactically viable. The Lyran is going to have to eat some torps eventually, and I just think doing it on T1 is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes the ISC is at its strongest on T1, but the Lyran is also at its strongest (and the ISC tends to remain strong during later turns if he is not wasteful with his torps and PPD).
Regarding firing the PPD at r8 vs the Banzai, remember that the opponent is going speed 31 and headed right at the ISC. This usually means no OL PPD, and maybe a HET necessary for the ISC.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:57 am: Edit When defining the strengths and weaknesses of these ships it is clear to me that the ISC want it's opponent at a distance. The Lyran OTOH got ESGs that are useless outside r:3. IMO then the it's overrun FTW. And why not? If the Plasma ships can do it, so can the Lyran. Sure, the ISC can use plasma to keep the Lyran away, but these are not the long- legged Pl-S, and as long as the Lyran is at range one on Imp 01, T:3, it will win. This give the Lyran lots of time and room to handle the torps. Fastloads, well you need batteries to launch those. Those batteries can easily be lost to the Lyran A-strike on Imp 01, T:3. That means it's on turn four the ISC can finally get some G torps, but at the same time the lyran will fire it's second salvo.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:22 pm: Edit Carl, the fast loads can be used on T3I1 before the alpha strike.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 01:32 pm: Edit Yeah, but only if they are in arc. If the Lyran chased it down the ISCy is likely to not have the Lyran centerlined at T3I1.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 05:50 pm: Edit Carl, the ESGs are not useless outside of range 3.
If the target is maneuvering to avoid the radius 3 ESGs, the ESG is giving you some benefit.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:13 pm: Edit Yes, but my post is really a reply to the tactic by PS when you play for position firing stds at range.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 06:54 pm: Edit Chris, I see u did well vs the ISC in the Rat6. Want to share ur experience?
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 07:09 pm: Edit I was just waiting for an invitation.
Turn 1 Move:24 (20/31 starting on 19) Disrupters:12 (3 OLs) No shuttles because you can't stop during an overrun without letting the ISC get away.
He came out slow (12) launching 2 pseudos on 19. I bit and turned off then in on 32 just in time to catch the first range 12 PPD pulse in the teeth. Overloads are ejected.
Turn 2 Move:28 (20 to start, then relentless) Reinforcement: 8 (#1)
The PPD did little permanent damage and the G-pseudos hit a non-facing shield. My ESG feint convinced him to launch an F+G stack and leave. I stay one hex ahead of the plasma until 40 becomes 10 then start looking for him again. He comes back to launch another G then HETs to delay the ESG ram. My phasers find 11 reinforcement.
Turn 3 Move: 15 (28/14/9) Phasers: 7 Disrupters: 12 Tractor: 2
He takes a 24/23 split to stay ahead of the ESGs for a quarter turn. On impulse 8 he tries a second HET and suffers a breakdown. Immobilized, he concedes.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 07:34 pm: Edit Predictably enough both Fleet Captains seem to know what they're talking about. The Rock's point (charging the ISC when he's at his strongest leads to great difficulty) is very valid. Old School's "Head On" approach is an important refinement of the tactics the Young Lions got with their milk. I don't like that fake banzai plot. If you can get to phaser range you want to make a hole, not a dent. If you can't get a good shot on turn 1 you better outrun the plasma, not simply iron jaw.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 01:05 pm: Edit Interesting that you won on BDs. It is rare but it happens. I think that supports my idea that you should chase down the ISC.
Did u fire phasers late on T:2? Sounds like you were preparing for an hack or slash?
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 09:53 pm: Edit Both my wins in RAT20 were on breakdowns. Had Krotar made his die roll he'd have been able to shoot 6 p1 at my 9 box #1 shield- more than I could easily swallow (what with that plasma F on the way). Plan A was hack, slash and kick(ESGs) but the impulse 32 phasers did 6 shield boxes. Yes, the lyran has to chase down the ISC, but timing is everything. Launching zero real plasma until turn 2 meant the fastload F-plasmas wouldn't arrive until turn 4. That was enough of a window to go after the batteries.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 06:17 pm: Edit So over in the SFBOL thread, there is a lot of discussion of the current IA/DF interface, and how it is functionally different from Face to Face (FTF) play, primarily in that in FTF play, you see all of Impulse Activity *before* you have to decide about Direct Fire, where in the current SFBOL interface, they all are rolled into the same thing, so if you use the interface as intended, you have to plot all of your fire before you even see if your opponent changes speed, and if it turns out if they do, you have to go back and change things if you want to change them.
In any case, there is a lot of discussion about how the "call for fire" system of FTF has brought up a lot of discussion of "me too" fire, and how folks seem to think that announcing a "call for fire" is giving away significant information to your opponent.
My stance on "me too" fire decisions is that they are rarely actually useful, and don't actually have much impact on play--either I'm going to shoot you or I'm not on any given impulse, and that decision is rarely influenced by whether or not *you* are going to fire on that impulse. Occasionally, there are "chicken" situations, where two ships are closing and about to fire, and which one shoots first is very significant, but usually, not so much, and this small number of situations are easily handled by simply calling for fire every impulse for a few impulses (4-5 maybe?), and most of the time, it really isn't an issue.
For example, assume my opponent is flying a Fed TCC:
-Range 9+. It is unlikely the Fed is going to fire. If the Fed does announce "call for fire" at ranges 9+, it is very unlikely that is going to have much impact on my fire decision that impulse. I'm not suddenly going to shoot all my weapons 'cause I move into R12, and my Fed opponent calls for DF, and then shoots me with 4 Prox Photons or whatever.
-Range 8: It is likely that the Fed will fire. As the Fed's opponent, *I'll* call for DF, assuming it is possible that he'll shoot me. In my case, I might fire at R8, I might not fire at R8, but it is unlikely my decision to fire at R8 will be changed one way or the other if the Fed shoots--either I'm planning on shooting at 8 and running, or he is, or neither of us are. In either case, I'll "call for fire" regardless of whether or not I have anything to shoot.
-Range 6-7. If neither of us fired at 8, it is unlikely either of us will fire at 6-7. I might call for fire anyway, as might the Fed, but it is unlikely anything will change.
-Range 5. Possible that either of us will shoot. I'll call for fire. Likely I won't fire anything. Same for the Fed.
-Range 4. Very possible the Fed will shoot. I'm either planning on taking the R4 shot and closing in to kill him or shooting him there too. I'll call for fire.
-Range 3. Much like 6-7. Unless I'm a Lyran.
-Range 2. If neither of us have shot yet, one of us, if not both of us likely will here. But not based on our opponent calling for fire.
-Range 1. If we still have weapons held, we are both shooting now.
In most of these 4-5 impulses, there will be a call for fire by either player, and most of them will result in no fire. No one is going to be holding weapons and waiting till someone says "call for fire" and then unloading assuming that their opponent is shooting everything. This isn't some attempt to "psyche" someone out or whatever, it is simply how the game works--at any given moment, either you are going to fire or not, and it is unlikely that this will be (or should be) contingent on finding a "tell" from your opponent.
-Peter
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Quote:
-Range 8: It is likely that the Fed will fire. As the Fed's opponent, *I'll* call for DF, assuming it is possible that he'll shoot me... In either case, I'll "call for fire" regardless of whether or not I have anything to shoot.
-Range 6-7. If neither of us fired at 8, it is unlikely either of us will fire at 6-7. I might call for fire anyway, as might the Fed, but it is unlikely anything will change.
-Range 5. Possible that either of us will shoot. I'll call for fire. Likely I won't fire anything. Same for the Fed.
And you've done "Call For Fire" somewhere between 2-5 times from Range 8 through Range 5, never intending to fire.
What you are doing is:
1. Slowing the pace of the game (calling for action decisions when you know you aren't doing anything).
2. Meta-gaming the system to use the "Call For Fire" not to play the game on the board but to either play "Head Games" with your opponent or in hopes that he will do something you want him to (fire before Range 4).
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 01:26 am: Edit I generally write down somewhere what my fire will be, either at the start of the impulse or a few impulses ahead of time. I flip my sheet over and make a note. A few impulses later, when we've hit the right range or whatever else I was waiting on, I show the page right after it's obvious the opponent isn't going to fire (usually shortly after one of us asks "next impulse?")
Avoids all troubles, gives me the option to cancel mny decision without giving my opponent any insight to the tactics I'm roling around in my head, and completely negates the possibility of "me too" firing.
But then again I'm usually fairly friendly. If we've entered a good range bracket for them and I say "I'm going to fire" I don't let that prevent them from firing at me if I honestly believe they wanted to do it and forgot, didn't realize the range, or whatever.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 01:40 am: Edit Gary wrote: >>And you've done "Call For Fire" somewhere between 2-5 times from Range 8 through Range 5, never intending to fire.>>
Each "call for fire" step takes a total of 30 seconds (i.e. jot down "2.16: nothing" or "2.16 4OL, 6P1") Hardly a huge issue to add ~2 minutes to a 3 hour game for the sake of making the game move smothly.
>>1. Slowing the pace of the game (calling for action decisions when you know you aren't doing anything).>>
There is no slowing of the game. The game is one where people have to secretly and simultaneously decide things all the time. Adding a pause during 2-5 important impulses that take a total of 30 seconds a piece is hardly slowing the pace of the game.
>>2. Meta-gaming the system to use the "Call For Fire" not to play the game on the board but to either play "Head Games" with your opponent or in hopes that he will do something you want him to (fire before Range 4).>>
How is going through the sequence of play playing "head games"? Every impulse, players have the opportunity to secretly and simultaneously decide if they are shooting something. Most impulses, it isn't really an issue (out of range/everything has fired). During a few important ones (you get to range 8 till both people have fired) both players should consider what is going to happen. The best way to do this is to "call for fire" and pause for 30 seconds to jot down information.
Has nothing at all to do with trying to "psyche someone out" or "playing mind games". If I get to range 8 from a Fed? I'm going to call for fire every impulse till we are done shooting--nopt 'cause I hope it will confuse my opponent into making a mistake, but because it is simply common courtessy.
-Peter
By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 10:41 am: Edit >>"I generally write down somewhere what my fire will be, either at the start of the impulse or a few impulses ahead of time. I flip my sheet over and make a note. A few impulses later, when we've hit the right range or whatever else I was waiting on, I show the page right after it's obvious the opponent isn't going to fire (usually shortly after one of us asks "next impulse?")
>>Avoids all troubles, gives me the option to cancel mny decision without giving my opponent any insight to the tactics I'm roling around in my head, and completely negates the possibility of "me too" firing. "
As an opponent, I have to say that I would have a serious problem with this. If people are calling for fire plots and secretly and simultaneously writing down their instructions, there is no "me too" firing.
This, however, opens up all kinds of "me too" possibilities. For me, in order for a fire plot to be valid, I have to see my opponent actually write it down and reveal it that same impulse. Otherwise there's no telling what my opponent is writing and there is a lack of accountability. If you plot fire in a called fire plot, there is a compulsion to reveal what you've plotted, but under this system decribed above there is none; you can simply ignore those pre-plotted instructions if they are inconvenient and your opponent would be none the wiser. There is nothing binding about them, therefore, and thus I would not accept them unless compelled to do so by a judge.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 03:21 pm: Edit And to fall back to the main thrust of my point--that "me too" fire is far, far less of a significant issue than some people seem to think it is. The following example:
I get to R4 from a Fed. Neither of us have shot yet. Now that we are at R4, it is likely that the Fed will shoot--his weapons have jumped up in a "to hit" bracket, and a lot of folks like to fire at R4. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the Fed fires now. I know this, having, ya know, played the game before. I, regardless of what I am flying, already have a plan for what to do when the Fed gets to range 4, and I pretty much decided upon that plan during energy allocation; I knew I might get to 4 with an unfired Fed, I know what is likely to happen when I get there (in terms of expected damage), and I plotted accordingly. Either I have overloaded everything and plan on firing at 4 (and if the Fed fires too, I don't lose weapons before I shoot them; if the Fed holds fire to get closer, I can hope the photon and phasers I blow off with my fire at R4 will make it work out ok for me when we get there) or I have an unloaded torp (to take a hit on) and some tractors and an appropriate speed plot (or whatever) to take his likely shot at R4 and close to kill him. What isn't going to happen, however, is we will coast into R4, my opponent will say "call for fire", and I'll suddenly think "Agh! The Fed is going to fire now! I don't know what to do! I'd better unload now!"
Like maybe I'm thinking too hard into this game, or whatever, but I can say with pretty reasonable certainty that the people who are good at this game (i.e. the folks who can win consistiently by design, rather than occasionally by accident) aren't winning consistiently by virtue of taking advantage of "me too" firing opportunities, and that "me too" firing opportunities don't play a factor in their games to any significant extent.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 03:47 pm: Edit
Quote:
I show the page right after it's obvious the opponent isn't going to fire (usually shortly after one of us asks "next impulse?")
If your opponent asks for the next impulse, fine. Just don't ask for the next impulse before you announce fire.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit Stephen wrote: >>A few impulses later, when we've hit the right range or whatever else I was waiting on, I show the page right after it's obvious the opponent isn't going to fire (usually shortly after one of us asks "next impulse?") >>
At which point you seem to be taking advantage of "Aha! But I am!" firing, which seems just as dubious as "me too" firing (if there is any dubiousity to be had in any of this)--by description (although not necessarily intention), it looks like you are trying to ensure that you get to fire after knowing that your opponent is specifically *not* firing.
The only really reasonable way to make the fire phase work in FTF play is to say "fire" and plot fire (or not) each given important impulse. That way, neither player has any possibly significant information.
-Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 09:29 pm: Edit Stephen: Why does the same impulse matter? Assuming you both look at each others' notes at the end of the game there's no concerns about somebody cheating with it. Yeah, you could write it down and decide not to do it later, just cross it out and put "nevermind" next to it. There shouldn't be anything binding about the note, because it's a plan, not a contract. Plans change under fire.
Chris: Why shouldn't I ask for the next impulse? Would it be better if I asked "did you have anything else to do this impulse?" Or should I instead always let my opponent be the one to ask for the next impulse, as otherwise I risk having a tell on when I'm going to fire?
Peter: What's wrong with "aha, but I am?" It's not like I'm playing mind games, I'm just getting my opponent to commit to being done with their fire declaration step. There's little difference between that and bugging them every impulse with "anyfire... anyfire... anyfire?"
Obviously I disagree with the "only way to make it work..." statement. I've been playing FtF off and on for over ten years and never had a problem making it work.
That said, I don't play in tournaments, and the people I play with all know I'm honest and I know they're honest. If I were to play in a tournament I'd still ask the judge if it were ok, because I think it's much beter than the calling for fire mind games, and I'm not about to restrict my firing impulses to those impulses that I call for fire. My way things run smooth. Calling for fire you either stop incessently, which is annoying if not time consuming, or you end up letting your opponent know when you'll fire because you never ask for it otherwise.
By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 12:16 am: Edit You might all want to continue the SOP discussion here.. http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12031/13278.html? 1143337518
Instead of here in tactics.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 09:53 am: Edit Yaa! Tactics discussion!
So now that I'm all sorts of flying my Gorn against a Romulan, and we are 10 turns in with no internals scored (is that how all of these "I launch an enveloper! Me too!" Gorn vs Rom fights go?), I'm wondering about how the opening goes if, hypothetically, the Romulan chooses to cloak on T1 or T2?
I was looking at how to set up a good Enveloper opening, with a T1 Enveloper followed by a T2 Enveloper, and then realized that it is not impossible that the Romulan could cloak on T2. If not T1. Granted, really only the KE can reasonably cloak on T1, but both Romulans (ok, not the KR so much) can reasonably cloak on T2. Assuming the Gorn and Rom both bust out early and launch torps on T1 and peel off to out run them, what is to stop the Romulan from dropping speed on T2 and cloaking, possibly avoiding the first Enveloper and likely 'causing the second turn enveloper, assuming the Gorn armed one, to just blast out into space for nothing?
Looking at the KE, with it's 15 cloak cost, on T1, it can pull off some sort of:
-3 for ship -2 to hold S torp -2 for shuttles -15 for cloak -15 for movement (something fastish/slowish to maximize cloak ducking, but not too slow to avoid being too slow on T2)
Move to the middle of the map, launch an psuedo R torp, and cloak. If you skunk lock on from both the Gorn (likely) and the Gorn's enveloper (not that unlikely), you dodge the Enveloper and T1 run to the corner. T2, the Gorn is unlikely to have an enveloper armed (as you are starting the turn cloaked), you turn off the cloak, bust out at your best speed, and corner/anchor/kill the Gorn with the real R that you didn't launch.
A possibility. Not necessarily a good one (which is why I'm throwing it out for scruitiny), but possible.
For the FH, you could, on T2, after a standard opening, pull off a turn of:
-3 for ship -4 for torps (1 reload, 1 rolling delay) -2 for shuttles -18 for cloak -11+ for movement
Use a couple of batteries to keep your speed in the 12-13 zone.
You possibly duck the closing enveloper assuming you have the room (although this might all fall apart in the "retain lockon" chart...), make the Gorn lose the second enveloper, and come around to bust out on T3 armed and reasonably fast.
I might be on total crack thinking this is viable for the Romulan, but the possibility kept me from arming a second Enveloper on T2.
Opinions?
-Peter
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 10:38 pm: Edit Turn one cloaking is definitely viable, although it's not a panacea, as your opponent might not envelop, and if he doesn't, you're worse off than before.
The trouble with cloaking out on turn 1 is that then you have to get uncloaked again. If your opponent didn't envelop and has both his plasmas armed, he'll have the advantage because he has speed and at least equal firepower and you have not so much speed. If I planned to cloak on turn 1, I probably wouldn't arm any shuttles at all. A WW won't be necessary because you're counting on breaking the lockon, you won't need it to cover your cloak, and a SS would be a power leak you can't afford if you are playing hide & seek. I might arm one WW if I think I might need it to help me uncloak on turn 2.
If the Romulan waits until he is close enough to launch his own plasma (or to draw out the opponent's), the slow speed required by the cloak will get him hit by the incoming torp. If you move at all, the incoming plasma will make up a lot of ground while you fade out, and because of the close range and the plasma's inherent -1 shift, the odds of shaking the lockon aren't really that good. Then he'll have to ED (which will break the lockon 5 times out of 6), and spend two turns building up speed again, during which time the opponent gets to subhunt and rack up free damage.
The primary use of the turn-1 cloak is to use it BEFORE the enveloper comes out, forcing the opponent to launch at a very bad range and take his chances with the cloak charts, or bolt, which he will hate.
In Romulan vs. Romulan games, cloaking on turn 1 is not really that great, because you'll use up your clock. Anything that makes your opponent bolt an enveloper (especially if he misses) is probably worth it, but the TKE, especially, has to be wary of running out his clock. So most of this discussion is only relevant to Romulans vs. the Gorn or ISC (mostly Gorn).
On turn 2 I pretty much agree, the Romulan (except KR) might cloak. In the TKE he'll be reloading so there's no real reason not to cloak if anything looks funny, and in the TFH, he can fire his other plasma and cloak right after. If the TFH is thinking he may cloak on turn 2, he won't want to bring the second torp into the game rolled, but rather held standard, to save power. As for the TKE, it's almost a "free" cloak as he probably won't need to recharge his phasers or batteries and his opponent will still be running from the type-R, so he can pretty much just go 26->13 or whatever. On the down side, cloaking T2 will waste a lot of map position, which creates the need for more cloaking, which creates the possibility for disaster. Cloaking is best when it's just one of several possibilities.
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 10:39 pm: Edit Peter, one way to save power as the Rom is to hold a G instead of an S. Saves 1 point. By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 11:44 pm: Edit Saves one point now, costs one point later. If you have to hold for more than one turn, it's a net savings, otherwise it's a slight drawback (more demands on your battery later on).
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 09:51 am: Edit Heh--now that the other discussion I'm involved in has mostly blown over, I'll come back here :-)
So anyway, yeah, holding the G torp is a possibility if you need more power to be wacky.
It seems like cloaking on T1 for either ship is probably a very risky gambit, although for the KE, slightly less (lower cloak cost, lower ship matinence costs, higher speed while cloaked, etc). But a second turn cloak seems very possible for the TKE and slightly less so for the TFH.
If the TKE busts out on T1 and launches an R torp somewhere and then turns and runs from the enveloper that is coming its way, what speed would it have to drop to to cloak out and have a reasonable chance to break lock on to the incoming enveloper? Assuming it can do this, break lock on to the ship (which is probably pretty far away when the TKE cloaks out) and keep its speed high enough to not end up having to sit still for the rest of the game (12-13 is probably good enough for a fast uncloaked T3), that'll leave an opponent (Gorn/Rom) who envelops on the second turn totally hosified. Or at least kinda wasting a second enveloped torp.
-Peter
By John T. Mountford (Jtm) on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 04:58 pm: Edit Pete,
The one thing I think you are missing is that the rom. has to risk two roles of lock-on (the ship then the plasma). I think the rom. would use midturn speed changes to gain a better advantage.
If the rom. cloaks it more likely would be spd 4 or less, to insure the oppenent would loss lock, with an increase 8 imp. later to give better tactical position.
An option for the gorn is to still evelope and do a phaser pass. This may draw the rom. out of cloak for the eveloper. It is risky but it still is something to keep in mind.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 06:24 pm: Edit John! Hows it going? >>The one thing I think you are missing is that the rom. has to risk two roles of lock-on (the ship then the plasma). I think the rom. would use midturn speed changes to gain a better advantage.>>
Yeah, there are two rolls, but figuring that on T2, the ships are at least 16 hexes apart (likely, given a mid turn enveloper launch from both), and the Romulan is moving speed 12, the Gorn only has a 1 in 6 chance of lock on, which isn't that likely. On the other hand, now that I have a chart, the Gorn's enveloped torp, assuming range of less than 4 when the Romulan is totally cloaked out (also not that unlikely), has a 5 in 6 chance (4 in 6 if inside of R10) of lockon, meaning that it is likely to retain lock on and hit the Romulan when it is slow. So all in all, probably not a good deal.
The Romulan could slow down a lot to skunk the enveloper, but then it is giving up a lot of initiative at a point when it is unlikely to pay off. Huh. Interesting how I can answer my own questions by looking at the rules :-)
-Peter
By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 09:54 pm: Edit Yeah Pete, 1/6 is not that likely...unless you are playing against me...take my last match at Total Con... (as if his phaser rolls weren't bad enough)
:-)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:00 am: Edit Mark wrote (somewhere else): >>It would definately be MUCH harder against someone who knew exactly what the Gorn was going to do, but I still don't see how there is anything at all that the Klingon can do about it other than making it hard. It is normally a very easy fight to win, because the Klingon doesn't know what you are planning.>>
Huh. As someone who plays the Gorn a lot these days, while the Gorn has an edge in this fight, it is hardly a slam dunk, suicide anchor or no.
Assuming the Klingon is going to spend T1 getting the best shot he can (no closer than R4) and then running away to reload and throw drones in the way, if the Gorn is trying to take the high ground and run the Klingon down on T2, he is going to get shot in the face with 4OL and 5P1 (and or some P2s as it runs away) which is, what, ~45-50 damage at R4? And then chase the Klingon into a corner through a cloud of SP drones. Then, when the Gorn finally weathers all of this to catch the Klingon in the corner, after getting shot in the face, phasered a bunch through the hole, and spending a great deal of resources on drones on the way in, the Klingon, seeing what is coming, will either decel or hit the wall near the end of the turn, and launch a weasel to cover it over the i32 zero energy anchor part of the game. Impulse 1 rolls around, the Klingon is still likely under weasel protection, and it wheels around on 2 and blasts the Gorn with OLs and P1s at close range under passive FC. Maybe the Gorn can even things up with some solid plasma hits after that. But maybe not.
>>It very often ends on the first turn, because they were willing to come close enough for me to catch them at range 1.>>
Yeah, that isn't going to ever happen anymore. No one is going to go to R1 with a plasma ship on T1. The Klingon is going to get to R4 on an oblique, fire, turn, and run at speed 31 or so. The Gorn isn't ever going to get R1 on T1.
>>I think the point that many of you are missing is that it doesn't matter what the Klingon hits you with, it can't do enough damage during the first 2 turns for that to matter.>>
On T1, the Klingon does a dozen internals, getting a couple power and maybe a plasma and a couple phasers. As the Klingon runs, it can possibly mizia through the hole, shooting off a few more phasers and, if lucky, another plasma. When the Gorn gets to R1 on the Klingon on T2, it is down a plasma or two, a few phasers, is chased by a cloud of drones, finds a couple fast type IVs, and then the Klingon stops and weasels over the turn break.
>>It is such a massive mis-match that I don't see how the Klingon has any chance at all of winning.>>
I think you are giving the Gorn too much of a chance and the Klingon not enough. Assuming the Klingon plays smart (i.e. shoots at R4 oblique on T1, runs away through a cloud of SP drones at high speed, and is willing to stop by decel or wall crash and weasel over the T2-3 turn break), the Gorn is likely to be too messed up/degraded by the time it can score plasma hits to pull it out.
>>In reality, though, in a real game, going all out for an anchor is what will win it. And if you are really good at anchor tactics, you are guarenteed to get one by the end of turn 2.>>
I'm not so much seeing that. I mean, in theory, you might be able to corner someone at the end of T2 for a zero energy anchor, but why does the Klingon not see this coming and stop/weasel before you get there?
-Peter
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 03:44 pm: Edit Wow, the Klingon can't beat the Gorn? I must have missed that memo...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 05:25 pm: Edit Yeah, see, there was this strange but entertaing and lengthy discussion about the Gorn vs Klingon matchup in, of all places, the General Tactics: Romulan thread. Why? I don't know. But it was interesting, so I figured I'd try and bring it over here, where it is appropriate and people will look for things like this.
In any case, the point of conention seems to be that the Gorn can take everything the Klingon throws at it, corner it by the end of T2, and mug it to death, possibly with an i32 zero energy anchor. Which seems like a good plan in theory, but unlikely to actually work all that well in the face of a reasonably good Klingon who will (as detailed above) likely blast the Gorn at R4 with 4OL/4-5 P1s, do a dozen internals, and run for the rest of the turn, followed by a T2 of running and rearming phasers. If the Gorn pursues for the suicide anchor, the Klingon can fire phasers through the down sheild, get 8+ drones in the way, and then decel/hit the wall to weasel and avoid the zero energy anchor over the turn break.
On T1, the Klingon can get: -4 ship -2 weasels -12 disruptors (3OL or 2/2) -21 movement (some kind of 15/21/31 split or something)
Which can easily result in the Gorn getting shot in the face on the oblique at R4 with 4OL/4-5 P1 and the Klingon turning and running, never getting closer then R4 on T1.
Like, I generally give the Gorn a 6-4 over the Klingon. But with good flying and a bit of luck, the Klingon should be ok.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 05:50 pm: Edit I've been watching that thread, and biting my tongue....
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 06:15 pm: Edit I think that may have been true 15-20 years ago, but the overall level of play has increased by leaps and bounds since then, especially on SFBOL. I think people know how to defend against the anchor better today. The Anchor is still a viable tactic with its time and place, but it doesn't guarantee a win.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 06:19 pm: Edit Heh. Yeah, I think a great deal of stuff that was viable in the early 90's or so just isn't anymore, due to, ya know, the interweb. With discussion forums like this, the base level of game/tactical understanding is much higher than it used to be, and then when you throw in people playing on SFBOL, tournament play is much more, say, sophisticated than it used to be. I fully realize that the word "sophisitcated" might seem like I'm trying to downplay past tactics and game play, or whatever, but I'm not, and I can't really think of a better word. -Peter
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:38 pm: Edit Here's a silly question: What exactly are you referring to when you say "zero-energy anchor"?
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:03 pm: Edit Zero-Energy Anchor: Launching a plasma at range 1 on an impulse where the target does not move on the next impulse and is moving to fast to weasel. Often done on impulse 32, since only the plasma moves on impulse 1. You get the effect of an anchor (the target can't prevent it from hitting) without spending any power on tractor.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:28 am: Edit Actually you seemed to have missed a good deal of the discussion. The Klingon drones, for example, are not an issue. Only fast drones are a threat, the medium drones will never catch the Gorn. I'm not going to repeat the entire discussion here, it is all over in the Romulan Tactics section (where it evolved out of another conversation).
As for the level of play being higher today than it was 15 or 20 years ago... that is actually exactly the opposite of reality. The level of play is far lower today than it was then. The tournament system is almost dead today, you have that completely backwards.
It really isn't possible for the Klingon TC to defeat the Gorn TC, this has always been true and it still is today. I have proven this many, many times in the past, sometimes against players that I knew were better than I was. It doesn't matter in this matchup, because the Klingon has no chance at all of defeating the Gorn inside that tiny little box.
I am not going to have this discussion in two places, so I'll be back in the Romulan area where this discussion is actually taking place.
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 07:28 am: Edit >>>As for the level of play being higher today than it was 15 or 20 years ago... that is actually exactly the opposite of reality. The level of play is far lower today than it was then. The tournament system is almost dead today, you have that completely backwards.
Wow. This is downright delusional.
Has this guy ever heard of SFBOL?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 08:23 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>Actually you seemed to have missed a good deal of the discussion.>> Nah. I read it all.
>> The Klingon drones, for example, are not an issue. Only fast drones are a threat, the medium drones will never catch the Gorn.>>
They don't need to catch it. They need to be in the way of it. If the Klingon launches the SP early such that it can run directly through the SP drones as it flees on T2, the Gorn is forced to either spend resources (phasers/tractors) on them or fly around them (making it less likely to get to R1 by the end of the turn). Even having to deal with 3 of the SP drones ('cause the stack is split) and then the 3 drones the Klingon can launch at close range give the Gorn problems.
>> I'm not going to repeat the entire discussion here, it is all over in the Romulan Tactics section (where it evolved out of another conversation).>>
You don't have to repeat the whole discussion. But it would be good to bolster your argument.
>>As for the level of play being higher today than it was 15 or 20 years ago... that is actually exactly the opposite of reality.>>
How do you figure that? People playing now have access to infinitely more information than they used to. People don't generally make dumb mistakes like plotting speed 10 when under weasel protection or going to R1 on T1 vs a plasma ship. 'Cause there is regular discussion about strategy and tactics available. And people who have no access to solid opponents in real life can play on SFBOL vs the best players in the world whenever they want, meaning people get more practice against good players.
>> The level of play is far lower today than it was then. The tournament system is almost dead today, you have that completely backwards.>>
Please expound. People are much better at actually playing the game now then they were 15 years ago, in a general sense, due to more information available at all times.
>>It really isn't possible for the Klingon TC to defeat the Gorn TC, this has always been true and it still is today.>>
I'd support the idea that this is an incorrect assessment, as I detailed above. Again, I'll generally give the Gorn a 60-40 chance in this fight, but given prudent play and a little luck, the Klingon does just fine.
>>I have proven this many, many times in the past, sometimes against players that I knew were better than I was. It doesn't matter in this matchup, because the Klingon has no chance at all of defeating the Gorn inside that tiny little box.>>
Sure it does, as I detailed above. Sure, it takes some luck (getting solid disruptor hits and the Gorn rolling bad with drone defense phasers always helps). And it takes knowing when you need to stop and pre-emptively weasel. But it is hardly impossible, Gorn bent on suicide anchor or no.
>>I am not going to have this discussion in two places, so I'll be back in the Romulan area where this discussion is actually taking place.>>
Luckily, the discussion in the inappropriate place seems to have stopped, and has decided to go on here.
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:23 am: Edit Mark. Part of the reason why the tournament does not have the numbers it had 15-20 years ago is because of SFBOL. It was quickly discovered that players that dominate their local groups would get hammered by players who play 4-6 games each week on SFB On-Line, simply due to "play experience." With SFBOL, you can play from the comfort of your own home against the best players in the world. I would have to look back pretty far to see the last Gold Hat winner that wasn't an SFBOL regular.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:53 am: Edit There are other reasons as well (economy, migration from board games to video games, etc).
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit I really don't have much interest in endless arguments, so I am not going to continue in this discussion. If anyone wants to discuss the Gorn/Klingon TC thing come over to the area where that is happening, that message area is apparently far more civilized than this one is.
No, I am not "delusional", I've just been around SFB since before some of you were even born... so I was actually there. The tournament system is not dead because of SFBOL, it is dead because the board game industry is dead. Where you get the idea that SFB players who actually designed the game did things like "plot speed 10 with a WW out" is beyond me.
Without having even been to Origins in like 15 years, I think I can be quite confident that level of SFB knowledge of those attending today doesn't quite match that of say, just for example... Alan Gopin, Eric Hyman, and Ron Spitzer. Arrogance has always been a common trait among SFB players, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that todays players would believe themselves more knowledgable than the people who actually designed the game. Your silly little vision of what the SFB tournament system was like back then is actually rather amusing.
Your belief that the Klingon TC has any chance at all against the Gorn TC betrays your true level of knowledge. You people seem to actually believe that you have come up with a bunch of new stuff since then, when in reality you are merely learning things that we already knew 20 years ago. I would imagine that many of your little "discoveries" are acutally things that were intentionally designed into the game. That is my response to insults... raw cold hard truth.
Peter, you seem to actually just want to discuss the issue, so go back to where the discussion is taking place if you want to do that. I don't like this message area already. But I will say here that the speed 20 drones are not a threat, you just aren't understanding that. There is a reason why I keep saying turn 2 and not turn 1 and the drones are a big part of that. Although Frank Gilson seems to get all the credit for "inventing" what most people actually called "finnesse plasma", he did not. There were several of us pioneering that new style of plasma and I was one of those people. I do know just a little bit about how plasma ships work, in fact I was among those who practically invented the tactics that you people use today. In fact, I'll even point out that from what I have read in the last week that you newer players are obssessed with EPTs. You are using them too often.
I'll be back in the Romulan group where this discussion is actually taking place. I don't need to waste time being called "delusional" by clueless "newbs".
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit Oh... and the thing about communication. Apparently you are unaware that SFB has been "online" since like 1980. In fact, the SFB staff invented the process of designing games online with the input of the players. This system that is so common too you today was actually invented by the SFB staff. This "instant communication" you are speaking of has always been present in SFB because, well, we invented the entire process.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:04 am: Edit Why do you think the Romulan Tactics Discussion is the appropriate place to discuss Gorn vs. Klingon Tournament Cruiser tactics?
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:25 am: Edit I only started with SFB when the offical discussion areas were on GEnie. Maybe there was something before that?
Online since 1980....ummmm....200 baud dial-up long-distance call boards? When few people had a computer, never mind a modem? What we have now is much more useable, friendly, and fast. With many more people providing input.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:27 am: Edit Well, I'm not a tournament player (I have a personal preference for floating maps and no, I don't want to start up the old debate about whether fixed map or floating map is "better" or "more fun" - it's a personal preference) so I don't know who the Klingon Rated Aces are. But why not have Marc Michalic play a series of three games against a current Klingon Ace? If Marc is right the Gorn should win all three but if Peter Bakija is right that its 6-4 Gorn (Gorn somewhat advantaged but not prohibitively so) then a Klingon Ace could reasonably be expected to win at least one game in three. This gives both sides the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:33 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>If anyone wants to discuss the Gorn/Klingon TC thing come over to the area where that is happening, that message area is apparently far more civilized than this one is.>>
I can't speak for anyone else in this discussion, but I'm yet to do anything not civilized.
>>No, I am not "delusional", I've just been around SFB since before some of you were even born...>>
See, here is the thing about that. This BBS is almost entierly populated by people in their 30's+. I'm pretty certain that anyone involved in this discussion has been playing as long as you have. Heck. I've been playing SFB for, what, 25 years now?
>>so I was actually there. The tournament system is not dead because of SFBOL, it is dead because the board game industry is dead.>>
That has nothing to do with the skill level of the people who still play tournaments. Yeah, fewer people play than used to, which is because of all the reasons already pointed out. But the people who *do* play are much better, on a base line level, than 15 years ago.
>>Where you get the idea that SFB players who actually designed the game did things like "plot speed 10 with a WW out" is beyond me.>>
Victory at Origins articles?
>>Your belief that the Klingon TC has any chance at all against the Gorn TC betrays your true level of knowledge.>> I'm not seeing how you can claim this discussion board is not civilized, and then write stuff like this. But ok.
>>You people seem to actually believe that you have come up with a bunch of new stuff since then, when in reality you are merely learning things that we already knew 20 years ago.>>
Uhh, no. What I am saying is that on a base level, people know more about the game now than they did 15 years ago, due to greater information distribution.
>>Peter, you seem to actually just want to discuss the issue, so go back to where the discussion is taking place if you want to do that.>>
That discussion was taking place in a completely inappropriate forum. BBS discussion forums like this only work if people discuss appropriate topics in the appropriate places, otherwise, people don't know to find the discussion. I only found the discussion in the Romulan thread completely by accident. As it is a discussion about tournament tactics and tournament ships, it should really take place here (and not in an unconnected forum). As it is most likely to get people to respond to it.
>>I don't like this message area already. But I will say here that the speed 20 drones are not a threat, you just aren't understanding that.>>
You can say that all you want. I believe you are mistaken. If put in the way (as opposed to behind the high speed pursuing opponent), and moved appropriately, they have to be dealt with, either through the use of resources (phasers/tractors) or by losing hexes in pursuit.
>>There is a reason why I keep saying turn 2 and not turn 1 and the drones are a big part of that.>>
Klingon launches SP on T1. Fires at R4 on the oblique. Turns and runs at 31. Runs through a cloud of 6 SP drones. Gorn in pursuit chases Klingon. 6 SP drones are in the way on T2. If the 6 are split into 2 stacks of 3 on the approach, Gorn can't get around both of them without flying way out of the way, which lets the Klingon get further away.
>>I'll be back in the Romulan group where this discussion is actually taking place. I don't need to waste time being called "delusional" by clueless "newbs".>>
I agree that you shouldn't be being called "delusional". Which is why I haven't called you delusional. As for people being "newbs", most people here have been playing this game as long as you have. >>Oh... and the thing about communication. Apparently you are unaware that SFB has been "online" since like 1980.>>
Yeah, I know. But there were far fewer people with internet access in 1980. And the interface was far less weildy. In 1980, a small number of people had reliable internet access. In 1995+, everyone has easy and reliably internet access, making access to necessary information much easier. And it shows in competetive play.
>>This "instant communication" you are speaking of has always been present in SFB because, well, we invented the entire process.>>
Yeah, I know. Yet still, people with access to this discussion were few and far between. In 1985, in a feild of 200 tournament players, 15 of them might have had access to the online discussion. In 2005, of a feild of 50 tournament players, likely all of them had access to online discussion.
-Peter
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:51 am: Edit Actually, out of 256 players in the tournament back then, probably about 200 or more of them had access to that information. Those were the people who went to Origins. On top of that, many of them were the people who actually designed the game Commander's and Captain's edition staff members. The use of the word "delusional" earlier really is becoming quite ironic.
This discussion was appropriate in the message area it was in. It grew out of another discussion. I am actually somewhat annoyed at this point that you took it upon yourself to move my discussion here, where most people haven't even read it. So this is my last post in this area on this subject, if you want to discuss it further you will need to go to where the discussion is actually taking place, not to where you attempted to "hijack" it and move it too. That way, I can be confident that people participating in it have actually read it and know what has already been said. I am not going to start over from the beginning here just because you think you have the authority to relocate the discussion.
Finally, I have already proven this point about the Gorn and Klingon TCs many, many times in the past, often against people who actually were some of the best SFB players of all time (as opposed to people who merely believe that they are). Nobody has ever made it to turn 3 yet...
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:52 am: Edit I have played Eric Hyman in the Captains tourney. I have played Ron Spitzer in the Captains tourney. I have played Frank Gilson in the Captains tourney. I do have a frame of reference Marc (believe it or not), and the fact is, overall level of play and tactical sophistication is much greater today than it was back then. Sorry. As Peter points out, all you have to do is go reread some of the old Victory At articles to see that there were a lot of questionable tactics being practiced!
If any of my posts offended you, I apologize. However, to be fair I urge you to reread your last 2 posts, you are coming across as extremely hostile (which is why a few of the other people are responding in fashion). Believe it or not, SFBOL is a pretty friendly community and a great way to play SFB. If you toned it down, you'd most likely meet some cool people, make some friends, etc etc etc...
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:08 pm: Edit Actually, I intentionally became hostile when someone decided to call me delusional. I can definately "out hostile" a newsgroup if needed. I have quite a bit of experience with that.
I'm sure there are very good players today, just as there were back then. I can even see how, overall, the average player today is better than the average player was back then. I design games, I have a very deep understanding of these kinds of issues. But the very best players back then had a more complete understanding of the game than the very best ones today do. They essentially made the game, and therefore had a far more detailed understanding of the system. I wasn't the one who started that line of discussion, I simply responded to someone who seemed to think that todays player's are the true experts and the people who actually designed the game were idiots. That was, obviously, a silly belief, wasn't it?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:11 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>Actually, out of 256 players in the tournament back then, probably about 200 or more of them had access to that information. Those were the people who went to Origins. On top of that, many of them were the people who actually designed the game Commander's and Captain's edition staff members. The use of the word "delusional" earlier really is becoming quite ironic.>>
I never called anyone delusional. By "access to that information", I mean "access to the internet", which was, historically speaking, infrequent in, say, 1985.
>>This discussion was appropriate in the message area it was in. It grew out of another discussion.>>
It wasn't about general Romulan tactics. It was about Gorn vs Klingon tournament tactics. Thus, really, the place for it to be is in the tournament tactics discussion. That it grew out of another discussion is mostly immeterial. Inappropriate discussions grow out of other discussions all the time, and generally, someone says "Hey--this discussion shouldn't be here. It should go somewhere else." And so it does.
>>I am actually somewhat annoyed at this point that you took it upon yourself to move my discussion here, where most people haven't even read it.>>
But they read both my and your responses thus far, and not much new information has come up. And those interested probably went and read the original post, as I referenced it as well. That it has moved does not mean it can't continue in a productive manner.
>>I am not going to start over from the beginning here just because you think you have the authority to relocate the discussion.>>
No one is asking you to start over. Just, should you feel inclined, to respond to the points brough up. Which you haven't done much of, but that is your perogative.
>>Finally, I have already proven this point about the Gorn and Klingon TCs many, many times in the past, often against people who actually were some of the best SFB players of all time>>
Sure. But on paper, the argument isn't really holding water. If you felt like explaining how it does, I'm sure we all would be willing to listen.
>>(as opposed to people who merely believe that they are).>>
See, again, you are here being all indignant that people are questioning you and being uncivilized, yet you write stuff like this. Pot. Kettle. Black.
-Peter
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:15 pm: Edit For what's it worth (and that's might not be too much) I am only an average Klingon player, but the Gorn is one of the ships I am GLAD to see sitting opposite me in a tourney tree. I would say the match is no more than 6-4, and I would even say its closer to 50-50.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:16 pm: Edit Ken wrote: >>As Peter points out, all you have to do is go reread some of the old Victory At articles to see that there were a lot of questionable tactics being practiced!>>
Yeah, see, not to downplay the victories they lead to, but if you go back and read over a lot of the early "Victory At" articles "Tom's, Sandy's, etc.", there are an awful lot of things like "he voided his own weasel by plotting speed 10..." and "He stopped moving, HETed, and bolted all of his plasmas..." which just don't happen anymore. Due to the base level of play being higher than it used to be.
-Peter
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:16 pm: Edit Marc,
One person did use the word "delusional". Once. (And it wasn't Peter, at whom you seem to be aiming most of your vitriol.)
Your entire set of posts have been in the tone of "I know better than you, and I can tell that because you don't agree with me. None of you know anything. And everbody is picking on me."
We'd like to discuss this topic, in a civilized manner, in the right topic area.
Work with us, please.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:20 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>Actually, I intentionally became hostile when someone decided to call me delusional. I can definately "out hostile" a newsgroup if needed. I have quite a bit of experience with that.>>
So you are willing to completely discount and write off a whole discussion 'cause one guy wrote an offhand comment about you being "delusional"? How is that a good plan?
>>I wasn't the one who started that line of discussion, I simply responded to someone who seemed to think that todays player's are the true experts and the people who actually designed the game were idiots.>>
Who ever said this? I said that the general player base today has a higher level of skill than 15 years ago, which is likely true. For reasons explained already. No one ever said that "todays players are the true experts and that the people who actually designed the game were idiots". Anywhere.
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 01:16 pm: Edit >>I wasn't the one who started that line of discussion, I simply responded to someone who seemed to think that todays player's are the true experts and the people who actually designed the game were idiots.>>
Just a comment on the "designed the game" comment. SVC will readily admit that he would stand no chance playing against the current crop of top Tourney players and he IS the game designer. Go figure.
Regards, Andy Palmer SFB player since '83
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:51 pm: Edit I am the one who used delusional. I was calling that particular comment delusional, not Marc Michalik himself. If it was interpreted that way then I apologize.
But the remark was delusional. de-lu-sion, n 1) The act or process of deluding. 2) The state of being deluded. 3) A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Look at definition #3. That statement (that tournament play was better 15 years ago than today) is a false belief. Period. Anyone who has followed the game and the state of the tournament knows better.
I never said that Marc's belief that the Gorn beats the Klingon 90% plus of the time is delusional. Nope. That is merely his opinion, and he is entitled to it, no matter how incorrect it may be.
Paul Scott (you do know who he is, right Marc?) puts that matchup at 50/50, and I will happily defer to him in matters tactical.
>>>I don't need to waste time being called "delusional" by clueless "newbs".
This is by far the most insulting thing anyone has said in this topic yet. Now you are insulting someone that you do not know. I have been playing SFB since July 1979, in was first published in June 1979. I have known Steve Cole since December 1979. SFB has been on the internet since 1990, not 1980 as you previously stated, and I have been online with it since 1991.
Marc Michalik, please stop insulting people that you do not know. And by the way, when you make delusional statements in the future, people will still call them delusional.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:42 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>For years I inisted that the Klingon TC cannot possibly defeat the Gorn TC on the tournament map. I am not familliar with recent changes in the TCs or rules, but my guess is that this situation has not changed. In proving this point on more than a dozen occasions, no Klingon TC has survived to the end of the second turn against my Gorn TC... and they usually concede at around impulse 28 of turn 1. That is how great the advantage of the small closed map is for plasma ships.>>
Attempting to bring this back to the actual interesting tactical discussion, here is the crux of Marc's argument--that due to the closed map, the Klingon can't run and can't do enough damage to avoid getting killed by a Gorn bent on a suicide anchor.
Right. To start with, I can't imagine any game of this match up ending with the Klingon resigning by impulse 28 of T1. For that to happen, the Klingon has to run right up to the Gorn. Why is the Klingon ever going to do that? Most likely, the Klingon is, as detailed above, closing with 12 power in disruptors on an oblique, and depending on what the map looks like, going to take the best shot possible with 3 or 4 OLs and phasers in the R4-5 zone, and turn and run out the rest of the turn, never getting closer than R3. Given that it is impossible for the Gorn to prevent this, we can discount the idea that the Klingon is going to get in a situation where it has to resign on impulse 28 of T1.
Ok then. The Gorn is then chasing the Klingon into the corner to mug it on T2. If the Klingon is clever with its SP (launch it to release at R8 or so and manuver so that the Gorn has to run through the SP drones), the Gorn is chasing through a cloud of SP drones, after likely losing a sheild and taking ~10 internals. The SP drones are unlikely to 'cause a huge issue, but if split into two stacks, the Gorn is going to be forced to contend with at least 3 of them on the pursuit, taking tractor power and phasers; or; the Gorn is going to have to move wide around them, giving the Klingon more room to run. As the Gorn closes (with a down shield which complicates manuvering), the Klingon launches 3 more drones, which might be heavy and are likely fast. Taking more phasers and resources to deal with. The Gorn closes. The Klingon, seeing that it is likely to be cornered and mugged if it doesn't do something drastic, likely hits the wall or decels as the Gorn gets close, and when necessary, pre-emptively weasels to avoid an impulse 32, R1 zero energy anchor and surive over the turn break.
The likely situation is then the Gorn at close range (possibly having to also have decelled to avoid overshooting) to a Klingon who he can't tractor or plasma to death till the weasel is voided or the explosion period ends. The Gorn is likely low on useable phasers (due to having to deal with 6 drones on the chase). Likely has ~10 internals (3OL+4P1 at R4 = 40 damage; if you can afford to arm the 4th OL, or can get a few more phasers on that sheild, that 10 internals starts looking like 15 or 20), costing it a phaser, some power, and maybe an F torp.
The start of T3, the Klingon is still probably on passive and protected by the weasel. It TACs around and fires 4OL and lots of phasers at R1. The Gorn can probably then tractor it and hit it with a bunch of plasma, which might win the game. But might not, depending on how beat up the Gorn got in the way in and what the Klingon can do with its drones at this point--if the Gorn lost an F on the way in, it is hitting with 80 plasma for ~50 internals, and the Klingon can probably take most of the Gorn's phasers on a different sheild (either the Gorn fires them when the Klingon fires, at which point the Klingon HETs or TACs a new sheild for the plasma to hit or the Gorn doesn't fire and gets a bunch of phasers blown off by the ~70 damage the Klingon is doing in return, and in either case, the Gorn probably has to save a couple phasers for a drone or two out of the Klingon's surviving rack/s).
Again, I generally give the Gorn an advantage in this fight, as I agree that being able to rush the Klingon into the corner and mug it is a significant factor, but not so significant that the Klingon has no hope at all. I tend to look at it with the Gorn having a 6 to 4 edge--advantage Gorn, but in no way insurmountable. I'll go look at the RPS thread and see what most of the "name" players give the match up, but I suspect that it is generally in the 6-4 or 5-5 area.
-Peter
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit Marc,
Quote:
I'm sure there are very good players today, just as there were back then. I can even see how, overall, the average player today is better than the average player was back then. I design games, I have a very deep understanding of these kinds of issues. But the very best players back then had a more complete understanding of the game than the very best ones today do.
I'm afraid I have to take exception to that comment. Paul Scott certainly isn't a game designer. (He's a lawyer.) But how many other players have single handedly forced changes in multiple tournament ships by coming up with new tactics that nessecitate changes.
The pre-PS Andro is a certain point. It had to be fixed to the point of uselessness.
The WYN Aux had it's longtime 2nd phaser G pulled because Paul (and Norm IIRC) came up with a rather simple package of G1G1 and then went to on to show just how devastating it could be in the hands of a superior player.
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:47 pm: Edit Gorn play against a Klingon used to be just charge & grab.
Gorn play against a Klingon is no longer just charge & grab.
Marc, if the former works as reliably as you say, why do you think a group as competitive as SFB tourney players has moved away from the tactic?
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:51 pm: Edit You gotta love how people say the same things over and over again in these back and forth tactical debates. Without an actual matchup between the "unbeatable Gorn" and the top Klingon player there can be no resolution to this discussion because it all comes down to theory and "but then I'll ___ as a counter to your ___."
An entertaining read though, from both a social and tactical viewpoint. :-)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 04:55 pm: Edit James wrote: >>You gotta love how people say the same things over and over again in these back and forth tactical debates.>>
That's, ya know, how the internet works.
>> Without an actual matchup between the "unbeatable Gorn" and the top Klingon player there can be no resolution to this discussion because it all comes down to theory and "but then I'll ___ as a counter to your ___.">>
Sure. But theory is certainly a reasonable way to pound out a discussion, assuming that people understand the theory at hand. Theory is never certainty, but it is usually solid enough to build arguments on.
-Peter
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 05:07 pm: Edit I tend to agree with Kludge - the failure of the old-timers to detect brokenness implies that their understanding of the game was less thorough. Which is not at all a surprise, because people now have had, after all, 20 more years to poke at it.
Besides just the Andromedan (which, IIRC, was actually even stronger in the Elder Days), there's also the WAX, and things like the 5-gatling Orion. There are also tactics that hadn't been developed yet, like modern starcastling tactics. (And really, what changed with the Andromedan was the development of modern panel-dumping policies - if you don't dump your panels efficiently, even the "broken" Andromedan isn't that great).
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 05:30 pm: Edit Except that theory will never convince someone whose conviction is as strong as Marc's, and there's always a counterargument.
And yeah, I know how the internet works. I just like to point out to people what they're doing and why it won't work. :-)
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 05:38 pm: Edit Heh, those people who were designing the game, as Marc claim, was quite probably also causing the mess of addenda:P
BTW, I recall the Tourney Rom in the old days was the SUP... Balanced?
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 05:55 pm: Edit The simplest way to show the courage of your convictions is to go online with SFBOL.
You can even play as a Demo for free. (Your limited to using Klink/Feds though.)
Or get a 3 months subsription for $10 US. With the Summer months coming up there will be a much wider number of ppl online at hours beyond the regular evening hours of the US.
If tourney isn't your cup of tea there are over 2000 diferent SFB SSD's online. (Heck I added 28 just about 30 min ago.) Right now I'm stuck running ISC in a camapign.
I'm only a middling player from lack of active play. But I'd certainly be willing to try this G-K match up online.
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit >>>and things like the 5-gatling Orion
I hate to nitpick, but there never was a legal 5-gat Orion. I played in the first ever tournament that the TBR was used in, which was Conjuration '85 (I think, could possibly be '86) in Tulsa, OK. It did have four centerline options, and they could all be gats. The wing mounts were never allowed to be gatlings, but could at that point in time be phaser 1, 2, or 3s. The tourny was won by Hoy Freeman of Springfield, Missouri, and while he did indeed use a four gat package in one round, he used four F torps in most of the rounds. As a result of the complete devastation that ship caused it lost the fourth centerline option immediately (in errata published in Starletter), but the SSD had been published that way so many players still to this day think that there was a 6-option super Orion for a whole year. Before Origins that same year, the Orion got restricted to only two gats.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:27 pm: Edit Marc, I've killed plenty of Gorns in the Klingon (and vice versa), by doing exactly what Peter described. I've even had Gorns made the mistake of firing phasers at me on turn 1, only to plow through my IV-Fs before the turn break.
I've been on the SFB Staff since '91, I've played against Eric Hyman and Frank Gilson. I beat Eric, and fought Frank to a "And he WON!" result. I've seen Spitzer chow down on someone because he ad a ship that nobody had any effective counter tactics for. That doesn't happen as much any more.
I have, conservatively, got my finger prints on more rules as a designer, developer or author than anyone in this game outside of SPP and SVC.
I was the third person to achieve the rank of Captain in term paper grades.
The players playing today are MUCH better than the ones Sandy Hemenway beat 20 years ago. We had Paul Paella win a fleet captaincy because his opponent thought he could TAC on impulse 1.
Both Paul Scott and Tom Carroll played in the "Glory Days" you recall.
Also, there were only two SFB tourneys that went to 256 seats, and I was in both of 'em. Most years, it got to 128, with a lot of byes to fill the empty chair. Even as recently as 2001, 2002, we were getting 90 people.
What's killed the SFB tourney scene is SFBOL. The boardgame market is actually one of the healthiest segments in the industry right now, and ADB is showing record profits.
I think (no disrespect to Ken Lin, the current Fleet Captain), that Paul Scott (4 time champ) is probably the most innovative SFB tournament tactician that there has ever been. Tom Carroll (5 time champ) is probably the best instinctive player today.
What I recall of the "unbeatable Gorn" discussion, back in '93 on GEnie was that the standard doctrine for the Klingon was to go to range 8, fire and turn off. And that's suicide. The key is to get range 4 - range 3 isn't entirely suicidal; your damage potential goes up by about 10 points on the oblique,and you only need 2 points of battery power to beat your way free of the anchor.
I would suggest spending the 10 bucks and joining us on SFBOnline. Doing so will let you shake off the rust, and maybe demonstrate your tactical prowess.
And assuming you can do so, still, maybe you'll learn something.
(Here's a question - how does the Gorn beat the Archeo Tholian?) By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:29 pm: Edit James wrote: >>Except that theory will never convince someone whose conviction is as strong as Marc's, and there's always a counterargument.>>
Oh, I have no intention of changing Marc's mind. I just like the discussion. And maybe some onlooker will learn something useful from it.
>>And yeah, I know how the internet works. I just like to point out to people what they're doing and why it won't work. :-) >>
I can't speak for others, but I always know what I am doing :-)
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:39 pm: Edit Ken wrote: >>(Here's a question - how does the Gorn beat the Archeo Tholian?)>>
Heh. Get lucky on the bolts. You can usually secure a R5 shot with 5P1 and 2 bolts early in the game through a web right before it solidifies. If you luck out and hit with both, the internals can make it a game (25+17=about a dozen in).
Or, you can be brave, just keep closing and shooting phasers, and hoping for what kills the Tholian more than anything else--a really insignificant seeming, yet huge error, like placing a web 1 hex closer this way than that. But if your opponent is really good, that is unlikely to happen :-)
-Peter
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 07:24 pm: Edit Mark is wrong; Gorn (in my hands) beats a Klingon 86% of the time.
In all your tactical discussion, you forget about bolting, expected damage 51 (R5). This is one the reason why Klingons lose. They overplay anchor and underestimate bolt. Most Contemporary Gorns think Bolting is risky, so their record is fairly bad. Paul, is simply better player than everyone else, so his opinion is skewed by the fact he can outplay most players regardless of a match up.
By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 07:42 pm: Edit
Quote:
I tend to agree with Kludge - the failure of the old-timers to detect brokenness implies that their understanding of the game was less thorough
Whoa now. The Tourney ships have evolved over the years because the players have detected brokenness. You don't think the ships would look as they do today if someone hadn't tried every loophole in the book?
There are a lot of great players from the past and if they were playing today would still be great players. SFBOL may have raised the bar but some are/where already above that bar.
Quote:
We had Paul Paella win a fleet captaincy because his opponent thought he could TAC on impulse 1.
I've never seen Ed screw up like that before. I was watching a sports show last week and they were talking about Greg Norman(sp?) and the time he blew this huge lead and lost a major tournament (Masters?). That was Ed. Anyway, my point being, don’t judge the skill of a player on one screw up.
BTW, Marc was on the ADB Staff back in the early 90’s when I was also on the staff. I thought he was more of a Romulan player. Hope you’re doing well Marc.
Lastly, I must have missed the memo on the Klingon-Gorn matchup. I always found them to be near even.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:26 pm: Edit Well, I'll go completely on record and say Gorn being invincible against a Klink is pretty dang delusional.
I'll play anyone on the planet 10 games as the Klink, and if I don't win one game, I'll pay whatever wager you'd like.
Anyone wants a piece of that, let me know, I'll front your subscription to SFBOL as well.
By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:56 pm: Edit ... and the Gauntlet has been thrown down! Does he have the testicles to pick it up? By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:10 pm: Edit
Shoot, I'll try it just to get the free subscription! Gorn vs. Archie: a r7 centerline with 6 ph-1 and all 4 bolts puts a hurt on the spider. What clinched it for me was when he tried to follow me with his down shield when I turned off to reload, forgetting I had 2 more phasers back there. Mizia got two more phasers and a disr before he could do any internals, so he called it quits.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:50 pm: Edit At top player skill, I'd give the Gorn about a 75% win chance. The Klingon, more than any other D&D ship, is vulnerable to being charged and has to guess right when it comes to tactical choices on that key 2nd turn.
At my most practiced (a few years ago), I could show someone how to do it in the Hydran (which can also take advantage of that weakness), but I'm rusty enough now that I'd likely flub the attempt. (I used the method against Dark Vince when he won the hat - I lost by not remembering to use my allocated tractor against his identified type-IV drone - duh!)
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 01:51 am: Edit Ralph: "Mark is wrong; Gorn (in my hands) beats a Klingon 86% of the time. In all your tactical discussion, you forget about bolting, expected damage 51 (R5). This is one the reason why Klingons lose. They overplay anchor and underestimate bolt. Most Contemporary Gorns think Bolting is risky, so their record is fairly bad. Paul, is simply better player than everyone else, so his opinion is skewed by the fact he can outplay most players regardless of a match up."
Thank you, Ralph, I hadn't mentioned that last resort yet, but if you plan it right so that your turn 2 tractor attempt is during the final impulses it is pretty easy to get the zero energy anchor if the tractor attempt fails, but the range 1 bolts always are the last resort. They may not surrender, but they have already lost. The Gorn actually has 4 chances to just win the game outright during the first two turns (2 anchor attempts, 2 turn breaks) and that doesn't even take into account any zero energy anchor situations that might occur during a turn.
Ken: Yes, I am aware of who you are. My "fingerprints" are also found throughout the rulebook. I probably will get onto SFBOL eventually, for now I was just looking in to see what was going on with SFB. It will probably take me at least a dozen games before I can actually execute a game of SFB again. There are so many minor proceedural details too be forgotten that I am certain it will take a while before I can actually play again and not spend all of my energy in not forgetting little details.
Everyone: From what I can tell, although you keep insisting that you did actually read the discussion in the other thread, it doesn't seem as though anyone really has. Someone apparently missenterpreted me saying this before as my saying "if you had read it you would agree with me" which is not the point, the point is that someone moved my discussion here and then a bunch of people who hadn't read the 3 or 4 pages worth of posts responded to the one or two sentances he brought over here. Try to look at that from my perspective.
For example, the counter that Peter keeps proposing is exactly the type of thing that usually results in the Klingon dying on turn 1 instead of turn 2. This assumption that the Gorn is going to allow you to hit him inside range 8 on turn 1 is just wrong, the only way you allow them to hit on turn 1 inside range 8 is if you know you are going to get the turn 1 anchor. The Klingon's turn 1 shot will be from 9-22, if it is closer than that it is only because the Gorn had you on turn 1 and you didn't survive the turn. You'll get the close shot on turn 2, which may or may not allow the PL-F that you sometimes lose on the way in to fire.
Another assumption that keeps coming up is that I have never actually tried this or something. I brought it up because it was something that I did often at tournaments because I was usually not in the tournament for one reason or another. I've probably done this a dozen times, with about 2/3rds of those against aces, and nobody has made it to turn 3 yet. This isn't exactly a theory, I've held this opinion for many years and proven it many times, sometimes against players that I knew with certainty were better than me. There is a reason I am so convinced, so far my percentage in this fight is 100%. If I could start doing this challenge in SFBOL, beleive me I would, but at this particualar moment I am not capable of doing it because I haven't played a game of SFB in like 10 years. Maybe someday in the not too distant future I will be capable of doing so, I always did love proving to Klingons that it is an unwinnable fight for them:-)
I will continue this discussion here, because this is where it is now, but please go to the Romulan section if you haven't already and actually read that discussion before jumping into this one. That really seems like a fair request on my part since it was moved here and most people appear to only be taking into account what has been said in this thread, which is almost nothing on my part.
Finally, I did not start the discussion on wether newer or older players are better. But I can say that I have read most of this board now, and I participated in those discussions in the late 80's and early 90's. There is a very noticable difference between the two, the overall knowledge of the entire game system and the resulting discussions were somewhat above the level I am seeing today. On the other hand, it seems nearly unanimous that the level of play at tournaments is higher today. I know tournaments, I created one of the more successful ones, so I know that with that much agreement among you it must be true. There are two kinds of SFB players, "rules lawyers" and "aces". Apparently what I was actually "feeling" was that the level of "rules lawyers" is not what it used too be. After all, I haven't even been to a tournament for years, so I really have no idea of knowing how things are now. All I know is that tournament system itself is not what it used to be, there aren't as many and the ones still around don't get as many people anymore. I really am done with this subject, because it is kind of a silly subject.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 03:44 am: Edit Ok, Peter, I will respond the way you are, I like the format you are using too.
PB: "Attempting to bring this back to the actual interesting tactical discussion, here is the crux of Marc's argument--that due to the closed map, the Klingon can't run and can't do enough damage to avoid getting killed by a Gorn bent on a suicide anchor."
It's not really a "suicide anchor". I really was one of the "pioneers" of "finesse plasma". Gilson's term paper merely described the very basics of the new tactics that the plasma ace's of the day had been using for several years. It was actually years before the average SFB player had figured out everything that wasn't in the term paper. My greatest tactical strength in SFB is deception, which is why I like plasma ships so much, they are the best at decieving the enemy. So, as I had already mentioned in the other thread, I actually begin turn one trying to convince you that I will be playing a standard "finesse plasma" game. My first move is always to turn right and beging to cut across the corner that I start near. This accomplishes two things. First it makes you begin to suspect that I plan to spend the entire game trying to stay away from you, and more importantly it delays when I will take the center of the map. I don't want the map center in the middle of the turn, I want it at the end of the turn.
PB: "Right. To start with, I can't imagine any game of this match up ending with the Klingon resigning by impulse 28 of T1. For that to happen, the Klingon has to run right up to the Gorn. Why is the Klingon ever going to do that? Most likely, the Klingon is, as detailed above, closing with 12 power in disruptors on an oblique, and depending on what the map looks like, going to take the best shot possible with 3 or 4 OLs and phasers in the R4-5 zone, and turn and run out the rest of the turn, never getting closer than R3. Given that it is impossible for the Gorn to prevent this, we can discount the idea that the Klingon is going to get in a situation where it has to resign on impulse 28 of T1."
Actually that is pretty hard to discount, since it actually has happened many times. You get them on turn 1 when they come at you too agressively at the same time that your speed change kicks in. This is why I largely discount getting a turn 1 anchor, and called it a "cheap anchor on turn 1" in the other thread, because it depends entirely on the Klingon coming too close too you at the same time that your speed change occurs. It happens, but you don't have a lot of control over it. This is actually a third reason why I delay entry to the map center, because it then becomes more likely that I might be able to get them on turn 1. PB: "Ok then. The Gorn is then chasing the Klingon into the corner to mug it on T2. If the Klingon is clever with its SP (launch it to release at R8 or so and manuver so that the Gorn has to run through the SP drones), the Gorn is chasing through a cloud of SP drones, after likely losing a sheild and taking ~10 internals. The SP drones are unlikely to 'cause a huge issue, but if split into two stacks, the Gorn is going to be forced to contend with at least 3 of them on the pursuit, taking tractor power and phasers; or; the Gorn is going to have to move wide around them, giving the Klingon more room to run. As the Gorn closes (with a down shield which complicates manuvering), the Klingon launches 3 more drones, which might be heavy and are likely fast. Taking more phasers and resources to deal with. The Gorn closes. The Klingon, seeing that it is likely to be cornered and mugged if it doesn't do something drastic, likely hits the wall or decels as the Gorn gets close, and when necessary, pre-emptively weasels to avoid an impulse 32, R1 zero energy anchor and surive over the turn break."
The medium speed drones are not an issue. The Gorn has more than enough time to go around them, and once the drones are behind the Gorn, they can be forgotten. In the original thread I described my "Romulan Clothesline" tactic that really is a critical concept to understand for all SFB players. One of the many advantages of the clothesline is that you can tractor and release a target quickly enough to safely ignore speed 20 drones that are just a few hexes behind you. The only drones that matter are the fast ones.
As for the pre-emptive WW, nobody has ever done that before, and it seems that it is only coming up because you know exactly what I am doing. But, assuming that there is a higher understanding of the zero energy anchor these days (it was, after all, always one of my greatest weapons that few others seemed to truly understand, the clothesline is an example of that). I would actually have to think about how to deal with that, although I have only ever needed to rely on the impulse 32 anchor once. You are assuming that you defeated the turn 2 tractor, which doesn't happen often. Only once, actually. I would have to think more about what to do about this pre-emptive WW since it has never come up before, but you are assuming A LOT in living long enough to get to the last impulse. Very good idea though, if you just came up with that now in this discussion that was actually pretty impressive response:-)
PB: "The likely situation is then the Gorn at close range (possibly having to also have decelled to avoid overshooting) to a Klingon who he can't tractor or plasma to death till the weasel is voided or the explosion period ends. The Gorn is likely low on useable phasers (due to having to deal with 6 drones on the chase). Likely has ~10 internals (3OL+4P1 at R4 = 40 damage; if you can afford to arm the 4th OL, or can get a few more phasers on that sheild, that 10 internals starts looking like 15 or 20), costing it a phaser, some power, and maybe an F torp." Well, I still have the phasers. I've done this battle many times and keeping the phasers unfired is vital. You can't use up my phasers with your drones, only the fast drones can do that for you. But yes, missing any anchor by the end of turn 2 would be a complete disaster. I have always known that. It simply has never come close to happening. I would have to think of it more to be sure, but this would on the surface seem to be a situation where you would have no choice but to just bolt and phaser alpha strike the Klingon, which is going to be a roughly even exchange, which will put the Gorn slightly ahead, but if you were to make it this far (a very big if) your pre-emptive weasle does appear to save you from the "final guarentteed anchor"... it isn't a guarentee anymore. It's significant, but actually getting to that point on your part would also be significant. It's only come down to that last resort once in the past. If I can't think of a way out of it (I'll let you know tomorrow night, you are stopped in a corner and I am at high speed, but I am not currently seeing any way to avoid being hit hard by you on impulse 1) then you will have proven too me that it is not "impossible" for the Klingon to win. •••• close, but not totally impossible, and your pre-emptive WW is the only way to do it.
PB: "The start of T3, the Klingon is still probably on passive and protected by the weasel. It TACs around and fires 4OL and lots of phasers at R1. The Gorn can probably then tractor it and hit it with a bunch of plasma, which might win the game. But might not, depending on how beat up the Gorn got in the way in and what the Klingon can do with its drones at this point--if the Gorn lost an F on the way in, it is hitting with 80 plasma for ~50 internals, and the Klingon can probably take most of the Gorn's phasers on a different sheild (either the Gorn fires them when the Klingon fires, at which point the Klingon HETs or TACs a new sheild for the plasma to hit or the Gorn doesn't fire and gets a bunch of phasers blown off by the ~70 damage the Klingon is doing in return, and in either case, the Gorn probably has to save a couple phasers for a drone or two out of the Klingon's surviving rack/s)."
Actually staying and trying to tractor you would be a very bad idea. It would let you shoot me before I could shoot you. That would be bad. The situation you describe would be a complete disaster for the Gorn, but getting to this point is nearly impossible. Does the WW still give you a +2 shift or has that been taken out of the tournament? If you don't have a +2 shift, I would almost definately bolt and phaser you with everything I had on impulse 32, before you got to do EA. With the shift it is even a more difficult sitation. I would really have to think about what to do about this for a while, if there is no good answer than your pre- emptive WW does turn what has always been the "gaurenteed turn break anchor" at the end of turn 2 into an even exchange. If this pre-emptive weasle to avoid a zero energy anchor at the turn break is common today, and a thing most players would do, I would no longer even attempt to get it. But, as I said, you are assuming a lot in getting to that point, only one person ever has before. Actually, if this pre-emptive WW is commonly known today, I definately wouldn't even go for this anymore since it would be so obvious given the events leading up too it. So would most likely break away towards the outside to get away from you keep you in the corner after the turn 2 tractor failed. I usually try that tractor around impulse 24-30, somewhere in there, so would make it earlier knowing that the zero energy won't work (again, this assumes this is some common tactic today and not something you have tailored to the situation) and use the corner and start string launching effectively on you because you are in a perfect position to do that. That pre-emptive WW definately removes the turn break anchor, but does cause you other problems. I think you are still going to lose this, just in a different way, and well past the end of turn 2. Again, assuming you ever made it to impulse 32 of turn 2 to begin with, which is a big assumption.
PB: Again, I generally give the Gorn an advantage in this fight, as I agree that being able to rush the Klingon into the corner and mug it is a significant factor, but not so significant that the Klingon has no hope at all. I tend to look at it with the Gorn having a 6 to 4 edge--advantage Gorn, but in no way insurmountable. I'll go look at the RPS thread and see what most of the "name" players give the match up, but I suspect that it is generally in the 6-4 or 5-5 area.
PB: Actually, your pre-empitve anchor merely brings it from the realm of "impossible" to "barely possible". I would now go with Ralph's "86%" as a low end (as I greatly value his opinion when it comes to plasma combat) and roughly estimate that the Gorn has an 85-95% advantage. The those 5-15% being those who could both survive to the last impulse, and then know to pre-empitvely launch a WW before the turn break. It is the sole, lone, only chance the Klingon has.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 04:02 am: Edit Hmm... another solution to the pre-emptive WW would be to alpha-bolt the moment the tractor attempt fails. If most people today would know to use this pre-emptive WW, the best thing might be arranging the tractor attempt to happen closer to the middle of the turn than the end, so that you have time to open the range after you shoot and before the Klingon can shoot at the beginning of the next turn...
I really would need to consider this situation for a while to find the new solution, assuming that this pre-emptive WW to avoid turn break anchor is common knowledge today, but I honestly can't see ever losing this match to a Klingon:-)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:53 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>For example, the counter that Peter keeps proposing is exactly the type of thing that usually results in the Klingon dying on turn 1 instead of turn 2. This assumption that the Gorn is going to allow you to hit him inside range 8 on turn 1 is just wrong, the only way you allow them to hit on turn 1 inside range 8 is if you know you are going to get the turn 1 anchor.>>
If the Gorn is going for the middle of the map at high speed, the Gorn can't really avoid getting shot in the face at R4-5. It can launch a pair of torps to make the Klingon not get that close, but unless at least one of them is real, if the Klingon calls your bluff and just eats the psuedoes, it'll still get that R4-5 shot.
Figure the Klingon is moving some 15/21/31 plot (like 15 till 16/21 till 24ish/31 till the end of the turn). It'll close. I figure the Gorn is moving fairly quick (~24 hexes of movement for the turn). If the Gorn doesn't turn off (corner dodgeing Gorn?), by mid to late turn, the two ships will be inside of 8 near the middle of the map. The Gorn could turn off to avoid this, sure, but then the chase on T2 is much harder to pull off. If it doesn't turn off, and the Klingon doesn't turn off or get scared off by psuedoes, it can get a R4-5 oblique shot with 3-4OLs and a bunch of phasers, and then turn and run for the rest of the turn.
>>As for the pre-emptive WW, nobody has ever done that before, and it seems that it is only coming up because you know exactly what I am doing. >>
That may be the crux of the very issue here. The stop/pre-emptive weasel when someone is likely to catch you is pretty much standard practice these days. You look at the map, you look at the speed chart, and say "Huh. My opponent is going to be at R1 by the end of the turn, and there is not a darn thing I can do about it. I might as well stop and throw out a weasel to avoid getting pasted when he gets there. And then I can TAC too..."
In the Gorn/Klingon fight, once the Klingon hits the stop button, the Gorn is best off just bolting and leaving, but that then turns the game into a game, rather than the Klingon eating 80-100 points of plasma.
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 08:01 am: Edit Mark, your last posts shed light on what the scenario was: By taking your time getting to the center you will keep your opponent totally in the dark about your plans. If, on T2, he sits and spins you will just launch torps from a distance, if he moves you close for the 2nd turn tractor. This is a good tactic.
Heh, funny, I figure this is so basic that we didn't see it but thought you were discusing a newbish high speed charge. Well, sorry for that Marc. But Kudos to all for not letting this turn into a flame war.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 08:07 am: Edit Peter, I expect Marc has torps on the table to keep the Klingon away, although he hasn't said so (or I missed that line). (BTW, an EPT would be really good to convince the Klingon you are not going for the anchor T:2.) And he is probably only speeding up during the last quarter of the turn. By that time the torp is preventin range 4-5 hopefully.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 08:33 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>If the Gorn is going for the middle of the map at high speed, the Gorn can't really avoid getting shot in the face at R4-5. It can launch a pair of torps to make the Klingon not get that close, but unless at least one of them is real, if the Klingon calls your bluff and just eats the psuedoes, it'll still get that R4-5 shot.>>
Now that I have read more closely, Marc is advocating the Gorn not going that fast. So we'll give it 18 in movement (16/31 near the end?). That gives the Klingon a lot more room to run on T2, as the two ships aren't going to interact till near the end of T1. But at least the Gorn'll then have, like, 10 rienforcement.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:01 am: Edit Carl wrote: >>Peter, I expect Marc has torps on the table to keep the Klingon away, although he hasn't said so (or I missed that line).>>
If you have psuedoes on the table, you get shot at R4 if the Klingon calls your bluff; if you have 1/1, the Klingon loses a sheild, but you then only have 70 when you corner him.
>>(BTW, an EPT would be really good to convince the Klingon you are not going for the anchor T:2.)>>
Oh, sure, but then, again, you only have 70 when you get there.
>>And he is probably only speeding up during the last quarter of the turn.>>
Yeah, that seems to be the case in his plan--maybe 16 till 24 then 31? That costs 20 power. Gets you to the center, but not till late. The Klingon can agressively close to get the R4 oblique shot, turn and run at 31 for the rest of the turn.
>>By that time the torp is preventin range 4-5 hopefully.>>
Which requires launching the torps early, meaning either the Klingon calls your psuedo bluff, you are down plasma when you corner him, or the Klingon blithely eats 60 damage and you win :-) -Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:08 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>Hmm... another solution to the pre-emptive WW would be to alpha-bolt the moment the tractor attempt fails.>>
Heck, I wouldn't even try for the tractor if he stops--the Klingon is going to decel/wall crash before or as you get to R3 (as he can see the future based on the map/speed chart); tractoring will be difficult unless you get to R1, and he'll have weasled by then. So you wait till he decels, bolt and leave. If you get lucky and hit well, you have a significant advantage. But if he slams the wall and weasels immediately, you are bolting through the -2 weasel shift.
>>If most people today would know to use this pre-emptive WW,>>
Yeah, see, they would 'cause of the wonders of the widely available, regularly read internet :-)
>>I really would need to consider this situation for a while to find the new solution, assuming that this pre-emptive WW to avoid turn break anchor is common knowledge today, but I honestly can't see ever losing this match to a Klingon:-)>>
When you are up and running and at fighting trim again, I'm sure we can arrange some SFBOL games.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:18 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>For example, the counter that Peter keeps proposing is exactly the type of thing that usually results in the Klingon dying on turn 1 instead of turn 2.>>
This is an important tactical point that I think could use some illumination.
>> This assumption that the Gorn is going to allow you to hit him inside range 8 on turn 1 is just wrong, the only way you allow them to hit on turn 1 inside range 8 is if you know you are going to get the turn 1 anchor.>>
I'm not really understanding how this works. If the Klingon is using a pretty standard turn one plot of, like 15/21/31 (changing on, say, 16/24) and it is approaching at an oblique angle (i.e. Klingon's #2 or #6 facing Gorn)so it can shoot and immediately turn away, the Gorn *can't* get inside of R3 by the end of the turn (as the Klingon is moving 31 or so for the last 8 impulses of the turn). If the Gorn isn't moving real fast, as you indicate, it can't force the action sooner and it can't accidentally catch the Klingon unawares. Even if it does jump to 31 near the end of the turn, the Klingon is doing the same thing (even if it is only going 26 near the end of the turn, a battery can turn that into 31 if needed).
>>The Klingon's turn 1 shot will be from 9-22, if it is closer than that it is only because the Gorn had you on turn 1 and you didn't survive the turn.>>
The Gorn can only keep the Klingon at 9+ by turning away or forcing the Klingon to turn away with plasma launch.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:20 am: Edit Marc said:
Quote:
Actually, if this pre-emptive WW is commonly known today, I definately wouldn't even go for this anymore since it would be so obvious given the events leading up too it.
If you are not launching plasma, you can pretty much count on a pre-emptive weasel. You might be able to muddy the waters a little with good use of your pseudo's, but your intentions will still be pretty clear.
One of the main reasons that the "Plasma Ballet" is so popular these days, is that anti-anchor tactics have been ingrained into most players from their first game. Players tend to see the attempt coming, and take the appropriate counter- measures. That said, I'm not a fan of the Gorn playing a ballet game. I've had much more trouble with the Gorn when it plays a more aggressive game, that leverages is phasers as well as it's plasma.
Marc said:
Quote:
Actually staying and trying to tractor you would be a very bad idea. It would let you shoot me before I could shoot you. That would be bad. The situation you describe would be a complete disaster for the Gorn, but getting to this point is nearly impossible. Does the WW still give you a +2 shift or has that been taken out of the tournament? If you don't have a +2 shift, I would almost definately bolt and phaser you with everything I had on impulse 32, before you got to do EA. With the shift it is even a more difficult sitation. I would really have to think about what to do about this for a while, if there is no good answer than your pre-emptive WW does turn what has always been the "gaurenteed turn break anchor" at the end of turn 2 into an even exchange.
Yes, the WW still gives a +2 shift. What I would do if the Klink ED's to pre- emptively weasel, is alpha-bolt immediately after the announcement and then get out of Dodge. I might only have half of my plasma's in arc, but it's still better than shooting through the shift. If they use the wall to stop, that makes things a bit more tricky. I'd probably launch enough plasma to force the weasel. That will clean up his drones, and leave him with only 2 WW's left(assuming SP launch already happened).
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:22 am: Edit Peter, actually 70 is not bad. If you can support it with 2-4 phasers for mizia damage. Since you only need shoot down 2 fast drones Hopefully being able to take the third on the either the #6 or #2) you would have you will still have phasers left.
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:24 am: Edit wow.. Peter types fast
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 09:37 am: Edit Carl wrote: >>Peter, actually 70 is not bad.>>
Oh, sure. But that is a different plan than what we are talking about. Like, launching an enveloper to make the Klingon turn off and then chasing him and mugging him with the 70 on T2 is a perfectly solid plan (that usually avoids getting shot in the face by the Klingon on T1) but 70 plasma for a mugging, really, is much less devestating, as the Klingon can probably spit back a similar amount of damage on T3 with PFC from under a weasel shift.
Yeah, I do type fast :-) I probably should be working, though...
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:16 am: Edit
Quote: If the Klingon is using a pretty standard turn one plot of, like 15/21/31
Make that 16/21/31. Tactics expressed on this thread should be kept legal within the rules.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:37 am: Edit Peter, IMO 70 + phasers is just as good as 100 + phasers. Especially if the opponent was fooled by the EPT and is unprepared for the anchor
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:47 am: Edit Chris wrote: >>Make that 16/21/31. Tactics expressed on this thread should be kept legal within the rules.>>
Yeah, that. Or 15/21/30. Both work fine. And are legal :-)
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:49 am: Edit Carl wrote: >>Peter, IMO 70 + phasers is just as good as 100 + phasers. Especially if the opponent was fooled by the EPT and is unprepared for the anchor>>
Sure. But still, not the strategy that was being discussed. So I agree with you. But different discussion.
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 01:19 pm: Edit I'll try and call Paul today and see if he'll comment on this.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 01:34 pm: Edit Tim: when you get him on the phone, tell him to send his "victory" article by 1 May.
Marc: good to see you're doing well.
All: Marc was indeed on the staff a long time ago. I had to go look up his record. He was on the third-level (two down from the top, one above playtest groups) and there are one or two fingerprints of his in the rules, but probably not four or five.
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 03:50 pm: Edit Heck, my rules not only have dozens of my fingerprints in them, they've also got my ink stains, pizza grease, and probably some of my drool too. By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 06:02 pm: Edit Ew, Sheap drool!!!
There's a pretty cool debate between Ken Burnside and Tom Carrol on a very similar situation in this matchup in the 1992 pink tourney tactics guide. I wouldn't be too suprised if the modern approach to the 1st turn of the Klingon/Gorn match stemmed from that at least a little.
I've got a pretty solid Gorn player in my group (Brook Villa, all_ones on SFBOL) and I've played this exact match a few times against him over the years. I'm only a marginal Klink player, but I've still beaten him a few times as the Klingon. It's not a lopsided match at all IMO. I think Peter has it right at 6-4 in favor of the Gorn.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 06:33 pm: Edit Steve: It's good to hear from you again. I don't think those "levels" actually existed when I was on the staff. Actually if you consult with SPP you'll find that I have contributions really throughout the Captain's Edition. You asked me on too the staff because I had reviewed the entire Commander's Edition. I am actually all over the place in the Captain's Edition because of that, and from a very early phase of your writing it. It was so long ago I can't remember much of it, but a few examples are that I was the one who suggested that splash damage "hit the ground" in ground combat, I also suggested that leak damage hit hull first and not go straight to the DAC in the new Andro rules, and also cleared up a very messy late draft of the Andro rules replacing all instances of "panel, panel bank, and panel box" with the correct term in each instance. Not really game design related, but I was also the first to point out that the TNG episode "Peak Performance" was a thinly vield tribute to SFB, you all called me crazy at first, until you watched the re-run later that week:-) If you look into it you'll find that my influence really is found throughout the rulebook. I actually contributed quite a bit in the short time I was with you, you didn't give me one of the first silver stars for nothing:-)
Everyone: I obviously can't respond to all of the posts that were made since my last ones, but I will try to cover some of the major points brought up. I am certain to miss some...
Most importantly, the Klingon won't ever get within range 8 on turn 1 because the Gorn delays his entry into the map center until towards the end of the turn. If you re-read what I had written, you'll see that I actually turn right at first and cut across the lower right corner. You don't head towards the center until after the mid point of the turn. When you get there, and begin to get close to the Klingon, avoiding range 8 is not difficult because it is near the end of the turn.
As for getting him on turn 1, that depends almost entirely on the actions of the Klingon. I am very deceptive, and can often fool them into making the mistake they need to make for that too happen. But it isn't something that can be relied upon.
But on turn 2 the Klingon will concede. On turn 2 you simply take their shot and then chase them into the corner and kill them. The tractor almost always works. For example, the counter that Peter proposes means he will lose the tractor auction. He is using too much energy in disruptors, and in re-charging phasers... he is dead in the corner when I catch him because he doesn't have enough in negative trac to win the auction if he is spending all that energy on overloaded disruptors and rearming phasers. By his own counter in this discussion, he is tractored and dead before I ever even need the zero energy anchor on impulse 32.
That pre-emptive WW, which was not something that people would have done in my day, does remove the "gaurenteed anchor" that used to exist if all else fails, but doesn't save the Klingon. It only means that a really good Klingon can actually make it to turn 3, which has never happened before in my games. After having time to consider it, I have the solution to that response now, considering most know it and would do it. I wouldn't even go for that anymore. Instead I would arrange for the turn 2 tractor attempt to happen earlier, 20-26 instead of 26-30, and if the turn 2 tractor fails would pursue the Klingon to the first impulse that he does not move (a mid-turn zero energy anchor). If he doesn't pre- empitve WW then I have him with a mid-turn zero energy anchor, if he does ED 2 impulses before that impulse (or if he is moving too fast and will be moving every impulse), then we are down to that last resort that Ralph mentioned, which is to bolt him. I would personally save the F's in this situation, and bolt both S's and fire all phasers at range 1 the moment he announced ED. Meeting him earlier lets me get some distance before the turn ends. Then I am still at high speed and the Klingon is stopped. I still have both F's to discourage pursuit while the Ss rearm, and have done significantly more damage to the Klingon than he has done too me.
It is unlikely that the Klingon will win the turn 2 tractor auction, but if he does you still have a chance to "test him" to see if he will pre-emptively WW, and if he does then you have to settle for like 30-40 internals v the 10-20 he has done too you... and a great tactical advantage (he is stopped, you are max speed next turn). He is still dead, it will just take longer now. Assuming someone actually managed to make it this far, they would have the great honor of being the first Klingon to ever survive turn 2 against my Gorn TC:-) But it really isn't very likely, and even if they managed to do this it only means they will live a few more turns, because this all starts all over again as soon as the Gorn is rearmed.
I have never seen how the Klingon has any chance of winning this fight in that tiny little box, and still don't see it. Peter has managed to propose a means of avoiding total and complete certain death by the end of turn 2, but that is about all. By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 07:38 pm: Edit Marc. In response, all I can do is restate that the play level of the SFB Tournament has increased considerably since you last played. A few point below.
1. Yes, you can avoid range 8 on turn 1. Against a 21 movement Klingon (HC + 12 in disr +2 WW), you will be 39+ hexes away from the far corner and, with 9 hexes of catch up to do, would never even catch a competant Klingon of today on Turn 2.
2. In reading your post, my take is that players of "yesteryear" did not have the understanding of mid-turn speed changes and the speed chart that players of today have. The thought that a plasma ship could catch another ship who intends to use a pre-emptive weasel using surprise and deception just wouldn't happen in today's game. (i.e., you may catch a Hydran who's trying to close with you, but not a Disruptor ship).
So, you catch the Klingon on Turn 3, not turn 2 and, as you speed along like a demon on turn 2, the Klingon can likely, on T3, do a 4-14 or 0-10 plot, preemptively weasel, and plan to use batteries to speed up from 4/0 so that the plotted speed-up can be delayed/controlled.
Alternately, you could be facing the SP plus 3 rack drones on Turn 3 and, trust me, even a speed 31 ship especially one with a turn mode like the Gorns can't get to a moving ship behind 2 stacks of 3 drones without having to deal with one of the stacks (speed 20 moves, at worst, every other impulse) and a really good Klingon may be able to use the SP and rack drones to get out of the corner (you go one way, he goes the other), if you are unwilling to deal with some of them.
Against a good Klingon, you'll face a range 8 shot on turn 2 and another on turn 3, right before he weasels. You can likely get them to hit different shields, but you've just traded 2 shields for a cornered, weaseled opponent. Your maneuver edge for turn 4 is now countered by his shield advantage (since at worst, he is down 1 shield, and you likely hit some reinforcement).
Now, yes, I believe that an aggressive Gorn is advantaged against the Klingon. However, you give up much of that advantage by giving up the center of the board on T1 as you lose T2 as an effective "catch" turn.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 08:11 pm: Edit AP: "Marc. In response, all I can do is restate that the play level of the SFB Tournament has increased considerably since you last played. A few point below.
1. Yes, you can avoid range 8 on turn 1. Against a 21 movement Klingon (HC + 12 in disr +2 WW), you will be 39+ hexes away from the far corner and, with 9 hexes of catch up to do, would never even catch a competant Klingon of today on Turn 2." Actually the whole point is that the map is too small for the Klingon to avoid being caught in the corner towards the end of turn 2. It can't be done on turn 1, and can't be avoided on turn 2. That really is the whole issue that causes this.
AP: "2. In reading your post, my take is that players of "yesteryear" did not have the understanding of mid-turn speed changes and the speed chart that players of today have. The thought that a plasma ship could catch another ship who intends to use a pre-emptive weasel using surprise and deception just wouldn't happen in today's game. (i.e., you may catch a Hydran who's trying to close with you, but not a Disruptor ship)."
I am really astonished as to how stupid and incompetant you people think we were. Try to remember that it was the Captain's Edition, and even more the Commander's Edition, players who created this game that you love so much. We really did know what we were doing.
We knew all about mid-turn speed changes, in fact, we invented them. We used them probably just as much as you do. I don't even need to play any of you to know that I can decieve you with a plasma ship, that has not changed, it is still the same game. My tactics were always far ahead of their time, it is likely that your beloved "players of today" have merely caught up to the way I was playing 15 years ago. Finally, it is very unlikely that the Klingon will make it to the end to use that "pre-emptive WW", the most likely result is that he will be successfully tractored before that happens. The Klingon is re-arming all that stuff he fired on turn 1, the Gorn is spending energy only on tractors and movement. The Klingon has lost this tractor auction in every game of this I have ever played except once.
AP: "So, you catch the Klingon on Turn 3, not turn 2 and, as you speed along like a demon on turn 2, the Klingon can likely, on T3, do a 4-14 or 0-10 plot, preemptively weasel, and plan to use batteries to speed up from 4/0 so that the plotted speed-up can be delayed/controlled."
No, I catch him on turn 2. I have actually done this many, many times. Also, he doesn't have any batteries left, because to get to where you think he is he won the tractor auction (not at all likely) and needed all of his batteries to do that. But really, he probably lost the tractor auction and conceded, never making it to impulse 32 of turn 2 to get to that pre-emptive WW. And knowing that this pre- emptive WW is now common knowledge, as per my previous post, wouldn't give him this chance today anyway.
AP: "Alternately, you could be facing the SP plus 3 rack drones on Turn 3 and, trust me, even a speed 31 ship especially one with a turn mode like the Gorns can't get to a moving ship behind 2 stacks of 3 drones without having to deal with one of the stacks (speed 20 moves, at worst, every other impulse) and a really good Klingon may be able to use the SP and rack drones to get out of the corner (you go one way, he goes the other), if you are unwilling to deal with some of them."
Speed 20 drones are not a threat, no matter how many you launch at me. Apparently us enfeebled "players of yesteryear" had a far greater understaning of manuever than you "modern masters".
AP: Against a good Klingon, you'll face a range 8 shot on turn 2 and another on turn 3, right before he weasels. You can likely get them to hit different shields, but you've just traded 2 shields for a cornered, weaseled opponent. Your maneuver edge for turn 4 is now countered by his shield advantage (since at worst, he is down 1 shield, and you likely hit some reinforcement)."
Only on turn 2, no Klingon has ever made it to turn 3 before.
AP: "Now, yes, I believe that an aggressive Gorn is advantaged against the Klingon. However, you give up much of that advantage by giving up the center of the board on T1 as you lose T2 as an effective "catch" turn."
I will still be in the center of the map at the end of turn 1, and the Klingon will still be trapped in the corner at the end of turn 2 and will die there. You don't need to be in the exact center hex, being in the area of the map center is good enough. This allows you to avoid range 8 on turn 1, and still trap in in a corner on turn 2. This isn't theory, I have done it many times.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 09:28 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>Most importantly, the Klingon won't ever get within range 8 on turn 1 because the Gorn delays his entry into the map center until towards the end of the turn.>>
I'm not seeing how this is physically possible in a situation where the Gorn can catch the Klingon on T2: If the Klingon moves 21 hexes (not at all improbable), it can get to hex, like, 2816 by the end of T1. If the Gorn corner dives, it needs to stay out past 3721 to not end the turn at R8 or closer. Meaning on T2, even if the Gorn runs at 31 all turn, the Klingon is going to end T2, like, 5 or so hexes away in the opposite corner it it runs.
>>If you re-read what I had written, you'll see that I actually turn right at first and cut across the lower right corner. You don't head towards the center until after the mid point of the turn. When you get there, and begin to get close to the Klingon, avoiding range 8 is not difficult because it is near the end of the turn.>>
Only if you bury yorself in the opposite corner (pull out a map and look at the hex numbers I mention above). If the Gorn isn't in the corner, it is inside of R8. Like, I could see how the Gorn might end the turn between R5-8 and still maybe get within 31 hexes of the opposite corner of the map, but then, at the very least, you are getting shot with some OL disruptors at the end of the turn which may or may not make a difference. But I'm not seeing at all how the Gorn can avoid R8 *and* catch the Klingon on T2.
>>As for getting him on turn 1, that depends almost entirely on the actions of the Klingon. I am very deceptive, and can often fool them into making the mistake they need to make for that too happen. But it isn't something that can be relied upon.>>
Yeah, I'm not so much seeing the deception having much effect--the Klingon is trying to get a R4-5 shot near the end of the turn. If it can do that, it will. If it can't, the Gorn is not real close to the middle of the map.
>>But on turn 2 the Klingon will concede.>>
Ok.
>>On turn 2 you simply take their shot and then chase them into the corner and kill them.>>
If you can catch them. Which you can't do if you didn't get inside of R8 on T1.
>> The tractor almost always works.>>
Unless they pre-emptively weasel.
>> For example, the counter that Peter proposes means he will lose the tractor auction. He is using too much energy in disruptors, and in re-charging phasers... he is dead in the corner when I catch him because he doesn't have enough in negative trac to win the auction if he is spending all that energy on overloaded disruptors and rearming phasers.>>
The Klingon doesn't arm disruptors on T2. He just runs into the corner, launching drones as he goes. And then stops and weasels before you get within tractor range.
>>By his own counter in this discussion, he is tractored and dead before I ever even need the zero energy anchor on impulse 32.>> Uhh, still not seeing it. Either you get within R5 of the Klingon on T1 *or* the Gorn can't get to R1 on T2. You could chase the Klingon off with a couple of psuedoes, but if the Klingon calls your bluff, you got nothing.
-Peter
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 09:31 pm: Edit Marc, I have kept quiet up until now, but your continued belittling of people attempting to discuss tactics with you is getting old. A large number of us have been playing for a very long time. I was part of the community on Genie and have watched the game evolve. Guess what, tactics have evolved as well. Don't believe me? Come play on SFBOL and prove us all wrong. Until you do, try to have a mature, reasonable discussion, without resorting to sarcasm and name calling and maybe people will pay more attention to you.
To address your tactical points.
1. If you are moving to the middle of the map on turn 1 then you will in no way avoid range 8 from a Klingon on turn 1. I am not sure how you think that you can do both. What Andy was saying was that in order to avoid range 8 entirely on turn 1 (as you stated in your 6:33 pm post today) you would need to corner dodge, which would then give the Klingon ship plenty of room to run on turn 2. Since in all of your messages both here and in the Romulan Tactics thread I haven't seen anything about launching any torps to try to make the Klingon turn off I see no way you can achieve the center of the board and also avoid range 8 on turn 1. Please explain this.
2. The idea behind the pre-emptive weasel is to decel and weasel before a ship gets into tractor range. Thus, a player looks at his speed plot, looks at his opponents, and sees that he will be caught and anchored so he Emergency Decels and pops a wild weasel at the last minute, usually range 3 or 4, depending on his batteries and if he has any tractor allocated. This prevents him from being anchored right away. Of course this is not infallible, I have defeated many opponents who have done this against my Aux, but some chance is better than no chance
All I have time for right now. Will post more later. Stephen
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 09:56 pm: Edit SM: "Marc, I have kept quiet up until now, but your continued belittling of people attempting to discuss tactics with you is getting old. A large number of us have been playing for a very long time. I was part of the community on Genie and have watched the game evolve. Guess what, tactics have evolved as well. Don't believe me? Come play on SFBOL and prove us all wrong. Until you do, try to have a mature, reasonable discussion, without resorting to sarcasm and name calling and maybe people will pay more attention to you."
Actually it is some of you who keep belittling the people who actually made the game, I merely respond to it when it happens, you have that backwards. I wasn't insulting anyone. I was merely pointing out how silly it is to believe that the aces of 10-15 years ago were so inept that they didn't understand mid-turn speed changes (which they invented).
SM: "To address your tactical points.
1. If you are moving to the middle of the map on turn 1 then you will in no way avoid range 8 from a Klingon on turn 1. I am not sure how you think that you can do both. What Andy was saying was that in order to avoid range 8 entirely on turn 1 (as you stated in your 6:33 pm post today) you would need to corner dodge, which would then give the Klingon ship plenty of room to run on turn 2. Since in all of your messages both here and in the Romulan Tactics thread I haven't seen anything about launching any torps to try to make the Klingon turn off I see no way you can achieve the center of the board and also avoid range 8 on turn 1. Please explain this.
Because you are arriving at the "edge" of the map center at the end of the turn. You are not going to the exact center hex, you are going to the general center area of the map. And, yes, I sometimes use a PPT towards the end of turn 1, but not often, it really isn't needed. It all depends on the situation, sometimes it is useful to use one. It would be 10 times harder to do this with someone who has been reading this discussion, because they would know exactly what I am doing, but I think it would only be harder. In reality, in a real game, defeating the Klingon is actually quite easy to achieve. By the end of turn 1, in a real life game, I would have you pretty much convinced that I was trying to avoid you... how much tractor energy would you have on turn 2? But even against someone involved in this conversation, the Gorn is still going to win this towards the end of turn 2, it would merely be hard instead of easy.
SM: "2. The idea behind the pre-emptive weasel is to decel and weasel before a ship gets into tractor range. Thus, a player looks at his speed plot, looks at his opponents, and sees that he will be caught and anchored so he Emergency Decels and pops a wild weasel at the last minute, usually range 3 or 4, depending on his batteries and if he has any tractor allocated. This prevents him from being anchored right away. Of course this is not infallible, I have defeated many opponents who have done this against my Aux, but some chance is better than no chance" Actually he is talking about using a pre-emptive WW to avoid a zero energy anchor at the end of the turn. It works quite well for that purpose in this specific situation. Trying to do that mid-turn would be suicide on the part of the Klingon, all it would accomplish would be that less phasers would be fired at his ship... which isn't very relevant when 80-100 points of plasma hit him.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:00 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>I am really astonished as to how stupid and incompetant you people think we were. Try to remember that it was the Captain's Edition, and even more the Commander's Edition, players who created this game that you love so much. We really did know what we were doing.>>
No one is saying anyone is stupid. But a lot of what you seem to be taking for granted as something that will happen in a given game is assuming a lot on the part of your opponent's actions--things like being surprised by speed changes, not stoping and weaseling to avoid getting killed by a zero energy anchor on i32, and somehow being able to both avoid R8 from the Klingon on T1 *and* catch the Klingon in the corner on T2 (which is physically impossible, unless the Klingon either corner dodges or moves only, like, 15 hexes on T1, either of which is incredibly unlikely)--are things that most folks are unwilling to assume will happen as, based on the current state of SFB game theory, they are really unlikely.
Currently, if you sit down in a Gorn against a Klingon, it is safe to assume that he will move 20-21 hexes on T1; he will agressively take the center of the map to force the Gorn to either pre-emptively launch plasma (in the case of an EPT), turn off, or get shot in the face at R4 or 5 while avoiding getting closer than R3 for the rest of the turn; the Klingon will operate on T2 to avoid an anchor if it seems possible one is coming, including pre-emptively weaseling if necessary.
>>Finally, it is very unlikely that the Klingon will make it to the end to use that "pre-emptive WW", the most likely result is that he will be successfully tractored before that happens. The Klingon is re-arming all that stuff he fired on turn 1, the Gorn is spending energy only on tractors and movement.>>
If the Klingon got a good shot on T1, the Gorn is likely down a few power and maybe his batteries (used for rienforcement possibly). On T2, the Klingon has to pay for:
-Ship 4 -Shuttles 2 -Phasers 3-4 -Batteries 4-5
At worst, the Klingon is moving 24 hexes, possibly boosted by batteries if needed (one thing that has changed since you probably played last is that late turn unplotted speed changes generally cost 1-1 instead of 2-1), and if it turns out that 24-29 hexes of movement is insufficient, then comes the stop and weasel.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:16 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>Because you are arriving at the "edge" of the map center at the end of the turn. You are not going to the exact center hex, you are going to the general center area of the map.>>
Again, if the Klingon is moving 21 hexes on T1 (which is very likely for the Klingon to be doing), the Klingon can go through the center of the map and end on the outer edge of your side of the center of the map. Unless the Gorn has corner dodged and is ending the turn, like, 38-39 hexes from the opposite corner, the Klingon is getting inside of R8, possibly to R5 (which results in a Gorn with a down front sheild and internals, barring a bunch of rienforcement)
>>And, yes, I sometimes use a PPT towards the end of turn 1, but not often, it really isn't needed.>>
A single PPT is unlikely to scare off the Klingon, especially as it means either A) it is a psuedo, so the Klingon is unharmed by it or B) the Klingon phasers it a bit, loses a sheild, and the Gorn is down a heavy torp on the run turn, which is good for the Klingon too. 2 PPTs might result in the Klingon avoiding them. Or it might result in the Klingon calling your bluff.
>>In reality, in a real game, defeating the Klingon is actually quite easy to achieve. By the end of turn 1, in a real life game, I would have you pretty much convinced that I was trying to avoid you...>>
The fully loaded Gorn trying to avoid the Klingon? How are you going to convince someone of this? The only good way is launching an EPT and actually avoiding them. Which isn't really a deception. If there isn't an EPT on the map, no one is ever going to think the Gorn is trying to avoid them.
>>how much tractor energy would you have on turn 2?>>
You don't need tractor energy on T2. You need batteries to avoid a R3 tractor, and you need a weasel to avoid a close range tractor if one becomes inevitable by the end of the turn.
>>But even against someone involved in this conversation,>>
See, that is the thing--the entire competeive SFB community is involved in this discussion (in a metaphoric sense, if not an actual one), which is why the base assumption is that people are more informed about general game play than 15 years ago--everyone is going to consider a pre-emptive weasel against a onrushing, fully loaded Gorn; no one is going to be fooled into thinking a Gorn is trying to avoid them unless it launches an EPT and actually avoids them. Due to disemination of information.
>>the Gorn is still going to win this towards the end of turn 2, it would merely be hard instead of easy.>>
And if that win becomes "hard", it looks like a game that is slighly advantaged for the Gorn (like, say, a 60-40 match up) rather than a "the Klingon has no chance to win at all ever".
-Peter
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:35 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>I am really astonished as to how stupid and incompetant you people think we were. Try to remember that it was the Captain's Edition, and even more the Commander's Edition, players who created this game that you love so much. We really did know what we were doing.>>
PB: "No one is saying anyone is stupid. But a lot of what you seem to be taking for granted as something that will happen in a given game is assuming a lot on the part of your opponent's actions--things like being surprised by speed changes, not stoping and weaseling to avoid getting killed by a zero energy anchor on i32, and somehow being able to both avoid R8 from the Klingon on T1 *and* catch the Klingon in the corner on T2 (which is physically impossible, unless the Klingon either corner dodges or moves only, like, 15 hexes on T1, either of which is incredibly unlikely)--are things that most folks are unwilling to assume will happen as, based on the current state of SFB game theory, they are really unlikely."
I never said anyone was calling me stupid. I said I was astonished by how stupid and inept some of you appear to believe the people who actually made this game were, I am not talking about me, but all of these "players of yesteryear" that some of you seem to have such a low regard for (many of whom, I am fairly certain, would clean your clocks). I have not assumed that I will "surprise" anyone with any speed changes, in fact I have gone out of my way to say that is something that is out of your control but can (and does) happen. As for the pre- emptive WW to avoid the zero energy turn break anchor, nobody had ever done that one so I never really considered it, but then only one person has ever made it to impulse 32, so that tactic was probably around, it's just that one guy didn't do it and I had never considered that as a means of avoiding it. I have already explained what I would do instead now that it is common knowledge as a response to the turn break anchor, so that isn't really a part of this discussion anymore, because I have already altered my tactics in response to this. It is very unlikely that the Klingon will make it too that point anyway. As for this map center thing, you really need to get a map out and start counting hexes. Consider how fast you are moving and the fact that I will merely arrive at the edge of the center area of the map at the end of the turn. Since I have done this to fast moving Klingons on many occasions, I can say with certainty that it can be done.
PB: "Currently, if you sit down in a Gorn against a Klingon, it is safe to assume that he will move 20-21 hexes on T1; he will agressively take the center of the map to force the Gorn to either pre-emptively launch plasma (in the case of an EPT), turn off, or get shot in the face at R4 or 5 while avoiding getting closer than R3 for the rest of the turn; the Klingon will operate on T2 to avoid an anchor if it seems possible one is coming, including pre-emptively weaseling if necessary."
That's pretty much exactly what they did back then too... I wouldn't get too aggressive if I were you, or you might just do exactly what you need to do to die on turn 1. Your pre-emptive WW is going to get you killed if used mid-turn. It will only save you from a few, maybe 4 if the Gorn is really unlucky, phasers. But then you are in big huge trouble because you have given me a single impulse clothesline (your drones can be just 2 hexes behind me and I will be safe from them) and range 0 phaser fire (for the 1 or 2 I have left to shoot after taking out the WW). Don't forget my "Romulan Clothesline"... just one of those anomolies of us enfeebled old-timers, I guess.
>>Finally, it is very unlikely that the Klingon will make it to the end to use that "pre-emptive WW", the most likely result is that he will be successfully tractored before that happens. The Klingon is re-arming all that stuff he fired on turn 1, the Gorn is spending energy only on tractors and movement.>>
PB: "If the Klingon got a good shot on T1, the Gorn is likely down a few power and maybe his batteries (used for rienforcement possibly). On T2, the Klingon has to pay for:
-Ship 4 -Shuttles 2 -Phasers 3-4 -Batteries 4-5"
He won't get a good shot on Turn 1, I have done this many many times and that has simply just never happened... unless he died on turn 1, then he gets a good shot on turn 1. PB: "At worst, the Klingon is moving 24 hexes, possibly boosted by batteries if needed (one thing that has changed since you probably played last is that late turn unplotted speed changes generally cost 1-1 instead of 2-1), and if it turns out that 24-29 hexes of movement is insufficient, then comes the stop and weasel."
I am interested in this 1-1 unploted speed change thing, is this some new rule? I can't think of any tricks that might cause this without a rule change...
You've used way too much energy here and have no hope of winning the tractor auction. Your speed is irrelivant, since the corner will take that away from you... you will run out of room to run. By what you are saying here you are tractored and dead towards the end of turn 2, and never make it to the turn break zero energy anchor (which I wouldn't even go for anymore in this situation).
By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:00 pm: Edit
Quote:
My tactics were always far ahead of their time, it is likely that your beloved "players of today" have merely caught up to the way I was playing 15 years ago.
Wow! Tell me more.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:15 pm: Edit Marc wrote: >>Because you are arriving at the "edge" of the map center at the end of the turn. You are not going to the exact center hex, you are going to the general center area of the map.>>
PB: "Again, if the Klingon is moving 21 hexes on T1 (which is very likely for the Klingon to be doing), the Klingon can go through the center of the map and end on the outer edge of your side of the center of the map. Unless the Gorn has corner dodged and is ending the turn, like, 38-39 hexes from the opposite corner, the Klingon is getting inside of R8, possibly to R5 (which results in a Gorn with a down front sheild and internals, barring a bunch of rienforcement)"
I have been having this discussion all along without any SFB material, it's all deep in my closet in a box. I'll dig out a map tomorrow and explain in detail how this works, I can't do this from 10-year-old memory. All I will say for now is that, having done this on many occasions, I can assure you that it works. Tomorrow night I will have a map out of that box and use hex numbers to explain this in some detail. But it is quite possible to do what I am saying, and I have done it many times against very good players. I just don't want to go find a map at this exact moment, because it probably isn't going to be easy to find:-)
>>And, yes, I sometimes use a PPT towards the end of turn 1, but not often, it really isn't needed.>>
PB: "A single PPT is unlikely to scare off the Klingon, especially as it means either A) it is a psuedo, so the Klingon is unharmed by it or B) the Klingon phasers it a bit, loses a sheild, and the Gorn is down a heavy torp on the run turn, which is good for the Klingon too. 2 PPTs might result in the Klingon avoiding them. Or it might result in the Klingon calling your bluff."
The PPT is actually only intended to influence movement (that doesn't necessarily mean you totally breaking off). That is why I said I only use it in specific circumstances. I was, in fact, the first person to talk about plasma in terms in influencing movement. Many had been doing it instinctively for a long time, but I was the one who first began discussing it as a fundemental aspect of plasma (i.e. launching one, real or PPT, for the sole purpose of influencing movement). So if I do use the PPT, it isn't for the exact purpose that you are assuming. Even if you intend to run through it, it will still influence your movement:-)
>>In reality, in a real game, defeating the Klingon is actually quite easy to achieve. By the end of turn 1, in a real life game, I would have you pretty much convinced that I was trying to avoid you...>>
PB: "The fully loaded Gorn trying to avoid the Klingon? How are you going to convince someone of this? The only good way is launching an EPT and actually avoiding them. Which isn't really a deception. If there isn't an EPT on the map, no one is ever going to think the Gorn is trying to avoid them.
Yes they do. Psychological warfare is my greatest strength in SFB. I really am quite good at it. You don't need to actually launch any plasma to influence the thoughts of your oponnent, that can be achieved through movement alone. You can provide the enemy with many clues all leading to the same conclusion... a wrong conclusion, without ever firing a shot. I would also mention at this point that Klingon is my third favorite race after Romulan/Gorn, I am actually a very good Klingon, which helps a lot in all of this. I actually play most races (the old ones, never even seen any of these "Omega" races), so I have a pretty good understanding of how any enemy is thinking... especially Klingons:-)
>>how much tractor energy would you have on turn 2?>>
PB: "You don't need tractor energy on T2. You need batteries to avoid a R3 tractor, and you need a weasel to avoid a close range tractor if one becomes inevitable by the end of the turn."
Then you are most definately dead, because I am going to get a range 1 tractor attempt towards the end of turn 2. I will have a surprising amount of tractor energy, and full batteries.
>>But even against someone involved in this conversation,>>
PB: "See, that is the thing--the entire competeive SFB community is involved in this discussion (in a metaphoric sense, if not an actual one), which is why the base assumption is that people are more informed about general game play than 15 years ago--everyone is going to consider a pre-emptive weasel against a onrushing, fully loaded Gorn; no one is going to be fooled into thinking a Gorn is trying to avoid them unless it launches an EPT and actually avoids them. Due to disemination of information."
Not really. Everyone is not reading this thread. In fact, most SFB players are not. SFB has been online for a very long time, and most of the "competitive" SFB players were there. Very little has changed in that regard, it is actually SFBOL that makes a big difference. SFBOL actually showed up about a year after an extensive conversation I had with SVC. Something like it was a big part of what I was discussing with him, I probably played a role in his acceptance of the concept. I have a far greater understanding of such things than you are aware of.
Pre-emptive WWs were a part of the game when I played. It is using it to avoid that turn break anchor in this specific situation that was a major problem because it left the Gorn at range 1 with the Klingon able to shoot everything on the next imuplse. It is not the same thing mid-turn, it is only going to get you killed mid- turn.
>>the Gorn is still going to win this towards the end of turn 2, it would merely be hard instead of easy.>>
PB: "And if that win becomes "hard", it looks like a game that is slighly advantaged for the Gorn (like, say, a 60-40 match up) rather than a "the Klingon has no chance to win at all ever"."
No, it is only "hard" because I have explained in great detail exactly what I am going to do prior to the game. You try working out in detail what you are going to do, then tell your opponent before the game, and see how hard it is to actually win that game. This is a very easy fight to win. It would be hard against those participating in this discussion if played in the near future. Otherwise, this is a very simple fight to win. Winning the turn 2 tractor auction is the only chance the Klingon has, and with all the energy you are using you are not going to win it. By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:26 pm: Edit Tom Carrol: "Wow! Tell me more."
Haha, Hi Tom. Well... The "Clothesline" I have described in the other thread would be a good example. I was doing that in the late 80's and it was likely still unknown until I described it a few days ago. Another would be that I was playing "finesse plasma" before there was a name for it. I am a great "rules lawyer", probably one of the best at this point since I have spent a lifetime since SFB designing games, but probably on the second rung of the ladder when it comes to "aces" (which is pretty good for a rules lawyer, many are not very good players, I am a pretty "complete package" in that regard). On the other hand, most of what I was doing when I was doing it did not become standard among SFB players until years later.
We actually played once, Tom. Unfortunately Tholian is the one race I have never had an interest in, and never played against, and you made a complete fool of me taking on one of the best SFB players ever while simultaniously fighting a Tholian for the first time ever. I used my usual Gorn TC, and you basically taught me all the tricks a Tholian can use against plasma while totally humiliating me, haha. I've always remembered it because it was the worst loss I have suffered since I was first learning to play the game. It was really embarrassing, but I was happy to see an expert Tholian show me what they could do to a plasma ship. It remains the only time I have ever faced a Tholian, they just were not very popular among people I played with.
I think that was ORIGINS '91, I was the staff guy that was working for John Olsen at TFG at the time.
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:26 pm: Edit And again you fail to explain exactly how you are going to avoid range 8 from a Klingon moving 21-23 hexes on turn 1 and still end the turn anywhere near the center of the board. You just confidently state you will do it. We point out, and Peter even gives hex numbers, that the layout of the board makes that impossible, but you ignore this point.
As you have said, we can argue all we want and not have any effect on anyones opinions. I think you should join SFB Online. I believe Tim Sheehy even offered to pay for it so he could challenge you in a 10 game series of Klingon/Gorn matchups. Once you are online you can match yourself up against other players and see who is right (after youo get back into the swing of things, I saw in your posts that you hadn't played in a while).
Anyone can post to a BBS and say I know it works because it does and you can't stop it. The only true test is combat. Step up to the plate and let's see who is right. Stephen
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:28 pm: Edit Just because you left the game of SFB doesn't mean all the other "old timers" did.
Just because you left the game of SFB doesn't mean that all thought and innovation stopped.
Just because you stopped thinking about SFB doesn't mean that all knowledge of the game was lost.
If anything, I bet you have to catch up to where the game has been taken since you stopped paying attention. Because nobody has forgotten the lessons that got us to today, as you seem to feel.
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:29 pm: Edit Sorry. we obviously were typing at the same time. I will wait with bated breath to see your detailed explanation tomorrow. Stephen
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:41 pm: Edit Gary: I never said any of those things. I am certain that there will be a few new tactics for me to learn. On the other hand, I am just as certain that I have a few to teach... for example, that "clothesline". The only times I have said anything close to what you are saying is when others have attempted to portray us "old- timers" as bumbling morons. I believe there are others here, no, I am certain of it, who can also explain that some of you are going way overboard in how much better you think you are than those who came before you. They (we) were not the bumbling morons some seem to believe they were, in fact the best of them are probably the equals of the best players of today.
Steve M: I can afford to pay for SFBOL. That is not the issue. The issue is my having time to commit to playing SFB again. I will probably have the time in the near-future, but don't at this exact moment.
...which reminds me. Does anyone on this board know how to get a hold of Eric Hyman? We've never met, but I would like to talk too him about something if anyone knows how to get a hold of him. I can give someone my e-mail address to send too him if he would prefer to contact me and not give out his.
This is my last post for tonight. I will find a map sometime tomorrow so I can explain how to avoid range 8 while winding up in position to make it too the corner on turn 2.
By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:55 pm: Edit Marc M and Tom C. Could you play this match out? I defer to you both to show the fallacy/ strengths of the varied positions taken in this discussion.
Mike not an Ace, just an ole time SFB fan.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:32 am: Edit >>As for the pre-emptive WW, nobody has ever done that before, and it seems that it is only coming up because you know exactly what I am doing.>>
>>That pre-emptive WW, which was not something that people would have done in my day,>>
>>Pre-emptive WWs were a part of the game when I played.>>
I'm confused.
Also, no quote handy because I'm too lazy to search again, but you basically said that even if someone charges straight through a plasma it has influenced their movement. If they ignored it and continued moving where they wanted to move, how did it influence them?
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:52 am: Edit Tim just called me. It's 11:00 here and I have to get up at 5:30, but I skimmed what you had to say (will read more later)
1. Players today are better than players "of old". It's a smaller group, but the group is at an overall higher skill level and the top of the top is as good as it's ever been. I was playing back then (and Tom was playing before that) and I am playing now. You are just wrong about your ideas of the "glory days."
2. I can't help but notice you turned down Tim's offer to pay for SFBOL. This is not suprising. Most people with nothing for tactics or crazy ideas turn down that offer. I have made it before in a similar situation and somehow their cat has died, or they just don't have time or some other lame excuse for why they cannot possibly afford 3-4 hours in the next few months to prove their points.
Anyway, more tomorrow.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 02:01 am: Edit Just for humour value...
Here was the conversation...
Tim calls at 1:45am his time, 10:45pm Pauls... Paul: Good god...you must be drunk as 'ell to call this late Tim: Ummmmmm Paul: What's up Tim: Hey...take a look and respond on the tactics thread Paul: Ummmm.....Gimme a sec.....gimme the gist of whats up Tim: Man, it's so bad, even Tom is cracking wise Paul: Ok...skimmed through, typing a response...you do know it's late late as 'ell here right? Tim: Boo the heck hoo. Oh, hey, Steve wants some article thingy from you...can I tell him you are totally blowing him off? Paul: I absolutely forbid you to say anything like that Tim: What...you're breaking up....muhahaha
That about sums it up
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:48 am: Edit All this history had me thinking about my first big Orgins convention 91 at Baltimore.
I drove up to Baltimore inner harbor w/ a friend from Richmond that year(He was an Andro + ISC player).Innerharbor is an awesome venue to have a convention I have been to 5 or 6 Orgins and that was the best for me , maybe because you see all those people and faces you hear about (Genie BBS --wow thats old . D$D was huge that year-- and Magic the gathering was not even a thought-- well Alpha and Beta were still in there infancy. Anyway--- the best part of going to a Orgins is watching games (albeit quietly-- and just observing). I agree that players are better today than back then --because the game has evolved in a Metagame sort of sense to use a term from MTG. However players definitely carried a swagger and bravado back then. If I remember the Gorn was the hot ship that year. SFB online has been a laboratory for good tactics to be tested and incubated upon. Like PS's G1G1 ect.. Anyway back to 91' Orgins
Here are some names I remember.
Quinten Cantrell and Paul Kramer...... These two SFB'ers drove 19 hours from Houston Tx -- just to play SFB. At the time I commented to my friend that those guys are insanely dedicated for "just a game" to make such a drive. Cantrell was a Klingon student to Kramer's mentorship. These guys had all sorts of kooky tactics -- like the premeptive WW, the anti-corner dodge, the spine tinger(getting to an opponents down shield along a shield spine) and others. Cantrell was a cool guy-- but Kramer seemed a bit arrogant and stand offish to the masses lol. These guys knew there stuff from Tx. Ole'Man...... Before the game I played against him -- I thought , wow he was last years National Champion!!! I have no chance to beat him. His only game in Patrol that year and he only played ME!!!! You bugger!!! LMAO. I was totally psyched out in that game.And playd like it too. But after that game -- name players were like --- so what!
Kevin Hillock ...... I never played Kevin at that Orgins but I did watch a number of games he was involved in. He flew the Gorn He was brutally efficient sort of player. Took your best shot and still killed you!!! His tactics were similar to todays evolution in the game.
Ron Spitzer ...... I was slightly physched out before the game-- dang it! I played Ron in the semi finals of Patrol that year as he flew the later banned Stinger O'(his other package was 4ph1's and a HB) vs my Lyran. He flew the Orion that year w/ a bet from J Hammer to get to Range 0 in every game he played. He told me later that he was successfull in all games in his bet w/ Hammer. He was a supremely comfident player, flew his ship kamakizee style. He was an awesome player. I remember talking w/ a dude named Casey Charles( He told me "Fast Lyrans are winning Lyrans" -- but I had been flying that way the whole time at Orgins that year!!! Hehe... anyway before the game Casey told me about Spitzers Orion antics --- like tractoring gorns and slamming them into the tournament barriers-- and holding fire vs a FED at range 4 lol w/ 20+ reinforcement up. Spitzer was Mr HET man!! like 4 of them in our game. The game was close -- I lost due to not being able to HET at 31 DOH!!! and marking off 2 shuttles on the same side on my double bay layout(never knew that rule at the time) -- he would have taken another 18 interals ouch!! May have made a difference-- but likely not.He was just too good. Great experiecence --even in losing to Ron. My ex-wife who sat with me during the game commented that he was a really nice guy from who knew he was going to win against me ---even before the game began!!
Big Ed Sluzarek ...... Poor Ed -- dang-- marking tons of reinforcement on the wrong shield to Paella in the finals that year. After the previous turn of not being able to TAC on impulse 1 of a turn --- double ouch. Ed was and is a high character guy( He is now playing competitive Poker now) Ed is reknown for his impeccable honesty---sometimes brutally so LOL He was not afraid to say what he felt or what he meant! If he thought you were a fool or an idiot he told you this too your face! And At 6'6 who was going to argue w/ him
Chris Mazza ...... a super nice guy. A bit of a wild man at times He flew a Rom that year -- He him me with 3 SS's( he started the game w/ O SS's) in 32 impluses. I was so shocked at this I had to call a judge to confirm. I only narrowly defeated him because he didn't have the power to cloak out on the difinitive reload turn after our caveman slugfest. And yes he was rocking in his seat(even back then) and laughed almost uncontrollably at moments during our game. A real chararacter.
Anyway these are a few of the guys at that were at Orgins 91'. My memories are still vivid-- because I had a blast!!!! This is why I still love the game---- The people who play. The game is not about winning or losing, getting an ACE card or even getting a curious HAT! . Well maybe it is a little LOL!! It is about learning and refining our craft. The RPS will always evolve. Honor and intergrity will always be rooted in SFB as well. This is what keeps me playing and coming back for more after getting periodically burned out sometimes. Well on the Maze in the
Lyrans
Sleepless in Seattle
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 07:43 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>As for this map center thing, you really need to get a map out and start counting hexes. Consider how fast you are moving and the fact that I will merely arrive at the edge of the center area of the map at the end of the turn.>>
Uhh, I did get out a map, counted hexes, and even posted hex numbers. The Klingon, moving 21 hexes, will get on the Gorn's side of the map on T1 if the Gorn does nothing to dissuade it. The Gorn can only avoid R8 if it ends the turn about 38 hexes from the opposite corner of the map. If the Gorn starts T2 38 hexes from the corner of the map, it will never catch the Klingon, as it can only move 31 hexes on T2 (and this is only if it holds G torps instead of S torps and only has 1 suicide shuttle).
>>I am interested in this 1-1 unploted speed change thing, is this some new rule? I can't think of any tricks that might cause this without a rule change...>>
It was simply a re-assemsment of what "or no more than if you moved that speed till the end of the turn" meant in the unlplotted speed change rules a few years back.
>>You've used way too much energy here and have no hope of winning the tractor auction.>> There isn't going to be an auction. By looking at the map and relative speeds, the Klingon can say "Huh. I'm going to get cornered and killed soon...", at which point it decels or hits the wall by the time the Gorn gets to R3 and launches a weasel.
>>Your speed is irrelivant, since the corner will take that away from you... you will run out of room to run.>>
Yes, you will. So you stop and weasel.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 08:29 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>Not really. Everyone is not reading this thread.>>
You'll notice I wrote "metaphorically, if not actually". But even then, yeah, most people who play SFB competetively do read this thread. 'Cause that is how tournament SFB works these days. The field of tournament players is smaller than it used to be, yes, for various reasons. But the people who show up to big (or small) conventions, generally speaking, are pretty educated about the game, due to reading things like this thread and the very detailed Victory at Articles in the last 10 Captain's Logs.
Of the 40-50 people who show up at Origins these days, they all pretty much are up to speed with the cutting edge of tactical discussion.
>>I have a far greater understanding of such things than you are aware of.>>
Yet you seem to refuse to accept that the average player just knows more than they used to. Which they do. You are very unlikely to sit down against an opponent who is going to make egregious errors these days. You are unlikely to sit down against someone who is going to end up getting anchored on T1 these days. You are unlikely to sit down against an opponent who is going to not pre- emptively stop and weasel when it becomes apparent that they are otherwise going to be cornered and anchored/mugged in a few impulses. 'Cause the average level of game understanding is much higher than it used to be. Probably 'cause fewer people play, and those that do are more focused on the game, and have access to discussions like this. And SFBOL games with the best players in the world.
-Peter
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 08:31 am: Edit Heh. Trying to bite my lip and not comment any more, but I'm reading it.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 08:35 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>Then you are most definately dead, because I am going to get a range 1 tractor attempt towards the end of turn 2. I will have a surprising amount of tractor energy, and full batteries.>>
Ok. So you:
-Avoided R8 on T1. -Moved fast enough to cover the 38 hexes necessary to corner the Klingon on T2 (heck, you only have to cover 35 hexes if you ended T1 at R5). -And have a surprising amount of tractor energy?
The Gorn has 38 power.
Use 4 to turn on the ship. Use 4 to hold the 2 S torps.
That leaves 30 power (not even 31). If you have a couple shuttles armed, that is 28 power. You could hold the S torps as G torps, hold 1 shuttle, and move 31 hexes. But then you have only 5 batteries to try and tractor should the situation present itself *and* upgrade the G torps to S torps.
You are correct. That *is* a surprising amount of tractor energy...
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 09:32 am: Edit I'm with Ken. However if I continue to bite my tongue much longer I may just pass out from blood loss
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 09:44 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>That's pretty much exactly what they did back then too... I wouldn't get too aggressive if I were you, or you might just do exactly what you need to do to die on turn 1.>>
How? If the Klingon shoots at R4 or 5 on the oblique (i.e. Klingon facing C, Gorn facing A) and then turns off after the shot and moves fast for the rest of the turn (again, a very generic opening plot for a Klingon is, like, 15 till 16/21 till 24/26 till the end of the turn which becomes 30 till the end of the turn on 1 battery if necessary). There is nothing at all the Gorn can do to force range 1 if the Klingon turns off. Which the Klingon will do to avoid getting anchored.
If you factor in the Gorn corner dodging or trying to avoid R8 or whatever, the Klingon is simply not getting caught on T1 in any situation if it wants to avoid getting caught.
>>Your pre-emptive WW is going to get you killed if used mid-turn. It will only save you from a few, maybe 4 if the Gorn is really unlucky, phasers.>>
The pre-emptive weasel comes out when necessary. Assuming the Gorn didn't end the turn outside of R8 (as that puts you ~38 hexes from the other corner of the map), the Gorn needs to move about 26-28 hexes to catch the Klingon, who sees that this is what is likely to happen. So the Klingon plots the speed necessary to delay R1 as long as possible, and then when R1-3 becomes inevitable, it stops and weasles. Likely at the end of the turn.
>>But then you are in big huge trouble because you have given me a single impulse clothesline (your drones can be just 2 hexes behind me and I will be safe from them) and range 0 phaser fire (for the 1 or 2 I have left to shoot after taking out the WW).>>
Like, I understand what you are talking about with the "clothesline" reference, but I don't understand how the "I tractor you and then let you go right before you don't move so I can hit you with my plasma and still run from drones" is a "clothesline". But neither here nor there.
In any case, still, the Gorn isn't getting close till the end of the turn, at which point the Klingon is gonna stop and weasel (as otherwise, it is going to die).
-Peter
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:07 am: Edit The more I read this thread the more amazed I am by the concept of what "was" and what "is"...
Quote:
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:33 am ... Yeah, I know. Yet still, people with access to this discussion were few and far between. In 1985, in a feild of 200 tournament players, 15 of them might have had access to the online discussion. In 2005, of a feild of 50 tournament players, likely all of them had access to online discussion. ... Quote:
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:51 am ... Actually, out of 256 players in the tournament back then, probably about 200 or more of them had access to that information. Those were the people who went to Origins. ...
Quote:
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:15 pm ... Not really. Everyone is not reading this thread. In fact, most SFB players are not. ...
So more people were following the on-line discussions about SFB, and so were better informed about tactics, in 1985 than in 2006?
The difference in information access in those two periods is absolutely staggering.
And EVERYBODY that is planning on playing at Origins that expects to be competetive (vs. just having fun playing SFB) is reading this forum.
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:50 pm: Edit Ok, new question.
I've spent the last 3 days reading this forum completely and with so much emphasis on Gorn/Rom talks over the past 3 years I still haven't seen a good discussion on how to beat these BP ships.
For example, I play Kzinti, how do I go about beating a Romulan who will launch an EPT from R13 then turn away and repeat, cloaking when necessary? -Dave
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:56 pm: Edit Dave wrote: >>For example, I play Kzinti, how do I go about beating a Romulan who will launch an EPT from R13 then turn away and repeat, cloaking when necessary? >>
Marshal your drones. Go fast. Shoot standard disruptors a lot. Look for a spot to overrun/corner when he is low on plasma. When he cloaks, do a good job of subhunting him (i.e. orbit around him with a 9/4/9 speed plot, overloads, and tractor. If he doesn't uncloak, blast him and degrade his sheilds. If he does, try and tractor him and do more damage to him then he does to you).
-Peter
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:41 pm: Edit Peter, cornering a Rom when he forces you to outrun an EPT every turn isn't that easy. Let me show you what goes through my mind in a typical game.
Turn 1: I assume that the Romulan will plot high/low speed to launch EPT as early as possible, then veer off and slow down a bit, he will try to maneuver in a way to give me R8 if I eat the EPT at full strength. Therefore I plan to fire 4x std disr and 4x p1 after he turns, because if I do it before he turns he will just keep coming at me with 70 pts of plasma. So, I fire and do about 12 dmg on his #5, then outrun the EPT. Usually I launch 3x IM on I1.32.
Turn 2: We start the turn roughly 25 hexes apart with me having a 44 pt EPT a few hexes behind me. Again I assume the Rom will plot slow/fast with an EPT armed. However, I am not facing the Rom, so I know the engagement will happen late in the turn. This time I plan on eating the EPT quickly to stay on the Rom's tail and chase him; therefore I plot a low/high speed plot. Power: 4 HK, 12 OL Disr, 1 Trac, 1 WW, 20 for move (say 15/30).
Early in the turn I eat the T1 EPT for 30 while turning towards the Rom. He gains the center of the map again, launches an EPT then veers off.
Best scenario: I pursue, eat the EPT, get R8 and fire on his #3 or #4, doing about 25 dmg. We end the turn at R7 or R6, and I probably have a F coming at me.
The impulse I fire is very important, and often it happens after 25 unfortunately, due to the great distance between him and I at the start of the turn. Turn 3: I have 15 dmg on all my shields, he maybe has a down shield. Rom plots fast for 1-4, then very slow on I3.5 when he is fully cloaked. On I3.1 he announces cloaking, I fire 4 OLs and 4 p-1, downing another shield usually the #3 or #4 again. If I hold my fire I will maybe get a R0 shot on his weak shield, but because of speeds and maneuvering it isn't easy to do, plus I have an F from late turn 2 to deal with.
From then on I can sub hunt, but he has all 3 forward shields at full strength for when he decloaks, so what do I do then?
Note that the above is just an example of what I imagine the Romulan to be trying to do.
-Dave
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 02:39 pm: Edit David wrote: >>Peter, cornering a Rom when he forces you to outrun an EPT every turn isn't that easy. Let me show you what goes through my mind in a typical game.>>
Yeah, that looks like a fairly typical approach, but really, you gotta plan on a longer game. You are going to need to run through an enveloper eventually, but you are better off biding your time and sniping with disruptors, and choosing your moment, which is likely going to be later than T3.
Like, you should be spending most of the game moving 24-25 hexes with standards armed and holding a weasel or two. Only launch drones if you think you are going to need a bunch on the board at once (i.e. if it looks like the Romulan is planning on going to try and corner you). The Kzinti can cause a lot of damage at range 1 with nothing but drones, phasers, and a single overload off batteries, so the Romulan can't usually afford to just run after you if he has been cycling envelopers.
Likely games like this I have playd usually go like this:
T1: High speeds and standards. Rom launches enveloper at 13 and turns off. I get as close as I can, do some sheild damage and turn off.
T2: High speed and standards. Outrun the enveloper, come around, and make him launch the second one as early as possible. Do more sheild damage with standards. Run more.
T3: Outrun enveloper as much as possible. You are probably taking some sheild damage from run/shot envelopers, but not much more than you are doing with disruptors. Chase Romulan down, probably not arming the disruptors to go, like, 28-31 all turn. Push him into a corner. You'll probably have to eat an F or two on flank sheilds. If you corner him, you can do a bunch internals with 4P1/4P1/1OL and not take much as you are launching 4 fast drones when you get there which he has to shoot down. He could always stop and weasel to avoid getting caught, but then he is stopped which is the start of the sub hunt game. But if you don't catch him...
T4: Standards and high speed. Maybe a couple OLs if you are close. Shoot and run from the new enveloper--you probably have a lot of room at this point.
T5+ Rinse and repeat.
Eventually, you'll end up forcing the Romulan to cloak on a down turn and then comes the sub hunt, which isn't that bad of a trade for the Kzinti often. Yeah, eventually he'll come out of cloak and hit you with a bunch of plasma, but you might be able to tractor him, or you might be able to swap a lot of damage with him at R1 (4OL/4P1/4P3/heavy drones vs a lot of plasma). And if you both end up crippled, the Kzinti wins, as the Kzinti is the best crippled ship in the game.
It isn't an easy fight, but it is doable. It just takes patience and a lot of high speed.
-Peter
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 02:55 pm: Edit I see, go for the long game. I was just hoping there was a way to avoid that against the Rom. My friend likes to play the TKE and we often stop after 10+ turns of nothing but shield damage on each side.
Would you fire the 4 p-1 along with the disr every turn?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:30 pm: Edit David wrote: >>I see, go for the long game. I was just hoping there was a way to avoid that against the Rom. My friend likes to play the TKE and we often stop after 10+ turns of nothing but shield damage on each side.>>
The TKE is actually kinda hard for the Kzinti, as it can move fast when cloaked, making the subhunt phase difficult. But in any case, yeah, like, you are going to have to crash through some torps and be a man at some point, but it isn't a good idea to do that too early. Basically, where the lunge comes in is T3, when he is down his heavy torps and you just plot super high speed, eat some of an enveloper, an F, and try and run him down (on T3, you can plot 4 for the ship, 2 for weasels, a point in tractor or something, and then 31 moves--if you get to R1, you can still put a big hole in the Romulan and take little to no phaser damage as he has to shoot down the fast drones you launch when you get there). A lot of folks are huge proponents of overloads on T1 (2 or 3), but generally, I find that standards are ok--if they launch an EPT and turn off, you still get to do some damage, and if they charge, the 4stds/4P1 at R4 or so is still going to make a sizeable dent in a forward sheild, and the extra speed means you get to avoid getting killed. On T2, standards are the way to go (assuming a 1st turn EPT and peel off) again, and on T3, leave the disruptors empty--again, if you can get to R1, you still put a pretty good hole in him (almost 50 damage from 4P1/4P3/1OL) and he still has to deal with the 4 fast, possibly heavy drones you launch when you get there. It is likely, of course, that when it seems like this is going to happen, he'll stop and weasel, but then that makes T4 much easier to plot (i.e. he is going to cloak, so you can plot a 9/4/9 plot to weasel the enveloper).
>>Would you fire the 4 p-1 along with the disr every turn?>>
Nah. The payoff isn't big enough. You'll probably have to use P3s on envelopers occasionally, sapping your phaser reserves, and you want to keep your speed up, so you are generally better off not. Like, you could just fire the phasers instead of the disruptors (same power/damage ratio), but in the long run, some standards, saving the phasers, and going fast is likely the way to go, at least for the early part of the game.
Like again, it isn't an easy game, but it isn't impossible.
-Peter
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:38 pm: Edit After a more thorough review of Marc's posts here are what I view as the central flaws.
1. The Klingon does not do enough damage to ...
Not close to true. I completely understand the perspective coming from an old style of Klingon that involved "finesse" play, but the Klingon Damage output at ranges 4 and in is huge. I completely agree that it is not enough to overcome a 100 point anchor, but that is true of almost every ship (the now illegal g1g1 WAX being an exception, though probably any "non-stupid" WAX configuration would be happy to an even fully loaded plasma ship anchor it).
These days, you should be prepared to deal with Klingon volleys of apx. 50 point from range 4 in (plus a subsequent small volley after the Klink turns off if you got lazy).
Since the anchor is certainly not happening T1, you will be looking at 2 such Volleys, at a minimum, before you land the 100 (if that, in fact, happens). In short, I think underestimating the damage output of the Klink is the most significant error in judgement presented.
2. "speed 20 drones are meaningless"
This is almost as significant an error as the first. The drones are most certainly significant. Speed 20 drones are absolutely fast enough to create a minimum 3-4 hex seperation (or substantial phaser/tractor use) when the Klink is not vectored 180 of the chasing Gorn.
This is especially true since in Marc's presentations he states he does not need to launch plasma (maybe one PPT). More on that later, but with no plasma (or one 30-point torp) on the map, even if I have fired and "turned off", I certainly won't be running - I'll be circling.
3. Covered well enough by many, but - "I'll be in the middle[ish] of the map and the Klink won't see range 8.
Well, others have covered this already, so I won't add more than - "this is impossible." You are either 1. in a corner, 2. have put substantial plasma on the map (bascially an EPT) or 3. I have fired at you at Range 4. No other condition is possible, but I look forward to your explanation of how all three of those things are false.
4. Somehow, you think the Klink needs to be running in fear.
Nothing could be more wrong (well, except those first three things I listed). I am not clear why you think an overrun is something about which the Klink needs to worry. On the first pass, assuming substantial plasma has not been launched at range, my only concern is that I will reach range 4, do good damage but fail to hti a torp and the Gorn will put together some bolt-het-bolt and get lucky.
I know for certain I will not be turning off until I get Range 4. Even then, I will not be turning to run, but turning to circle. Without substantial plasma on the board a (non-lucky) Gorn just does not scare me outside Range 2. If I have caused the Gorn to use up some resources (phasers and/or tractors) with Drones, there is a good chance even Ranges 0-2 might look attractive.
Overall, I think this matchup is pretty close to 50-50. The Klink is a very good ship, but one that got little play or respect back in the time Marc played. Tactics have simply changed too much since then to make most of what Marc is talking about still viable.
P.S. - SPP/SVC - I have set it down for a while now, but I picked up my article again this morning. I hate turning in poor work, which is what has prevented me from giving it to you so far. It is just not on the same level as my prior VA articles. I saw the needed deadline of May 1 and will strive to achieve that deadline. You will have something by then one way or the other, I just want what I give you to be as good as I can make it and I am afraid I have failed in that regard at this point.
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:38 pm: Edit Ok, I like these ideas, to counter the ballet; but what happens when the TKE launches an R (not envelopping) and follows it in?
My usual tactic here is to hit his #1 with 2 OLs + 2 Std and 4 p-1 at R8 then run away, but then I end up facing a map hedge with an R and a TKE behind me, a situation I do not like at all.
-Dave
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:56 pm: Edit >>I have a far greater understanding of such things than you are aware of.>>
PB: "Yet you seem to refuse to accept that the average player just knows more than they used to. Which they do. You are very unlikely to sit down against an opponent who is going to make egregious errors these days. You are unlikely to sit down against someone who is going to end up getting anchored on T1 these days. You are unlikely to sit down against an opponent who is going to not pre- emptively stop and weasel when it becomes apparent that they are otherwise going to be cornered and anchored/mugged in a few impulses. 'Cause the average level of game understanding is much higher than it used to be. Probably 'cause fewer people play, and those that do are more focused on the game, and have access to discussions like this. And SFBOL games with the best players in the world."
You have completely taken this out of context. I was, in fact, alluding to the fact that I understand the impact SFBOL has had, because I was advodcating something much like SFBOL long before it existed. I was vague about it, and still am, because it is not a subject that I am able to discuss in detail. That statement has nothing to do with the quality of players of any time period.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:57 pm: Edit Peter Wrote: "T1: High speeds and standards. Rom launches enveloper at 13 and turns off. I get as close as I can, do some sheild damage and turn off."
FWIW, I think this is a dream scenario for the Kz. I would never turn off from a Kz at range 13. I probably would not even launch the EPT that soon (drones could change that - a Kz committing 10 drones would probably get me to burn an EPT just to kill the drones). The Kz., even with 4 OLDS, just does not do sufficient damage at ranges 6+ to justify concern. I think a much more probable scenario is a range 10ish launch, followed by "max slip away." This give the Kz range 8 if he really wants it, but also makes that first EPT a much bigger threat. It also hastens the drone cycle, as a Kz is unlikely to just hold drones with the Rom that close.
If the Kz armed (very likely) 4 STDs, the likely damage at range 8 is half a shield. If he armed 3-4 OLDs - well, you will have a good guess about that before you get too close and can consider a slightly (R12 + max slip) launch. Even giving up R8 to a 4OLD Kz is not going to see internals.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:58 pm: Edit Well… I didn’t find a map, but did find my battle book with a mini map in it. You guys are obviously correct, there is no way of avoiding range 8 against a charging Klingon and still be near the map center at the end of the turn. Like I had said, I haven’t played in 10 years and don’t remember a lot of details. For example, I was remembering the width of the map as being 42 hexes so it seemed easy from that perspective to arrange that when you brought it up, but it is actually only 30 hexes wide which makes that impossible. However, once I was actually looking at a map again I began to remember some other things, especially a single game, the last game of SFB that I ever played, which was this Gorn/Klingon matchup against one of the regulars at my own tournament.
In that game he did exactly what you are talking about, and I avoided range 8 toward the right with him ending the turn in the vicinity of hex 2117. I can’t remember what happened in between, unfortunately, but I do remember that I wound up clotheslining him in the vicinity of hex 1508 towards the mid-end of turn 2 with his speed 20 drones only 3 or 4 hexes behind me. Just looking at the map and EA forms and SSDs from that game that are still in the battle book brought back a lot of memories, actually, but not enough to remember exactly what happened in that game other than what I just mentioned. One thing that did come to mind is that I think I used to begin the game on PFC, I saved no energy because it would have been allocated but inactive, but it served many purposes including adding to the deception that I am going to play a finesse game… but then again if PFC was not allowed in the tournament (I don’t remember) that memory is probably based on the fact that I spent a lot of time on PFC with plasma ships.
Someone had mentioned using an EPT against this Klingon charge. I know with certainty that I did not do that back then, but it is a very good counter. It would also be the final convincing factor that I do intend to stay away from the Klingon, and give me the map center at the end of turn 2 at the same time. This was never necessary because this charge to my side of the map center was very rare in my day, it probably only happened once or twice out of the times that I did this, so I preferred to hold the Ss. But if this charge is going to be what they do most of the time, I think I like this EPT idea a lot. It also provides two more energy for tractors on turn 2, because I would not rearm it and would take that S launcher as damage if a torp was hit. The three remaining torps, with range 0 or 1 phasers, is still easily enough to end the game. It appears to be the best response if they are always going to charge to my side of the center… but I really need to remember exactly what I used to do about this, because that worked too, whatever it was. I’m sure that will come back too me fully once I start playing again, I already remember the general idea, just not the specifics.
I have in the past dealt with this charge to the center by a Klingon, and still always won this particular matchup, and think I know generally how I do that, but not enough to discuss it effectively, and if I am going to start playing again and taking this challenge again, I have already revealed enough of how I do it to make the job twice as hard as it actually should be. So I would rather just wait a while, get back into shape playing, and start proving it on the map instead of participating in an endless discussion that is skewed by both sides proposing counters after knowing exactly what the enemy is doing, which really has little relation to the reality of an actual game where the enemy does not know with certainty and in detail exactly what you are about to do.
This is what I have alluded too several times, discussing these kinds of things gets you nowhere, and the discussion itself is flawed because one side or the other is always presenting a plan based on knowing with certainty what the enemy is going to do before he does it. There is also the fact that this matchup is always a very different game, I have never been saying that this is one thing that you can do that the Klingon can do nothing about, you always have to tailor the broad concept to fit the specific circumstances created by the enemy. All I have been saying is that, one way or another, the Klingon has lost this game before the end of turn 2 every single time, and that is true. So all I can really say is that I really have done this many times, it was a challenge I regularly offered, and in about a dozen or so games the Klingon honestly hasn’t ever made it past turn 2. But I am actually interested in playing SFB again, so I will get onto SFBOL sometime during the next few weeks and start re-learning the procedural stuff that would currently get me killed. Then, 2 or 3 months from now when I am actually capable of playing SFB again, I will start taking on Klingons with the Gorn and we’ll see if I can maintain my undefeated record in this particular matchup. As I said before, I always did enjoy proving this to people who insisted it wasn’t possible:-)
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:59 pm: Edit Paul, what do you think the Kzinti should do against the Romulan then?
-Dave
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:03 pm: Edit Paul: I understand most of what you are saying, although speed 20 drones are certainly no threat in this scenario. They are easy to get around and won't catch me from behind even when I tactor the Klingon. I would be particularly interested in trying this against you since everyone seems to agree that you are the current king. I was never one of the very top players, just a very good one, and the fact that I could beat players that I knew were much better than me in this particualar matchup was always one of the things that most convinced me of how outmatched the Klingon is in this fight.
If you read more carefully you'll see that I hadn't refused to go onto SFBOL, I had only said that I can't do that immediately and even after I do I will need quite some time to re-learn simple procedural things that would currently get me killed.
Maybe you guys are right. Maybe SFBOL has had such a huge impact that tactics have changed drastically and I won't be able to do this any more. But I doubt that this matchup has changed THAT much. We'll find out in a few months once I am capable of doing this again.
I also think it likely that the quality of players has not actually vastly improved, it has only marginally improved at best, and that the real effect you are seeing is that only the really hard-core people still participate in tournaments or this BBS. Since you have been around all along, you would be a good judge of that. Try to forget your current engrained "groupthink" opinion and consider wether or not the 50 players you say currently attend origina are actually all that much better than the top, very best, 50 players that were present when the even was much larger. Is there still this huge disparity between them? You would be a far better judge of that that I since you have been around continuously, but my experience with games gaming communities in general would lead me to suspect that this is, in fact, the case.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:09 pm: Edit >>As for the pre-emptive WW, nobody has ever done that before, and it seems that it is only coming up because you know exactly what I am doing.>>
>>That pre-emptive WW, which was not something that people would have done in my day,>>
>>Pre-emptive WWs were a part of the game when I played.>>
"I'm confused.
Also, no quote handy because I'm too lazy to search again, but you basically said that even if someone charges straight through a plasma it has influenced their movement. If they ignored it and continued moving where they wanted to move, how did it influence them?"
You are taking these qoutes way out of context. Go re-read more carefully where you took them from and it will make sense too you. I won't waste any more time on qoutes taken wildly out of context in order to manufature a point.
On the last point, you are correct that if they totally ignore it then it has had no effect, but often you can force a sideslip because they want it to hit a side shield instead of the front shield, and in certain circumstances that can be worth the PPT.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit Dave wrote:
"Paul, what do you think the Kzinti should do against the Romulan then?"
I generally agree with Peter that it is a long game and you need to be in the mindset from the start. There are just a few details I do not agree with.
1. T1 I would arm - at a minimum - 2+2. More likely 3+0. If the Rom gives me range 8 (likely if it is a Rom you need to worry about) I want to hurt him. Giving up the 6-9 points I should expect from the STDs is worth that exchange.
After T1, it is a game of reaction, so maping it is impossible. That said, I do not agree with the premise of slowly building up damage. I think when you hit, you hit hard (or as hard as a Kz can ;) ). I would mix up turns of no disruptors armed and turns of 3 OLDs armed. Looking at all times towards positioning.
2. EPTs - as a plasma ship, the thing I most like to see is my EPT land for 30. It did a lot of damage AND it chased the opponent away. If you are running froma torp, make •••• sure it does not itself hit you for substantial damage (10 - phasers or better yet 2 or 0. If the Rom pulled off (unlikely) then a 20 - phasers can be fine).
3. Drone use. Don't use them very often, but don't not use then either. The purpose of the drones *most* of the time is to drain teh Rom of power. It's a tell sometimes, so you need to mix it up, but basically while the Rom is chasing make him face 4-8 drones and make the following turn the turn you try and land some damage on him.
4. Once you have hit a couple shields, then your STDs can become a threat. There will come a time when you need to shift to generally arming 3-4 STDs. This time is right around the time when one or two shields have been reduced to no more than 10 boxes.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:26 pm: Edit OK, I'm going to step outside of the current discussion for a moment and simply say this: If you have the opportunity Marc, do yourself a favor and get thineself an SFBOL account ASAP. It's real-time play against a fine group of players. It's one of the best things to ever happen to SFB. You will be welcomed by all there and it will certainly renew your love for the game. Judging by the amount of time you put into your posts, you seem to have rekindled your interest already. While the SFB community isn't quite as large as it once was, it's extremely close-knit (as you've probably noticed) and we're always looking for new, or even old players.
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Edit I agree with your ideas Paul, but arming OLs as the Kzinti on turn 1 will really bite when the Romulan does not give you R8, and from what I've read on these boards that is the standard practice.
Arming 4 stds gives you flexibility, if you get R8 then you can shoot 2 OLs, 2 stds and 4 p1 for about 20 dmg, not insignificant if the Kzinti is outrunning the EPT for 24 impulses.
After this if the Romulan pursues you lob 4xIM on I1.32 and 4xIF on I2.8, and plot high speed for the whole turn I guess... although if the Romulan chases me then at least it's a game. The plasma ballet is what I have trouble with.
-Dave
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:31 pm: Edit MG: "OK, I'm going to step outside of the current discussion for a moment and simply say this:
If you have the opportunity Marc, do yourself a favor and get thineself an SFBOL account ASAP. It's real-time play against a fine group of players. It's one of the best things to ever happen to SFB. You will be welcomed by all there and it will certainly renew your love for the game. Judging by the amount of time you put into your posts, you seem to have rekindled your interest already. While the SFB community isn't quite as large as it once was, it's extremely close-knit (as you've probably noticed) and we're always looking for new, or even old players."
As I said in a previous post, I plan too. The problem at this exact moment is time. I am currently starting a new game company (hey, you'll all be invited as playtesters... a couple years from now:-) and will be too busy to start playing SFB for at least the next few weeks. So in a few weeks I will get onto SFBOL and start losing and remembering for a while until I get back to the point that I can actually execute a game of SFB.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:38 pm: Edit Paul wrote: >>FWIW, I think this is a dream scenario for the Kz. I would never turn off from a Kz at range 13.>>
Oh, sure. Like, a R10 launch is much more likely to happen, but R13 is what David presented.
>> I probably would not even launch the EPT that soon (drones could change that - a Kz committing 10 drones would probably get me to burn an EPT just to kill the drones). The Kz., even with 4 OLDS, just does not do sufficient damage at ranges 6+ to justify concern.>>
Pretty much. Which is why I tend to arm standards on T1 and move faster--if I get a good shot (R4?), I can always OL 2 of them off batteries, and the difference in damage isn't that significant; 40L/4P1 at R4 is, what, like, 32 damage if 2 OLs hit and 40 if 3 hit? The difference isn't *that* much between the 2OL/2Std (especially if the standards miss :-) If I fire at R8, the difference isn't that much (as the phasers are what do most of the damage at R4 anyway)
>>I think a much more probable scenario is a range 10ish launch, followed by "max slip away." This give the Kz range 8 if he really wants it, but also makes that first EPT a much bigger threat. It also hastens the drone cycle, as a Kz is unlikely to just hold drones with the Rom that close.>>
All perfectly likely.
>>If the Kz armed (very likely) 4 STDs, the likely damage at range 8 is half a shield. If he armed 3-4 OLDs - well, you will have a good guess about that before you get too close and can consider a slightly (R12 + max slip) launch. Even giving up R8 to a 4OLD Kz is not going to see internals.>>
The Rom can't know that the Kzinti doesn't have OLs, so there is a bit of a guess to be had there, but if the Rom is willing to give up R8, the differnece between the stds and the OLs isn't, again, gonna be that big--even with 4OLs (1 off battery?), you are not unlikely to only hit with 2 of them, doing about 20 damage with the phasers. If you hit with 3, you still aren't breaking the sheild.
-Peter
By Chad Calder (Calder) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:39 pm: Edit I can't help but notice you turned down Tim's offer to pay for SFBOL. This is not suprising. Most people with nothing for tactics or crazy ideas turn down that offer. I have made it before in a similar situation and somehow their cat has died, or they just don't have time or some other lame excuse for why they cannot possibly afford 3-4 hours in the next few months to prove their points. [Sarcasm Mode On] You mean that all I have to do to get a free SFBOL line subscription and get several free games against some of the best SFB players in history is act really arrogant and make physically impossible assertions that can never happen.
Paul you are a total dweeb who has only won through complete and total luck. I would have won more than your 4 Gold hats than you if I had been at origins. My hydran never loses to anyone because of my incredible tactic of NEVER missing with hellbores (Unless overloaded and fire from a range of less than 1 in which case they NEVER hit.) No one can ever defeat me because they are never able to roll a 3 on the DAC. MUHAAAAAAAAAAA.
Can I have my free membership now?!?!? [Sarcasm Mode Off]
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:41 pm: Edit Where's a thumbs up emoticon when you need it? Cool Marc, keep us filled in on both counts!
David,
I think Paul once said something to the effect of "disruptors should have one of two settings: Overloaded and not loaded." While I don't strictly adhere to this myself, I find that statement to carry a goodly amount of import. I think Paul is implying that the benefit of having the OL's if you manage to hit range 8 outweighs the expectred 6-9 damage you'll get if you don't.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 05:44 pm: Edit David wrote: >>Arming 4 stds gives you flexibility, if you get R8 then you can shoot 2 OLs, 2 stds and 4 p1 for about 20 dmg, not insignificant if the Kzinti is outrunning the EPT for 24 impulses.>>
That is generally my thinking too, and most of my games of this match up have worked out ok--yeah, I lose vs a Romulan occasionally, but probably less often than not.
>>After this if the Romulan pursues you lob 4xIM on I1.32 and 4xIF on I2.8, and plot high speed for the whole turn I guess... although if the Romulan chases me then at least it's a game. The plasma ballet is what I have trouble with.>>
Yeah, I mean, Paul's advice is all very sound. And possibly better than mine. But mine works ok. And works even better against Romulans flown by people other than Paul :-)
-Peter
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:02 pm: Edit Dave wrote: "I agree with your ideas Paul, but arming OLs as the Kzinti on turn 1 will really bite when the Romulan does not give you R8, and from what I've read on these boards that is the standard practice."
It does not bite you at all. It costs you 6-9 damage on a rear shield. More importatly, a Rom that launches at 13 and turns off is going to be a Rom easy to time and beat. You certainly won't miss the tiny amount of damage on the rear shield when you eventually close with such a timid Rom.
"Arming 4 stds gives you flexibility, if you get R8 then you can shoot 2 OLs, 2 stds and 4 p1 for about 20 dmg, not insignificant if the Kzinti is outrunning the EPT for 24 impulses."
No. 4 STDs is not flexible at all. Quite the opposite it is limiting. If the Rom gives you range 8, your choice to arm 4 STDs severly limits your damage output. Worse still, the Rom might be interested in getting a lot closer than 8. If the Rom is able to force you to turn off without launching the EPT because he knows he can get as close as range 3 without suffering any real damage, you are going to be screwed.
What you mean by "flexible" is that 4 STDs gives you the appearence of doing *something* to a Rom that does not come close. The problem is, that *something* is pretty much meaningless other than the little bit of joy it gives you. 6-9 damage on a rear shield is meaningless in the overall scheme of the game.
3 OLDS - that is flexible. It gives you a nice shot at range 8 (12 or 18 + phasers (or not, imo) ). It also allows you to both get closer and do real damage at range 4 haivng the option when the time comes to decide if you need an HET or tractor or if you can put the 4 Batts into another OLD. That is flexibility where it matters.
Yes, it is very very clear that 4 STDs in the case where you know to a certainty the Rom will turn off at 13 after launching an EPT is better than almost any other plot. The problem is that is the *only* scenario in which 4 STDs is the right plot. That scenario also happens to be the least important scenario in terms of what the Kz ends up doing.
In all other cases, the Kz needs the OLDs to be a threat.
By Chad Calder (Calder) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:11 pm: Edit Wouldn't 2 STD and 2OLD be better than 3 OLDs? It takes the same ammount of power/damage output and still lets you do something if you don't get range 8. Of course the chances of maxium and mimiumum damage are greater with 3OLDs but I not sure how that is better in this context.....
Or is it just a case of writing 3OLDs is faster than writing 2STDs and 2ODLs?
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit My guess is that the need to use two battery to upgrade the disr is not worth it. And if you don't get too O/L range the dam from only 2 std disr is too insignificant.
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:34 pm: Edit Paul,
I wouldn't let the Romulan get to R5 on me, too many times this has resulted in 2 bolted Fs and a bunch of phasers down a rear shield, then the Romulan can fire an S or EPT and cloak to rearm for the next pass.
I'd rather take the R8 shot and veer off leaving drones behind me, although in that case I agree that 3 OLs + 1 off batteries would be much better than 2+2.
The question is: do most Romulans give the R8 shot to Kzintis? Earlier discussion would seem to indicate no, however you say yes, what do you think other Romulans would do?
-Dave
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:36 pm: Edit "Wouldn't 2 STD and 2OLD be better than 3 OLDs?"
I am a proponent of "thresholds" in SFB. My preference would to to increase the odds of the Disruptors doing 18 in exchange for decreasing the proability of doing "average" damage. Disruptors are binary and the quantity of Disruptors on a single ship means they never do average damage.
At range 8 I am interested in 18 damage and indifferent to 12. Making it more likely to do 12 damage is not worth the decrease in the odds of doing 18.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit Normally, you would do 3+0 instead of 2+2 because if your opponent fired first and blew off a disruptor, you wouldn't lose any firepower. It also, as you pointed out, increases the variance in the damage, thus increasing the chance that your damage will be significant. (And if you blow it, you can adjust to that.) A third adavantage is, if you fire late in the turn, you have a disruptor available at the beginning of next turn. But I'm not sure how much those things are worth in this matchup. The 4 points of expected damage you get outside of 8 are not significant, but they are better than nothing.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:46 pm: Edit Paul: Send you Victory article. You have two weeks. TOPS. To get it to us.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:47 pm: Edit David wrote: >>The question is: do most Romulans give the R8 shot to Kzintis? Earlier discussion would seem to indicate no, however you say yes, what do you think other Romulans would do?>>
Heh heh. There is a significant difference between "most" Romulans and Paul--"most" Romulans who are planning on launching an EPT are unlikely to go inside of R9 on T1. Paul tends to play what is probably the optimal way, but not necessarily the most obvious way. But that is why he wins a lot...
In my experience, most Romulans with envelopers don't break R9 on T1. But they can vs the Kzinti, as the Kzinti can't do significant damage outside of R4, giving them a better plasma launch position. Yet still, they don't all that often.
Arming standards on T1 is kind of playing the odds--it is likely that the Romulan isn't going to get inside of R9 (if it has an enveloper, which is very likely), but if it does, the OLs are just better. Arming 3OLs is playing to be safe. Arming 4STDs is playing to guess right :-)
-Peter
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:56 pm: Edit Ok, that pretty much covers the 1st turn of Rom vs Kzin.
Next question: What does a Kzinti do against an ISC? Or, to put it the other way, how would an ISC usually open against a Kzin and what is the best way to meet that opening?
Rook's pawn to A4.
-Dave
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 07:54 pm: Edit Hm, is it better for Roms with EPTs to get inside R:8?
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 09:11 pm: Edit Well, against most direct fire ships, I would not give range 8 as a Rom. (And it is a foregone conclusion I'll be kicking out an EPT...everyone knows that) However, the Kzin and the even moreso the Hydran are the two where a closer range can be much more effective.
Oh, on a sidenote, I don't think a range 13 EPT from a Rom at a Kzin is all bad either, though, especially if the pack from the Kzin is out or about to burst. The Kzin running from plasma while the Rom is allowed to dust 6-10 drones is a good deal for the Rom as well.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:31 pm: Edit David wrote: >>Ok, that pretty much covers the 1st turn of Rom vs Kzin.>>
Regardless of the OL on T1 situation and all, really, where the Rom/Kzinti game tends to turn is on T3 or so where the Kzinti just moves like 31 all turn and chases the heck out of the Rom when he is low on plasma with no disruptors armed--just look for the opportunity to rush and try to corner on a low plasma turn.
>>What does a Kzinti do against an ISC? Or, to put it the other way, how would an ISC usually open against a Kzin and what is the best way to meet that opening?>>
I'd probably open the same way as vs a Romulan, although I'd be less worried about launching drones, and have some rienforcement. OLs are good (although 2OL/2STD off batteries is much less of an issue, as the ISC can't really chase you in a corner and mug you so much), actually, although it is perfectly possible that the ISC will also stay out of R8 (PPD+some G torps turn and run). The Kzinti needs to be willing to eat some torps to corner the ISC. Where the game really turns, usually, is during EA of T2 or T3--on either of those, the Kzinti will be in a spot to chase and the ISC will be in a spot to run or park, and if the Kzinti guesses right, he wins; if he guesses wrong, he loses.
A lot of rienforcement is dicey, though, as when the PPD fires at R15 or so and finds 10+ rienforcement, the ISC knows you don't have OLs, so it is likely perfectly happy to come into close range for phasers and close plasma launches. Again, I'd probably go with standards (like, say, 20 movement, 4 stds, and about 5 rienforcement) as you can cause some damage if he stays out of range, but if he comes in close, you have 2OL/2Std/4P1 and drones to shoot him with), but I'm risky like that--I like that gamble, and if it pays off, you do ok.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:37 pm: Edit Tim wrote: >>However, the Kzin and the even moreso the Hydran are the two where a closer range can be much more effective.>> Yeah, often though, folks fail to get out of the habit and forget this, and stay out of R8 vs the Kzinti anyway. The Rom generally doesn't know that the Kzinti doesn't have OLs till after he has to decide to avoid R8, and generally going into R8 is kinda risky if you might accidentally get shot by 4OL and 4P1. I mean, in reality, yeah, the Rom probably *should* get close for a better launch, but still, most folks are used to staying out of OL range and often do anyway out of habit.
>>Oh, on a sidenote, I don't think a range 13 EPT from a Rom at a Kzin is all bad either, though, especially if the pack from the Kzin is out or about to burst. The Kzin running from plasma while the Rom is allowed to dust 6-10 drones is a good deal for the Rom as well.>>
Oh, totally. But generally, the Kzinti will hold the SP vs the Romulan just 'cause of the cloak. I'll often unload a couple drones for reloads and deception purposes (although usually just reloads...) and save the SP for a turn where I really wanna disuade the Romulan from charging or I really wanna compell the Romulan to cloak.
-Peter
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:32 pm: Edit Do we really need to attach all previous posts as quotes in our posts? Since I’m reading this drunk (like Tim) I tend to skip all posts that a wee long. Odds are I red previous post (unless it had quotes), and I’m never too drunk to figure out the reference.
This set aside, I need to make two points clear b4 I get to Gorn Klingon.
Paul I the best player (sorry Tom you never beat me) I retired from SFBoL (interferes with poker)
If you don’t know witch Paul or Tom, don’t bother reading this post.
My tactics against a Klingon are 100% anchor and 100% Bolt. How is it possible? Simple: it’s the same tactic. The trick is to know when to bolt and when to anchor. Either way you want to get close, so there is no such thing as avoiding R8 on T1. You want to get close late on T1, preserving a HET ability and point a brick at a Klingon. If he fires at 5 and turns or HETs away (you prefer him to HET), bolt all you got. Lining him up is a question of skill, so get skillful. Bolt is not a desperation tactic, expected damage is 51 aka 27 internals through a weak shield on a power hungry ship ship with 4 front hull. 40% of time the game is over right there (3 bolt hits), 40% you have an advantage (2 hit), 19% you are behind (1 hit) and 1% (0 hit) you’re in trouble. If a Klingon doesn’t give you a bolt shot on his rear, he will get anchored, unless he fires at R8 and runs. That is OK too, you are not badly hurt, and he can’t move OL, face you and avoid anchor. You’ll have to come up with a tactic for T2, based on situation. Common Errors when bolting: Bolting B4 I 25 (gives opponent too much time) Bolting at R1 (you messed up anchor) Bolting against a wrong ship (Aux, Shark, Lyran) Bolting too late (I’m about to lose 6th shield, it’s time to fire etc.) Refusing to bolt at all. Bolting a weird ranges ( 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,11,12+) Bolting when cornered (OK getting cornered by undamaged opponent is real problem, consider F&E) Not knowing that two fast loads 37 impulses later do the same damage as 4 OL Disruptors at R0. Running into speed 20 drones aka I’ll move speed 24 cause of my turn mode Keeping only one option of winning the game instead of having all 3.
OK I need another beer.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 02:50 am: Edit Dave wrote:
Quote:
"I wouldn't let the Romulan get to R5 on me, too many times this has resulted in 2 bolted Fs and a bunch of phasers down a rear shield, then the Romulan can fire an S or EPT and cloak to rearm for the next pass.
I'd rather take the R8 shot and veer off leaving drones behind me"
Do you mean to say if the Rom gets to range 8 and has not launched a single torp, you are going to fire and turn off, plopping drones out to cover your retreat?
TBH, other than the same thing happening at 9-15, I think this would be the single best opening the Rom could hope for. You are allowing an Impulse 32 lanuch of an EPT that is practically guaranteed to hit for no less than 20. On top of that you guarantee the turn 2 EPT hits for 60 and both F's hit for 15. I'd probably even get to launch the F's before the EPT too. Since you cannot possibly handel that damage and win, this means you must stop and WW on T2, but... You can either do it late after running to the wall, either taking the 20 or losing 2 WWs, or you stop right away and WW the first EPT, hoping to get a second OLD shot off on the Rom - guaranteeing the use of 2 WW, 3 if you want to stop the Fs as well (which if you do not stop have done more than your OLDs anyway).
I think a Kz that closes to 8 with no torps on the board cannot choose to turn off until at least one of two things has happened:
1. The Rom launches an EPT (which makes a 30 point launch here particularly dangerous for the Kz); or
2. You reach R4 and shoot (although, in a Kz, I might be inclined to just overrun the Rom rather than turn off before he launched a torp).
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 04:24 am: Edit Paul, I don't have anywhere near the SFB experience you do, but do you think that reaching R8 on a Rom without a single torp on the board will happen very often?
And if that does happen, then what I do all depends on the layout, where are we relative to each other, what are the ship's facing, speeds, and are turn modes satisfied.
If Kzinti can't take the damage that the Rom can deal on T2, what makes you think that he can take it on T1 (overrun example)?
In any case, this discussion has gone from "What do I do to counter the ballet?" to "What do I do to counter a charging Romulan?" - clearly these two approaches require different answers. My strategy so far implied I was facing a Romulan intent on dancing, not charging.
Let's take a moment here and step back to EA of turn 1, Kzinti vs Romulan TFH. What is the Kzinti expecting from this matchup? What does the Kzinti allocate?
Romulan's power: 4 HK, 8 EPT, 2 rolling S, 2 for shuttles, 22 move.
Paul's Kzinti power: 4 HK, 12 OL disr, 1 for shuttle, 21 move.
David's Kzinti power: 4 HK, 8 stds, 1 shuttle, 25 move.
As the Kzinti I am expecting a high/low speed plot from the Rom, something like 27/14 with the change at I17, does that seem right to you? Remember, during EA T1 I am assuming he will ballet, so I am trying to plot accordingly. I'll use my allocation of 25 for move. Expecting something along the 27/14 above, I plot 20/31 with the change happening on I18. This is my standard run away from plasma plot, any suggestions here would be appreciated.
T1, I1: we declare speeds. I see the Romulan going fast, so my assumption of the ballet seems correct.
Before we go further, how probable is this scenario? Have I made any grievious errors in my assumptions?
-Dave
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 09:30 am: Edit Ralph wrote: >>Do we really need to attach all previous posts as quotes in our posts?>>
It is generally better form to make sure that people can follow your discussion well than it is to make sure that drunk people have patience to read it...
:-)
That being said, it is always a good idea to edit quotes just to include the relevant point you are responding to.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 09:42 am: Edit Dave wrote: >>do you think that reaching R8 on a Rom without a single torp on the board will happen very often?>>
I'm not Paul, but I'm always willing to hand out possibly faulty advice :-)
It happens if the Rom is not arming an EPT and it happens if the Rom is arming an EPT but wants an agressive launching position by making its opponent turn off. The Kzinti is a good target for this as it doesn't do so much damage outside of R4 with DF so it can't make the Rom turn off without commiting drones, but once the Kzinti commits drones, the Rom can launch plasma to force the Kzinti to turn off and deal with the drones easily, depleteing the Kzinti's stocks.
>>My strategy so far implied I was facing a Romulan intent on dancing, not charging.>>
See, Paul is still talking about an EPT game, but again, as the Kzinti can't really hurt the Romulan outside of R4 (and then only if it has 4 OLs), the Rom can, realistically, close agressively on the Kzinti to force the Kzinti to either commit drone resources or turn off early, allowing the Rom to get even better launch position. It seems likely that the Rom is willing to trade a down sheild and maybe a few internals for a solid launch position (say one that ensures the EPT landing in the 44-30 zone, followed by another enveloper) and another down shield on the Kzinti (from phasers and maybe a bolt).
Most other DF ships can make a big hole in the Romulan at range 5+. The Kzinti, not so much.
>>plot 20/31 with the change happening on I18. This is my standard run away from plasma plot, any suggestions here would be appreciated.>>
20 till 16; 26 till 26; 31 till end (assuming 27 is when 26 doesn't move)--you'll have more HET potential late.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 12:51 pm: Edit Ralph wrote: >>If a Klingon doesn’t give you a bolt shot on his rear, he will get anchored, unless he fires at R8 and runs.>>
While I'm totally following everything else you wrote, there seems to be a lot of contention about this--the Klingon can easily get to R4 or 5 on T1, fire, turn off, and run like crazy with zero chance for an anchor. Like, the Gorn is closing, the Klingon is closing on the oblique, and depending on the movement chart and releative speeds, the Klingon is going to get a slightly less optimal R5 shot or a slightly more optimal R4 shot, turn off, and run the rest of the turn. The Gorn can then bolt, but if the Klingon gets a R4 or 5 shot, the Gorn might very well lose a couple phasers and maybe an F torp *before* the bolt happens.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 02:17 pm: Edit
Quote:
:-)
I don't trust men who smile too much.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit >>You are taking these qoutes way out of context. Go re-read more carefully where you took them from and it will make sense too you. I won't waste any more time on qoutes taken wildly out of context in order to manufature a point. >>
I did read the entire posts. I've been reading this entire discussion since it started in the other thread. I'm not trying to manufacture a point. If you'll notice, I don't actually try to state any points, just that I'm confused as to how things can both exist and not exist.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 08:17 pm: Edit Dave wrote:
Quote:
If Kzinti can't take the damage that the Rom can deal on T2, what makes you think that he can take it on T1 (overrun example)?
Your example (fire at 8 and turn off - no torps on the map) means all that damage you take on T2 is take without a real return shot.
If the Rom puts nothing on the map, I think a Kz with 4 OLDs (1 off Batts) can overrun the Rom without issue. Launching 4 Fast drones (3 fatties) at range 2 (1 if you can arrange it - but that's pretty hard as the Rom needs to be Slip unable and Turn unable or unuseful or not moving next impulse and not able to change speeds to move).
If you can pull this off, your Disruptors do 30 or 40, your phasers (let's assume 4+4) do around 35, so you do 65 or 75 to the Rom (about 50% of each). In return you take at most 80 to one shield plus maybe another 10 in phasers (but probably not) and 10 to each of the others.
You will likely have done enough to the Rom that he can no longer cloak or at least cloaking will mean doing very little else. You'll have taken more damage, but your damage is less significant so that should even out (baring some bad luck on power hits). I'd feel reasonablely comfortable as a Kz in that situation given the range of likely outcomes.
When compared to the alternative of stopping, using as many as 3 WWs (you would probably be better off accepting some plasma damage and use no more than 2 WW, but a strong Rom could almost force you to use 3). Plus, you would not have done much to the Rom in return, the T1 overrun I think is the better option.
In reality, The Rom will launch an EPT at Range 6 or 7 (depending on whether the Rom has arranged to miss an impulse shortly after reaching Range 8), at which point you can fire and turn off. The Rom is not going to be looking to engage at R1 either. The risky thing for the Kz in this scenario is a single 30 pt. launch at about R8. Hitting a real Torp (followed by an EPT launch and likely HET after phasers) Would be a serious (probably game ending) problem. Firing and turning off from a PPT will lead to the same scenario I outlined above. That, mixing up the Real and Fake from time to time (though generally launching a Fake), is my general approach to the Kz, and I am not convinced there is a good answer to it.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 08:34 pm: Edit Dave wrote:
Quote:
In any case, this discussion has gone from "What do I do to counter the ballet?" to "What do I do to counter a charging Romulan?" - clearly these two approaches require different answers. My strategy so far implied I was facing a Romulan intent on dancing, not charging.
Unless you are prescient that's not true. Of course if you are *certain* the rom will launch at 13 and turn off, then the plot is clear. Since I am never actually certain about what my opponent will do, I prefer to prepare differently. 3OLDs is the better plot, even if the Rom ends up turning off at 13 after launching an EPT because it covered the much more dangerous scenario of the Rom not being so obliging. What you lost for that hedge was 6-9 damage on a rear shield - not something ever likely to be significant.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 09:25 pm: Edit Peter, I don't think you read Ralph's post carefully enough. You said:
"the Klingon can easily get to R4 or 5 on T1, fire, turn off..."
This is exactly the bolt shot on the rears that Ralph is talking about.
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 10:13 pm: Edit I think I am finally understanding you Paul (took me long enough), you advocate turning off only after the Romulan has played his cards (i.e. launched and turned, or launched and kept his course). I totally agree with this, and our discussion has definitely helped me envision multiple different scenarios. Now, what would you do if the Romulan launches in such a way to deny you R8? Outrun the EPT, eject the OLs at end of turn, then what do you plan for T2? This is the crux of my problem, really.
-Dave
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:20 pm: Edit Ken wrote: >>This is exactly the bolt shot on the rears that Ralph is talking about.>>
Ah, seems likely. I was looking at the "Fire at 8 and turn off" aspect of his discussion. Yet still, if the Klingon takes the R4 shot and turns off, yeah, it is giving the Gorn a R4 shot on the rear sheilds, but the Gorn will have taken a bunch of internals at R4 (Klingon does ~50 at R4), and possibly have lost a couple P1s and or an F torp. So while the bolt shot isn't that bad of a deal, it is likely to not be as good as one would hope.
-Peter
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:49 am: Edit jm: "I did read the entire posts. I've been reading this entire discussion since it started in the other thread. I'm not trying to manufacture a point. If you'll notice, I don't actually try to state any points, just that I'm confused as to how things can both exist and not exist."
I really don't want to re-start the discussion. Had you read more carefully you would understand that the three qoutes you used were all talking about different things. The "Pre-emptive WW" tactic has always existed, but Peter's mention of using it to avoid a zero energy anchor at the turn break was the first time I had heard of it being used for that specific purpose.
By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:57 am: Edit PS: "If the Rom puts nothing on the map, I think a Kz with 4 OLDs (1 off Batts) can overrun the Rom without issue."
I really am confused by statements like this. So you think it is a good idea to go right up to range 1 or 0 against a fully loaded plasma ship? If you are moving faster than 4 you are automatically dead. I really am confused by this sentance. Has there been some kind of drastic rule change that cripples plasma ships at close range or something?
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 01:07 am: Edit You don't want a Kilngon firing at R4, R5 is much better ( 37-40 expected damage vs 45). Properly bricked shield will prevent internals (usually not a problem). There is a way to influence a Klingon Movement: PPTs or the real thing. Usulaly HET follows the bolt with a couple more phasers to use against fast drones or a down shield. In case there is a doubt, Gorn can have 8 point brick, het, WWs and move. Klingon can't OL, HET, WWs and move.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 01:42 am: Edit Marc: that's the answer I was looking for. Thanks for keeping the accusations out of that reply. :-)
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 02:58 am: Edit Dave wrote:
Quote:
Now, what would you do if the Romulan launches in such a way to deny you R8? Outrun the EPT, eject the OLs at end of turn, then what do you plan for T2? This is the crux of my problem, really.
Start pushing for the gap. If he kept you out of range 8, he turned off. You turn off after he does and run the rest of the turn. I'd let the plasma get to range 2 and blast it with 10 p-3s (should be easy enough to force it to centerline the rear). Run it down to where it's not doing much after the previous turns phaser fire and then turn around, trying to force out the next EPT as early as possible. (At the end of T1, you put 4 speed 20s on the map, btw).
If the Rom is always trying to avoid range 8, you will force the cycle pretty fast, making him cloak or making him give you a decent shot. Make sure you have OLDs whenever you plan on attacking, and periodically as allowed by power anyway (even if you are pretty sure you won't get range 8).
The game is fairly defensive, but that's the way a Rom launching at long range has to be played. Playing aggressively against that play style is just surrendering.
By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 03:03 am: Edit Marc, On the Kz overrun question, I think I answered it in fair detail immediately following the line you quoted. Was there something about that explanation that was not clear or that you take issue with?
Pre-emptarily, I don't see getting hit with 70 + EPT or 100 (without phaser backup - which the fast and fat drones will prevent from the Rom) as game ending at all and that result is about the best the plasma ship can hope for. If that is your only issue, then we'll have to agree to disagree. By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 09:01 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>The "Pre-emptive WW" tactic has always existed, but Peter's mention of using it to avoid a zero energy anchor at the turn break was the first time I had heard of it being used for that specific purpose. >>
The pre-emptive weasel is used to avoid dying to a lot of plasma, be it from a zero energy anchor or a regular anchor when it becomes apparent that the plasma ship is going to get to R3 or less by the end of the turn. Using it to avoid the zero energy anchor is just a subset of "not dying".
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 09:05 am: Edit Marc wrote: >>I really am confused by statements like this. So you think it is a good idea to go right up to range 1 or 0 against a fully loaded plasma ship? If you are moving faster than 4 you are automatically dead. I really am confused by this sentance. Has there been some kind of drastic rule change that cripples plasma ships at close range or something?>>
No, just comparative damage. The Kzinti with 4OLs at R1 is doing (30-40) + (40) for somewhere in the 70-80 damage range. The plasma ship (assuming it is holding an EPT, as the discussion was assuming--the discussion was about a Romulan agressively closing on a Kzinti to get advantageous EPT launch position) is going to hit for 70 plasma + 10 per sheild from the EPT, which is about the same damage (when you consider that the plasma ship needs to shoot down 4 Kzinti drones). A reasonable trade, and the Kzinti is a much better cripple than the Romulan.
-Peter
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:19 pm: Edit It's impossible for the Kzinti to defeat the Romulan, of course. (This message brought to you by the Romulan psyOps department)
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:53 am: Edit Well, normally I think the Rom is a fine ship crippled, but not point blank to a Kzin entering first turn arming.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:15 pm: Edit Tim wrote: >>Well, normally I think the Rom is a fine ship crippled, but not point blank to a Kzin entering first turn arming.>>
Well, assuming you remove half of everything and kill the batteries and hull, the Rom has, like, 4 or 5 phasers, 2 plasma S's that aren't armed for 3 more turns, and not enough power to cloak. The Kzinti has 2 disruptors, 2 drone racks, and 6+ phasers. I'd much rather have the Kzinti...
-Peter
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 01:35 pm: Edit Unless, of course, the Romulan comes equipped with an EASY button. From the conversations above, it appears that some Gorn ships are equipped with one now....
By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 02:12 pm: Edit I think that the Kzinti definitely has the upper hand IF he can stay close to the Rom until the start of T2, either through maneuvering or a tractor. Because if the Kzin starts T2 out of R8 from the Rom I don't think he can do enough damage, and then on T4 he'll have to deal with 2 PL-S.
-David
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 02:27 pm: Edit Peter: I think that was my point. If you remove half of everything, 2 S torps are going to look really big if they are armed, hence my comment about first turn arming.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 03:04 pm: Edit Fair enough. I guess the Kzinti just needs to make sure that it ends the turn close to the Romulan if such an exchange is going to occur...
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 04:28 pm: Edit But then the Kzinti prefer R:1 (over the turn break) versus ALL opponents.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:07 pm: Edit I don't know about that. A fully loaded Hydran, for example, would do you 94+30, even without the fighters, if he has you on the centerline. Throw in a 22- 11-5-1 speed plot, ED on 1 and WW on 3, and he doesn't have to shoot the i1 drones down. At that point, he has 40 internals, and you are a smoking wreck.
(Note that he doesn't care whether you anchor him, as your tractors will go away.)
Similarly, a fully loaded Fed could do the same, while several Aux packages can play Kzinti as well as the Kzinti in this setup.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 12:26 pm: Edit Peter: Not exactly the best place to post this, but since I know you'll read it here, what the hay.
I am considering taking a job in the Albany/Poughskeephoweveryouspell it. I am somewhat concerned about 2 things.... 1) When does it get really cold, and when does it become 'unconvertible' weather? 2) Presuming I just move in with someone in a decent neighborhood, what would I expect to pay?
And I have at this second no idea what company in particular they want to put me in, only that Unisys mainframe cobol is the skillset, laugh.
Tim
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit Responinated.
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 03:50 pm: Edit Ummm...not sure where, but use [email protected] if you would Peter.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Edit Oh. Heh. I just used the e-mail in your profile which is Capital One related.
I'll resend it shortly.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 09:13 pm: Edit
I was chatting about Orions recently (who me ) And I was pumped for my std operating procedures.
Here it is, feel free to tear me up. Esp when I say things like herd (your favorite) ship into a corner.
Orion TBR Standard Operating manual
Guards Options Nose 3 transporters 3 aux 1 warp (L&R) 2 tractor 2 cloak 1 Shuttle 1
Uses For Fractions During EA 1) Extra Room -> Batts 2) extra room -> Phasers 3) extra 1/3 -> HET 4) extra 2/3 -> Tran 5) 1 Stray point 1/3-> Het, 2/3 -> Tran
Option Mounts: A: Hell x2, Pl-F, ls Ph 1, Rs Drone B: Phot x2, Gat, ls Ph 1, Rs Fusion
Standard Viable Alternates HHGBB, HHG1B, ffG1F, g1111, ffG11 Whatever is chosen make sure you have a plan for all opponents. If your option mix gives you a 5% win vs a Lyr, (ex packages of HHG11 & G1111) you might have issues.
Cloaking Notes At Ra 11-15 speed 4 gives auto break (unless range is >10 go speed 0) Max speed =15, higher allows possible lockons
General Attack Notes Remember you are small (72 Inturnals, 15 weapons) taking more than 18 inturnals is bad, unless it kills him.
Start turning wars.
Hit ra 5 on the Oblique, when both move next imp.
Shoot big vollies into power hungry opponents and mizia weapon light opponents.
Most people will not shoot the #6 of a Doubled Orion @ Ra >2, so put the reinf on the #4 or #5 unless you are going all the way in.
Pick point of closest approach the imp before an opponent does not move.
Many captains will forgo Movement (and occasionally phasers) to make sure a tractor works. ie: If you do get stuck at EOT ra 1-2 from a seeking weapon opponent count on having to counter all of their power or none.
Versus Most Punchy Races RA < 4 = dead Orion, do not go further in unless you can kill them before they fire or you can spread their firepower out.
Plan your attack run 16 imps after they expect it. (esp if they are tac'n)
Against TAC'n opponents come into range 4 or 8 (depends on opts & opponent) looking like you are going right in. Come in straight towards them not an Oblique. Fire & Het out. They either have no shot or a ra 5 shot and then you can circle back and show them what PH3's are for.
Do NOT overrun an (unwounded) opponent who just stopped in front of you with 0-1 engines doubled.
Do NOT be afraid to circle a TAC'n opponent for a turn while doubled. (assuming you are reloading phasers and batts) You will have MORE discressionary power next turn even after taking engine damage. use CDR to repair warp as AWR, at all opportunities. If you are fixing other systems (except maybe a drone rack or an Aux Con) you've already lost.
Speed Plots:
# Power Plot Openings 1) 13.66 16-> 24 // 31-> End 2) 15.66 16-> 17 // 31-> end 3) 17.66 26-> 10 // 19-> 22 // 31-> end 4) 10 15-> 16 // 16-> End 5) 11.33 16-> 26 // 19-> End (17 Hexes into Corner)
Cloakings 6) 8 4-> 6 // 14-> End 7) 16 14-> 6 // 26-> End 8) 3.33 0-> 6 // 6-> End 9) 9.33 9-> 6 // 15-> End
Standard Tricksies 10) 19 19-> 7 // 30-> 16 // 31-> End 11) 12 8-> 9 // -10-> End 12) 20.33 19-> 4 // 31-> End 13) 14 30-> 5 // 19-> end 14) 18 26-> 5 // 19-> 17 // 30-> End battle Plan By match up
VS Fed: Inturn 99, Weap 14 Option: A turn #1 0 dbls, Goal get to range 10 and Hit with the F bolt, While dreaming of the F hit, also shoot phasers & hellbores. House 4, Hell 6, Move 15.66 (#2), Shut 1(ww), HET .33 turn #2 if RA > 10 1 dbl else 0 dbl Cloak out House 3, Phas 2, Hell 6, PL-F 1, Cloak 18, Move 8(#6), Shut 1(ww), HET 0 House 3, Hell 6, PL-F 1, Cloak 12, Move 3.33(#8) Shut 1, Phas .66
VS Hydro (inturn 99, weap 12) Option: B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Double 1 and herd him into the corner, be willing to fight if he is House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 3, Shut 1, Reinf: 7
VS Tholian (int 95 weap 19) Option: B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Double 1 and herd him into the corner, be willing to fight if he is House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 3, Shut 1, Reinf: 7
VS Gorn (int 95, weap 14) Option : A Turn 1: 0 Dbls, Goal range 8 std shot then run behind the F. If he takes the long range launch, bolt into his rears @10 (if possible) Feel free to Juke an Early launch. House 4, Hell 6, Move 13.66 (#1), Shut 1(ww), HET 2.33
Turn 2: too open
VS ISC (int 95 Weap 15) turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Double 2, Attempt to over run, take PPD on reinf, juke torps. House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 3, Shut 1, Reinf: 16, Het 3
VS Romulon (int 87 Weap 13) Option : A Turn 1: 0 Dbls, Goal range 8 std shot then run behind the F. If he takes the long range launch, bolt into his rears @10 (if possible) Feel free to Juke an Early launch. House 4, Hell 6, Move 13.66 (#1), Shut 1(ww), HET 2.33
Turn 2: too open
VS Lyran (int 100 weap 16) Option: B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Double 2, He should come out to play, ESG's don't do much when TAC'n House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 1, Shut 1, Reinf: 18, HET 3
VS Klingon (int 98 weap 18) Option B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Depends on S-Pack, if out time to paly, if not He's gonna run dbl 1 Double 1-2 House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 2, Shut 1, Reinf: 5(+12), HET 3
VS Kzinti (int 104 weap 20) Option B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Depends on S-Pack, if out time to paly, if not He's gonna run dbl 1 Double 1-2, (the only reason to dbl 1 here (if he is running) is Herd. If you don't double, he'll probably want to play even if he is not OL'd)
House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 2, Shut 1, Reinf: 5(+12), HET 3
VS Wyn (int 91, Weap 15) Opts depend on his options.
A package with range (LIIT and the like) Option B turn 1: corner dodge & OL phots House 4, Phot 10, Fus 2, Move 10(#4), Shut 1(ss) turn 2: Double 2, He should come out to play, that ship does not like to stop House 4, Phot 4, Fus 1, Move 19 (#10), Trac 2, Shut 1, Reinf: 17, HET 3 A close range/phaser package (2x Pl-F and the like) turn 1: 0 DBLS, you have a 75% of him corner dodging 1st turn. If he doesn't corner dodge take your ra 4-8 shot and run, don't get tractored. House 4, Hell 6, Move 15.66 (#2), Shut 1(ww), HET .33 turn 2: either dbl 1 and take an OL shot or run/Cloak and start re-arming.
VS Archio See Tholian
VS LDR see Lyran
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 08:10 am: Edit
How come your Orion gets 13 guards?
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:19 am: Edit Yeah, and even with 12 guards there is no reason to contigent allocate power to transporters as you have no BPs available to do H&Rs.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:03 am: Edit Except the 3 guarding the transporters.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 07:39 pm: Edit Bret wrote: >>VS Gorn (int 95, weap 14) Option : A Turn 1: 0 Dbls, Goal range 8 std shot then run behind the F. If he takes the long range launch, bolt into his rears @10 (if possible) Feel free to Juke an Early launch. House 4, Hell 6, Move 13.66 (#1), Shut 1(ww), HET 2.33>>
Interesting. I'm constantly trying to figure out how to play this match up (Gorn vs Orion). It seems like this wouldn't work well--if the Gorn sees you aren't doubling, he'll probably agressively take the middle of the map and lob out the inevitable EPT such that the un-doubled Orion will have to run away, possibly getting a R8 shot that probably isn't going to do all that much. And then spend most of T2 avoiding an enveloper.
And is bolting a plasma F at R10 that good of an idea, even with HBs? I mean, you have a 50-50 chance of doing 7 damage, and then being without a plasma F for 3 turns. Seems dubious.
-Peter
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 09:16 pm: Edit 0 Doubles vs Gorn works for me. I think it's a great idea. I mean no way Gorn will try to get close, and you will get to R8 fire DF take out one torp, then HB will take out another, 2nd HB wii take out 3rd. Then you will slip away to R9 and fire aft phasers to take out 4th torp.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 09:54 pm: Edit finicky finicky finicky.
Orions Conscript an extra guard. -1 from trac. The 3 three in tran are the H&R guards.
Um, people, not all Orion fights are 3 turns long.
Only vs SUCKY ships like, anything with a disruptor.
VS BP, Fed and Hydro 9-14 turns doesn't phase me. (Last time I made origins it was turn 12, before I killed my round 1 Hydro)
>Interesting. I'm constantly trying to figure out >how to play this match up (Gorn vs Orion).... >It seems like this wouldn't work well--if the Gorn >sees you aren't doubling, he'll probably >agressively take the middle of the map and lob out >the inevitable EPT
That is what I want him to do.
So, I empty an ememy tube, do 20 some odd damge to a forward shield and it costs me nothing. How is this bad? ah: >And then spend most of T2 avoiding an enveloper. One) why not, the Hells are empty. Might as well take the turn off. Putting off doubling till turn two even extends the doubling clock.
Two) why, (if you don't want to play ring around the rosies with a plasma) cloak it or Juke it.
Cloak it if you think he will envelope again, juke it if you think he is won't.
Bolt'n the F into a REAR shield is vaiable. If it hits your opponent has a 4-9 box shield for future turns and you run out his plasma. If it doesn't hit, well it is an F, life happens. Most people take a Gat in this slot, that sits there unfired for ~6 turns. re Ralph: What you think I'm going to try to take out a Gorn in 1 turn?
Ok the gorn tries to get close. I poke a FWD shield with phasers and Hells, launch the F & turn off. You chase me ramming the F? or let me get away? Either way I don't mind. Either you ram my torp and I cloak, or you let me play ring around the Rosie with torps (while I'm reloading Hells.) What I do mind is getting centerlined @5 on a non-doubled turn. Hence fire @ 8.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:39 am: Edit vs. Hydro. I've gotta say, facing a 2xPHOT armed Orion, if you only double 1 engine, I'm going to run you over and kill you. 2 OL Photons won't even give me pause and your phas-1 firepower will have to go to take out my fighters. The Orion is disadvanted in this fight already. I have seen a plas-F package work and have seen some drone/HB packages work, but a pure DF package like your B package is playing to the Hydran strengths.
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 08:02 pm: Edit Bret,
How much of a brick will you have with 0 Doubled?
There is no reason for a Gorn to launch any torps, so you could get close or you will hit 10+5 brickat longer range. Odd are you will be without shuttles and battery at the end of T1 or you will do no more than splash damage.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 06:14 pm: Edit re ralph. With no launch from the Gorn I still fire & launch @ 8. If you are moving slow ( less than 26 hexes) and don't launch an ENV, I'll frequently just fire the Hells (and splash the rear) instead of wasting phaser power on the brick.
My goal is to soften up shields with as little cost as I can manage. re:Andy: Hells vs Hydro I really don't like. It is too hard to overcome a Star castled Hydro with Hells. Where as I can do it with Phots.
>2 OL Photons won't even give me pause and your >phas-1 firepower will have to go to take out my >fighters Why are my phasers shooting your fighters? Did I forget to use my tractors?
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 06:54 pm: Edit Doesn't tractoring a fighter mean you let it get too close?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 07:04 pm: Edit Nah. Tractoring a stinger at R3 renders it mostly irrelevant (well, ok, it has an expected damage of, like, 8 points if it fires everything), and if it HETs to break the tractor, it has to run away for some significant portion of the turn (8 impulses?)
Like, not the best of all plans, but better than letting them get to R2.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 09:10 am: Edit re: Peter. 6 points of power & 0 Weapon systems stops about 60 damage. Efficency at its best, (at least if you are a power heavy ship.) Toping it off running the little buggers down with the gat(+other 3's) is cream.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 12:31 pm: Edit You can stop more than 60 damage by taking them out or crippling them at longer range. I'm not saying tractors are useless against them, but at range 3 you're still taking about 16 damage from both of them. At range 4 your P1s can completely prevent all damage on both that turn and future turns, or at the least practically remove them from the fight by crippling them.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 04:25 pm: Edit Bret. The Hydran would love to see you use 6 power to tractor his 2 fighters. He'll blow at least one of them off, perhaps both of them, which will mean that you are down 6 points of reinforcement and have two intact fighters bearing down on you.
The trick with the Hydran starcastle is having a package that will encourage the Hydran to starcastle. The photon package simply won't do that; i.e., the Hydran has no reason to starcastle against you as after the initial exchange of alphas, you'll have a tough time cracking an intact forward shield. Hellbores as least let you exploit the shield downed in the initial shot.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 06:10 pm: Edit I'm not a huge tournament player, as I've only played one fight with tournament rules, but in a normal matchup I'd hate to have photons against a hydran. Assuming he can weather the initial blast he has more in close firepower than you because at range 2 or less his gatlings are effectively photons with a better hit percentage. If he knows you've got overloads then he can run around all day plinking with his hellbore or just letting your engines slowly degrade.
Large amounts of reinforcement don't help much against a hellbore, you have to balance it out more, and runt he risk that he breaks that balance with some lucky or well placed shots.
I like to play a distance game against hydrans, but that's just me, and my experience usually involves ECM, ships you don't have memorized, tac intel, etc. So take it for what it's worth: not a lot. :-)
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 08:36 pm: Edit RE: James A fixed map, changes the equasion just a bit. An Orion can catch anyone given 2 turns or 1 turn with good board position.
I tractor them when I want to save the 1's for the Ship. I prefer mugging the fighters on an off turn, esp if they are seperated from the ship.
RE: Andy. How is the Hydro blowing Tractors off of my ship? He doesn't have the firepower to do that @4. (on the first pass, unless I've messed up)
If he just lets The Ftrs sit in the Tracs I will blow them away with the Phasers. And either come back for the Ship next turn, or take the Phot shot. Depends on situitation. Just they normally HET out of the tractor.
People generally start starcasteling when they are stuck in a corner, and they have this Orion with 2-3 Engines cooking comming straight for em.
In theory, TAC'n equalizes Turn Mode, and power available for Reinforcement & OL's.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit Bret. Immediately after you tracter the fighters, we are either exchanging alphas or you're giving me range 3. During that alpha, I'll be able to see where your phasers go. Without your phasers as part of the alpha, I'm barely touched and you have, at best, a weak shield. Use them against the fighters, and you've wasted that 6 power; either way, I'm good.
As for the starcastle - yes, against most Orion packages I would starcastle against a super-doped Orion. Against a 2xPhot package, however, I just don't have the need as I feel that I can create an even exchange with you (or close to even) and I can both 1. take the hits better and 2. exploit your down shield.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 02:52 am: Edit Ah yes, that whacky fixed map. It gets me every time. :-)
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 03:03 pm: Edit Shifting gears ever so slightly: What Orion packages work best against the LDR? I don't think F torps would be that much of a threat since the LDR has gats, excellent manuever, and speed. Conversely, Hellbore packages usually have drones which are a joke agaisnt the LDR in small amounts. Thoughts?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 03:39 pm: Edit 3 Photons, Fusion, P1.
I'd figure that the most utilitarian package is the HB, HB, Gat, Drn, P1 that is so common. But it gets hosed vs Lyrans (due to ESGs, obviously). So why not take an Orion that plans on using the HB package in most fights, and then the Photon package when it runs into a Lyran. There are probably a few other match ups that it works ok against, but certainly against the LDR, going to R4, hitting with 2OLs and 5P1s should make a pretty nice mess, and then HET and run.
I think Dave Conroy went, like, 6-0 in that Orion in Saturday Patrol one year, in the span of, like, 12 hours.
-Peter
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 08:46 pm: Edit Gee, I never thought I'd see Peter of all people respond in a tourney tactics thread ;)
Seems workable specifically vs the LDR, but I don't like that package because:
A: It costs 15 to OL all the photons on turn 1, so you have to double an engine just to do that.
B: I don't like this package vs Feds, and the Helbore package will get smeared by the Fed.
C: Photons are about as dependable as fishnet condoms.
But I do see the potential
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 08:56 pm: Edit Marcus wrote: >>Gee, I never thought I'd see Peter of all people respond in a tourney tactics thread ;)>>
That's crazy talk!
>>A: It costs 15 to OL all the photons on turn 1, so you have to double an engine just to do that.>>
Eh, ya know, no big deal, I figure. You double everything on T1 and rush him. If he corner dodges, you lose a couple engines, but have a huge power overage on T2, and you are probably going to totally killinate him anyway. If he doesn't corner dodge, you still have a chunk of rienforcement somewhere, and you still mangle him at R4.
>>B: I don't like this package vs Feds, and the Helbore package will get smeared by the Fed.>>
Fair enough. But the Fed is probably going to kill the Orion with most packages anyway. And who flys a Fed anyway?
:-)
>>C: Photons are about as dependable as fishnet condoms. >>
Also true. But firing 3 at R4 is nice and average. You should hit with 2, and you plan on hitting with 2. If you hit with 3, you totally kill. If you hit with 1, you still probably do some internals and might make a game of it anyway.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit I'd be pretty tempted to change that fusion to a p1. It's gonna be real hard, even with doubling, to arm 3 phots after the Orion takes ints.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:53 am: Edit >>I'd be pretty tempted to change that fusion to a p1. It's gonna be real hard, even with doubling, to arm 3 phots after the Orion takes ints.>>
It still saves the photons from a lucky stray internal, and the fusion is pretty good for a range zero second wave overrun. But yeah, true, unlikely to make much of a difference in the long run.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 03:38 am: Edit Quote:
I'd figure that the most utilitarian package is the HB, HB, Gat, Drn, P1 that is so common. But it gets hosed vs Lyrans (due to ESGs, obviously).
That package is a difficult fight for the Lyran, dude. Last year at Origins I beat the Gorns but lost to the Orions.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:17 pm: Edit Ok....Brett was a sport and posted what he'd do, against pretty much all ships, so before I give him the riot act, I'll admit he was gutsy.
Now, speaking for the Hydran vrs Orion thing....
If on turn one the Orion doubled nothing, I think it is safe to say the Hydran will just approach the middle of the map, and will actually be a little on the Orions side. This seems like a dream scenario to me, not just against the Orion, but against everyone, since the Hydran can absolutely guarantee a close range battle pass turn 2.
In particular against the O, I'd be plotting turn 2 to run the Orion over, but I'd leave some wiggle room if the Orion doubled both and I could just run away. If there was no chance of getting away and I thought for a sec the O might double anything whatsoever, I'd just park in the middle...a "tactic" I've done constantly against all Orions, and will continue to do so.
As for an O traccing my ftrs at range 3, while I doubt the Orion would even be forced to do so very often, I can't see how this would be construed as anything other than a huge benefit for the Hydran. There is always a huge comfort factor knowing the enemy cannot tractor you at any range, and an enemy that used 6 power to only temporarily releave fighter pressure sounds like a good deal to me.
Of course, the Hydran is almost uniquely equipped to deal with any package Orion, so I realize everything I am saying isn't exactly state of the art. Also, I can't even say I have never lost to an Orion, since I lost to Norm's Orion, but I have defeated Paul's and Tim L's. (Never played Brett, but I would 'clearly' crush him under my boot)
Of course, I think the Orion and the Hydran are both a little too good anyway, so what the heck do I know anyway?
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 08:50 am: Edit Sounds like you guys should play. Let us all know how it turns out.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 08:53 am: Edit Tim. I guess it's safe to say that you've never lost in the Hydran to a direct-fire
Orion package.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 01:43 pm: Edit Direct fire Orion packages blow against the Hydran, period. I tried 2 different DF packages against Tim withing 24 hours at the same con and got smoked both times despite pulling the old "tractor him at range 1 on imp 32 and drag him into your SS on imp 1" trick on him.
You need some sort of funny F torp package to take on a Hydran, and you must double an engine on turn 1 to come out and play. A photon package is rough because you'll be burning engines like crazy to OL them, and then rearm them. And an Agressive Hydran is going to stay on your tail after your 1st alpha, so you're going to have to HET back into him at some point to get another shot in. Photon packages also don't cloak very well. Not that I'm a huge fan of cloaking vs a Hydran, unless his fighters are dead and maybe he's also down a hellbore. And that's really tough to achieve on a single battle pass with a photon package.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 03:35 pm: Edit I wonder how the Krait Buster would fair.
Paul Franz
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 10:23 am: Edit > In particular against the O, I'd be plotting turn > 2 to run the Orion over, but I'd leave some wiggle > room if the Orion doubled both and I could just > run away.
On turn 1: I Usually, see around 21 Hexes of move from Hydros (actually Most Opponents). Enought to take the Middle (if I dodge) or Corner dodge If I double Both. We normally end the turn @ ra 9-10. (my goal, and Usually his. I'm more than willing to do a BATT speed increase ~imp 26 to close a few hexes if it looks like we'll end too far apart.) I'm ~38 from the far corner facing North, he is ~32 from the far corner facing South.
In this situitation: On turn 2, I'm guaraneed a RA 1-2 Shot if he Goes 26, the entire turn, and makes a normal turn off. It goes up to RA 4, if he Hets away. Here we Double Both, and look to start some action.
Running is futile, although some people don't realise it, and they run away. Getting Caught around imp 22-27. Giving me an OL pass vs their standards.
If he castles in front of me, both are doubled and a battle pass is a viable alternative. Invoke all standard anti-TACn tatics.
If he moves, and is engaging, it is uaually a fast/slow or slow/fast/slow split.
Here is where most Orions go right in. (I know I used to) Slip slide out and start a turning war. Engage after imp 16. His mid turn deceleration should of kicked in by then allowing better control of the situitation. Aka: Allowing me to choose the shield and range for engagement along with the possibly of seperating the Hyd from the Ftrs.
Running right in there to hit RA 4, when the Ftrs are one hex in front, the Hydro is OLd, going 26, TM satisified, facing you, is a good way to die.
Approaching his #5 @ra 4, is a good way to make him HET. Usually giving you his #1, Ftrs @ >3, a clean exit, & pretty much guaranting a slow speed from him next turn.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 10:48 am: Edit Silly thought Anyone come up wiht an Option set that can make use of PL-Ds? DGD1f? Strange at the least
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 12:33 pm: Edit Heh. Do plasma D's get hit on drone racks in Orion mounts? If so, it'd probably need a drone rack in a wing. If not 2. Maybe a DGDbb or something. Kind of like a phaser boat, but with damage mitigation possibilities. But also going to run out of ammo. Wacky.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 11:37 pm: Edit D's are hit on torp, I think
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 08:48 pm: Edit I think they should not play this one. They should discuss it some more. It is far easier to defeat your opponent on this board, than in real game. Unlike the real game, opponents cooperate and fall for all the traps and cute plays. Not to mention Opponents hit below average, and theoretical HBs (Photons etc) seam to always hit. I’m looking forward to more fool-proof tactics on how beat X with an Orion with P2s in option mounts.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 11:06 pm: Edit You left out ESGs are always destroyed on the third hit.
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 11:35 am: Edit
Quote:
You left out ESGs are always destroyed on the third hit.
Doesn't that usually happen in the games too?
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 05:31 pm: Edit Well, I hesitate to comment a whole lot further about the matchup, for the fear of convincing even one person to park as often as I do. Of course, on the other hand, I have more games get over on turn 2 than anyone I know, so maybe my parking is catching people by surprise....yeah, right.
Anyway, as for the Plasma D thing, can someone refresh my memory as to what they are?
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 05:55 pm: Edit You get 4 "canisters" per rack and 1 set of reloads. You have to pay .5 per cannister to charge them IIRC, but they are already fully charged at WS III and remain so for free for quite a few turns. You can fire 1 per turn at a ship, but you can fire 1 per impulse at small targets like fighters, shuttles and drones. They are very short ranged, doing 10 points out to range 5, then dropping of drastically until doing only 1 point at range 10. They always have 180 degree arcs. If taken on an Orion, they must be in the FA mounts and you must take 2 of them. 1 will be RS, the other LS. That's the only way you can have d racks on an Orion TBR. They are destroyed on "torp" hits.
Now if they where destroyed on "drone" hits, I'd seriously consider taking a plasma D package with a gat and drones in the wings. It would be a brutal knife fighter, but the D racks getting taken out on torp hit's kinda blows that theory out of the water.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 06:01 pm: Edit You can also only fire 2 Plasma-D's "offensively" per turn (ie at another ship), but at SC-5 or smaller unlimited. So a TBR w/ 5 Plas-D would SUCK as it could only fire 2 a turn at another ship. But could swat down Kzinti drones all day (well 40 of them with the 40 shots it has).
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 07:01 pm: Edit Just to clarify, you could fire one D per RACK per turn offensively (and that would be the only time that turn the rack could fire). You could fire up to two racks per turn in offensive mode - a limitation that is moot in the tournament, since you can't have more than two D racks.
I suppose you could do something like dGdFF (is that the right abbreviation?), with the intention to just run over your opponent and then stay in a knife fight. Not sure who that package would work against, though.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 12:11 am: Edit Ok...just so I am clear...
The Orion could come to range 3....toss out 3 Plasma D's, one at each fighter and one at each ship, and then, next turn, for zero powr...toss out another plasma D at the hydran ship.
Assuming I am reading that right, the Plasma D sounds comparable to the p1, inferior in some regards, but often, far greater. It certainly sounds more than a little plausible.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 07:24 am: Edit
Quote:
So a TBR w/ 5 Plas-D would SUCK as it could only fire 2 a turn at another ship. But could swat down Kzinti drones all day (well 40 of them with the 40 shots it has).
Only 2 (not 1, not more than 2) Plasma-Ds can be carried by the T-BR (with no reloads).
This means it's killing a max of 8 drones before it's out of Plasma-Ds.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 08:28 am: Edit Tim wrote: >>The Orion could come to range 3....toss out 3 Plasma D's, one at each fighter and one at each ship, and then, next turn, for zero powr...toss out another plasma D at the hydran ship.>> Kinda. The Orion can have 2 Plasma D racks. 1LS, 1RS. It can come in, declare 1 rack on "defensive fire" and fire 1 plasma D per impulse at fighters, but that is all it can do all turn (I'm pretty sure). It can declare the other plasma rack on "offensive fire", and fire 1 plasma D at the ship. Next turn, it could put both racks on offensive fire, and fire a total of 2 plasma D's at the ship.
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 11:09 am: Edit Also, IIRC, there is an 8-impulse delay over the turn break when switching modes.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 02:17 pm: Edit IMX plasma Ds are almost a waste of time against the hydrans. Gatlings chew them up faster than crap through a goose.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 02:31 pm: Edit Well, gatlings fired at plasma's aren't being used against the enemy ship, so even if that was all they did, I wouldn't call it a waste. One of the things that make Hydrans so hard to approach are the gatlings, so if they were 'wasted' on the D's, that might not be so bad. (Especially for the zero power they seem to use....is that right? D's have 4 loads and cost nothing to hold?)
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 08:24 pm: Edit That's right, no hold cost. For my money I'd rather spend the power on phasers and downgrade that fighter to a single p3 instead, and use the option mount for something with a little more punch.
It isn't so much that d-racks are useless, just that they're a waste because there are so many better options available. All IMO of course.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 01:03 am: Edit Not sure I am following what you said...
I have yet to see anyone fire 1 single p1 at a fighter, regardless of range. Is that what you are saying?
I can actually see alot of situations where a Plasma D would be superior to a p1....not necessarily all situations, but I can think of plenty of times a Plas D would be pretty good. One reason the phaser gunboat as an Orion is so strong is the damage capable coupled with the low power cost.....Replacing a p1(s) with P D's makes the damage go up, and the power cost go dowm...which is almost inconceivable at first thought. You are trading the instant impact and the foregone conclusion shield for more damage and less cost. Seems reasonable to me.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:45 am: Edit Tim wrote: >>Seems reasonable to me.>>
At zero power a turn for 10 damage at close range, the Plasma D is more efficient than the P1, assuming you can score hits (big tractor?). One flaw with the Plasma D is that outside of 5 hexes, it isn't doing any damage at all. But if your plan is to run in with a lot of rienforcement, tractor, and mangle, I could see a worse choice than the Plasma D. I mean, like, having a D package (D/D/Gat/Fus/P1?) is not the best package against a lot of ships, but it isn't *that* much different than the wildly popular Plasma F version. And what it lacks in crunch power it makes up for in every-turn-itude. I think the biggest flaw is the mandatory LS/RS arcs. And no psuedoes. And running out of ammo. So really, lots of flaws. But damage dealing isn't really one of them.
-Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 11:35 am: Edit I didn't mean to just fire one P1, but apparently I handle hydrans differently. I like to take care of the fighters before making my primary attack run. But then again I usually fight on floating maps so that might not be as vaible when you can be driven to a wall.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit James wrote: >>I didn't mean to just fire one P1, but apparently I handle hydrans differently. I like to take care of the fighters before making my primary attack run. But then again I usually fight on floating maps so that might not be as vaible when you can be driven to a wall.>>
This being the tournament tactics discussion, the base assumption is that there is no floating map, as the tournament uses a closed map. It is always best to assume, in this particular forum, that all discussion is specifically dealing with tournament play. This is not a value judgement. It is just what this particular discussion forum exists for.
-Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 02:58 pm: Edit I know. I would probably try the same thing in a tournament because I like to get into close range with orions and don't want to do that when it involves facing 4 extra fusions and 2 extra gatlings.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 04:22 pm: Edit Sometimes killing the fighters and avoiding the Hydran works (usually 'cause the Hydran bungled something). Sometimes it results in the Hydran getting to R2 on you when you are down 4P1s in your arsenal.
-Peter
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 05:50 am: Edit Doesn't launching 2 D torps at the fighters means you're down 2 weapons that could have been in those mounts and probably still have 4 fusions and 2 p3s to contend with?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 09:25 am: Edit Yeah, but if the D torps were, say, P1's, you'd be in the same position (2 P1's will cripple 1 stinger, leaving you 2 fusions and a gatling to contend with--about a wash). But the D torps are going to be more damaging at close range than the P1s later on.
Again, I'd never claim that the D torps are, like, a really good idea or anything. Just that they aren't measurably worse than the P1s in this situation.
-Peter
By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 10:01 am: Edit D torps give the fighters a chance to do something they rarely do in tourny play, use their chaff packs.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 10:51 am: Edit Ooh! That is as exciting a reason to try this out as any!
:-)
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 03:51 pm: Edit Update:
Ok, instead of northern NY, went for the whole thing and will be working on 33rd and 10th on Manhatten Island. I had considered Origins, but this basically stops that cold. I can however make those 5 tribe things now alot easier!!
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 04:01 pm: Edit Awsome!
We get Council of 5 in October and Totalcon in, like, Feb, both of which aren't that far and tend to get a good spread of players.
-Peter By David A. Cook (Vindaloo) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:09 am: Edit Where are Council of 5 and Totalcon held?
-Dave
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit Council of 5 Nations is in Schenectady, NY and is one of the best small conventions and SFB tournaments I have ever attended. Hope to be there again this year. Stephen
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 01:53 pm: Edit SO let me get this straight - Working in Manhattan is a tourney tactic?
Great!!!
Brook and I Live 45 minutes out of NYC, BTW. You know how much we suck. Come play sometime!
Say, what does anybody have to say about the ISC/Kzinti matchup? Brook and I played this one last week and it got nasty real fast. I'm no decent Kzinti player and I had no idea how to deploy my scatter pack. I just went ahead and launched it imp 8 loaded with 4 type 1M and 1 type IVM. He weaseled the pack after seperating me from my scatt pack and rack launched drones, then I caught him on the 3rd turn and the knife fight was crazy.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 02:07 pm: Edit Marcus wrote: >>SO let me get this straight - Working in Manhattan is a tourney tactic?>>
Man. I've been net-copped. Strike one for irony!
:-)
>>Say, what does anybody have to say about the ISC/Kzinti matchup? Brook and I played this one last week and it got nasty real fast. I'm no decent Kzinti player and I had no idea how to deploy my scatter pack. I just went ahead and launched it imp 8 loaded with 4 type 1M and 1 type IVM. He weaseled the pack after seperating me from my scatt pack and rack launched drones, then I caught him on the 3rd turn and the knife fight was crazy. >>
I've done that one a lot (when Schirmer lived in town, we played it, like, every week). It was a lot harder on the Kzinti whtn the ISC still had the 6 P3s. But still, generally, T1 the Kzinti eats a bunch of sheild damage, T2 is a chase turn, and T3 is a knife fight that the Kzinti can usually win. That being said, A) if the ISC stops and tacs preemptively on T2 when the Kzinti has, like, 26 power in movement, the ISC usually comes out ahead and B) if the Kzinti rienforces on T1 and the ISC figures it out and comes in for a close range mugging (as the Kzinti has no disruptors armed), the ISC also comes out ahead.
But in a standard "ISC PPDs at 15, fires a couple Gs or an enveloper or something and turns and runs to avoid R8 on T1" kinda fight (that isn't the best option for the ISC, but is fairly common anyway), the Kzinti tends to do fine.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 02:11 pm: Edit Living in Ithaca seems to be a better tactic.
Edit: Maybe Dave should schedule CouncilofFive for the same weekend as the NewYorkMarathon. Might keep out that skinny guy. Now That's a tactic!
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 03:39 pm: Edit Total Con is held in Mansfield Mass.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 03:55 pm: Edit I'll broaden the Kzinti/ISC thing to encapsulate all disruptor ships. There are 3 ways to go in EA:
1. Arm 3-4 OLs, or possibly 2 OLs and 2 stds 2. Arm standards 3. Arm none, power into reinforcement
The pros of each:
1. The ISC will be punnished if he gives up range 8 or less on the 1st turn
2. You will at least get range 15 on the 1st turn and your disruptors won't be wasted. You'll also have some left over power to put into speed or a couple points of reinforcement.
3. You're turn 1 shield damage won't be that bad
The cons of each:
1. There's no way you can guarentee range 8 and your OLs may be wasted
2. If he breaks range 8, your damage output won't be as good as it would be if you armed OLs
3. If he's willing to come in, you could be in trouble as you won't be able to hurt him much. You'll also be giving away where much of your power went if he PPD's you at range.
So which is the best option on turn 1 and why? I also know that option 1 will not likely include std disruptors if it's a Klingon or Lyran.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 04:36 pm: Edit Marcus wrote: >>So which is the best option on turn 1 and why? I also know that option 1 will not likely include std disruptors if it's a Klingon or Lyran.>>
I generally went with option 2 (standards and some rienforcement). Lots of folks are going to claim that you need to arm overloads, but the likelyhood of the ISC avoiding range 8 is reasonable, and if they do breach R8, even with overloads, you aren't going to knock down a sheild outside of R4. If the ISC closes crazily, you have a bunch of drones to put in the way and if he gets to, say, R4, overloading a couple disruptors off batteries is probably going to be just as effective as not.
Like, some sort of 16/26 plot (~18 hexes), 4 standards (8), ship (4), a couple shuttles (2), and 6 rienforcement somewhere is not out of the realm of useful. Consider launching the SP early, and if it looks like he is closing madly (i.e. he doesn't fire the PPD at 15 or launch envelopers at 10), launch some rack drones to meet him when he gets to R5.
The real issue vs the ISC is not what to do on T1, but what is going to happen on T2--if you plot a chase turn and he stops, you are kinda hosed; if you plot a "punish him for stopping" turn, and he runs, you are kinda hosed. You can often make an educated guess based on board position, and in reality, if he stops and you planned on chasing, and you decel next to him at R1, you are probably ok anyway, but still, the "what is the ISC gonna do on T2" guess is often what the game hinges on.
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 06:05 pm: Edit Top level ISC tactic is to go for the T1 PPD OL; they're willing to take the R8 OL DISR shot for the smothering damage they'll cause.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 07:48 pm: Edit No disruptor ship is going to win a shooting match at range 8 with the ISC, whether the disruptor ship has overloads or not. This is especially true with the Norm-style T1 OL PPD that Andy is referring to. The only ship that *might* be able to win at range 8 is the Klingon due to the infinite UIM, but even then the Klingon has to basically play better than the ISC.
So, given that a range 8 shot is basically a loser for the disruptor ship, that distills it to two main styles: - If you are going to overload, you'd better get to range 5 or closer to have any chance at all (if you only got to range 8 then advantage: ISC). - Reinforce, planning to survive until you can close to knifefight on a future turn.
Neither option is easy by any means, and a good ISC will make it very painful for you no matter which you choose, making a well-flown ISC one of the toughest nuts to crack in tourney play.
It becomes easier if the ISC plays a "passive" style (fire PPD at 15 and launch plasma to prevent range 8). This is generally not the best choice for the ISC, and if the disruptor ship plays it skillfully he can take advantage of the ISC error by bricking the PPD, running out the plasmas, and closing to knifefight still in one piece.
Surprisingly, it also depends alot on which disruptor ship we're talking about. I don't think you can lump them all together - certain tactics for the Lyran wouldn't work in the Zin for example, and vice-versa.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 01:51 am: Edit Lyran vs. ISC 3 overloads and 20+ moves The Lyran needs to reach range 5 or closer intact without eating a PPD and the G- torps. If both G-torps are launched to deny range 5 the Lyran runs them out and comes back turn 2. The overloaded PPD is a problem if the Lyran chickens out between ranges 8 and 6 so either break off before then or remember the PPD stops when the ESGs hit. All is lost if the ISC has enough batteries left for a fast-loaded F-torp.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 08:39 am: Edit Ken wrote: >>- Reinforce, planning to survive until you can close to knifefight on a future turn.>>
Just to clarify a point on the rienforcement deal, if you forgo the disruptors in the name of rienforcment, often the ISC will use (regardless of all other things) the PPD at R15 or so as a rienforcement detector, and if they find 10+ rienforcement on a disruptor ship, they will agressively close on T1 for a close phaser shot and advantageous plasma launch, figuring they won't get hurt at R4 or so. This does give up the possibility of the OL PPD, but if it pays off (i.e. the PPD finds ~10 rienforcment), the agressive "Close and launch everything at close range! Where is that sink!" play for the ISC make a real mess.
-Peter By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 07:53 am: Edit IMO- the use of the PPD as a reinforcement detector against a disruptor ship, especially on turn 1 is throwing away one of your most potent weapons. A turn 1 overloaded ppd pass, with an ept G in front of me by 4-5 hexes, is my goal in the ISC against most disruptor ships. Stephen
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 08:54 am: Edit Stephen wrote: >>IMO- the use of the PPD as a reinforcement detector against a disruptor ship, especially on turn 1 is throwing away one of your most potent weapons. A turn 1 overloaded ppd pass, with an ept G in front of me by 4-5 hexes, is my goal in the ISC against most disruptor ships.>>
Sure. But if the disruptor ship is going fast at the end of the turn, has 4 overloads, and can launch some drones at you, the PPD isn't getting overloaded and the enveloped G torp, which certainly doing some damage is unlikely to make up for the really big hole in your ship that comes from getting too close.
I realize that it certainly can work, but I have seen a lot of situations where the rienforcement detection has worked out very much in favor of the ISC--you see that the Klingon/Kzinti/Shark has no disruptors armed so you aggresively close to R4, fire all your phasers and lauch 60 points of plasma as you turn off. Like, the OL PPD plan is strong, but seems risky against someone who might have 4 overloads to fire and no intention of turning off.
-Peter
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:06 am: Edit "But if the disruptor ship is going fast at the end of the turn, has 4 overloads, and can launch some drones at you, the PPD isn't getting overloaded " Why? I am not overly concerned with the range 8 overload shot from the disruptor ship. If my opponent is going too fast I can always go for a 5 pulse ppd instead of a 6 pulse, and then turn turn off launching a 40 point stack (G and F)after firing 6 p-1s after the ept and the ppd hit. I see that as a clear plus for the ISC. That is 2 down shields and all the others scratched and a bunch of internals on the disruptor ship against a down shield and moderate internals on the ISC. Turn 1 is the strongest turn for the ISC. When the turn 1 ept comes out you should run. I just don't see a favorable exchange inside range 8 on turn 1 for most disruptor ships. Stephen
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:35 am: Edit Peter. The OL PPD is effective even against the Hydran, who can maul the ISC far more at close range than any disruptor ship. Best bet for disruptor ships is to get to range 8 oblique, trying to draw out the OL PPD and then turn off/slip away to range 9. The ISC needs that PPD firepower to win and is in no better shape to use it than on turn 1. If the disruptor ship can "take" that first PPD shot for minimal damage, without giving up too much position, he should be in good shape to charge and maul.
This is a match most often won or lost on turn 1.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:24 am: Edit Eh. Fair enough on both posts. It strikes me as wildly difficult to pull off the overloaded PPD unless the opponent turns and runs at exactly 8 hexes, but then I never play as the ISC, so what do I know?
:-)
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:54 am: Edit Peter. If it helps - the ISC slows to 14-17 and slips to maintain range during the firing impulses (assuming a charging opponent). The plasma help buy an impulse or two as they cause slips.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 06:09 am: Edit Er -I assume the O/L PPD be held? Because if it can't, the T1 OL tactic is risky in the extreme. With the extra power sunk into the PPD, you can't guarantee R8.
And I still can't see the opposition being obliging and staying SIX pulses at ranges 4-8 in the ISC FA arc. For that to happen, the ISC will need to be almost stationary and the enemy coming in centrelined directly facing the ISC when the PPDs open up. And considering that the PPD has remained silent until R8, no enemy is going to be so stupid - they will just turn off at a longer range.
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 07:31 am: Edit No David, the OL PPD is done with battery power, you almost never overload the ppd in ea. To address your other points, it is not nearly as hard as you think to keep an opponent in range 4-8 for the 5 to 6 impulses your ppd will be firing. By approaching semi-oblique, a combination of side-slips away from your opponent, along with a turn in towards the opponent will easily allow at least 5 pulses from the ppd and usually all 6. Also, the overloaded ppd is accompanied by an ept G torp, so if an opponent does decide to try to close the range they are eating a full strength ept. As to turning off at longer range, if you re-read my post, you will see that is exactly what I said you should do when an ISC launches an ept at range 12-13 on turn 1. Surprisingly however many players don't do it. If a ship does turn off I can always ppd their rear shields with a standard ppd and turn the opposite way myself with no loss. If you are on SFB Online I would be happy to play this match-up with you and show you what I am talking about. Stephen
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:24 am: Edit OK, now that I've witnessed first hand the winning strategy of the Gorn TCC for Captain's at this year's Origins as executed by Jason Gray, I want to discus it. What he basically likes to do is crawl forward at extremely low speeds while using heavy reinforcement and being very stingy with his plasma launches. He did this against my Orion in the quarterfinals, did it against Bill Schoeller's WYN AUX in the semi's, and won the Hat against Ken Lin's Selt in the finals doing this. I'm not going to get heavily into the details of any of these games due to Jason's pending write-up for a future Captain’s Log, but I will discus his speed plots.
As I understand it, he never exceeded speed 17 for any of these 3 games, and probably for the rest of the tournament as well. In our particualar game, his speed plots where:
Turn 1 - 7/4 Turn 2 - 12 all the way Turn 3 - 4 all the way Turn 4 - 0 all the way with a non-plotted SC up to -1 at the end of the turn
4 turns, 24 total moves. My package was HHG1B, so it wasn't like he was fearing a huge seeking weapon wave or anything. Now he was moving towards me the entire game except for turn 4, so I really didn't consider it to be non-agression even though I was extremely frustrated by his game plan because there was no way I could get behind him without taking significant damage and he was putting up obscene amounts of reinforcement that my phasers and Hellbores simply couldn't penetrate outside of range 3. He actually had 20 points allocated reinforcement on turn 1 spread over his entire ship! I couldn't loop around and ping him with long range hellbore fire indefinatly becasue I'd eventually burn my engines out, so I was forced to make attack runs that yielded me very little gain. The game was adjudicated after the 4th turn. I had only done like 7 internals to him while he had done more to me (actually, I did it to myself running through his plasma to achieve attack runs - LOL) and I had like 3 down or extremely crippled shields.
While I totally controlled the movement of the game (I WAS in an Orion after all), I'm not sure that what Jason did could be considered non-agression because he was moving to engage and slowly claim the center of the map. It was just at a snail's pace. His strategy worked and it eventually earned him the Gold Hat. Bill got so frustrated with this strategy that he mentioned it to the judges by the end of the 2nd turn in their game and SPP had to have a chat with Jason, who sucessfylly argued that he had been moving to engage the entire game (which is true). I was just wondering what everybody else thought of this strategy and if it is borderline non-agression. I don't want to take anything away from Jason because he deserved to win it all, but he totally put the onus on his opponents to beat him while he was able to sit back and watch us squirm, so to speak. Bill and I also speculated that this strategy would not work against certain ships like the Tholians or EPT using Roms.
Thoughts anyone?
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:33 am: Edit Is it considered nonaggression to park yourself, reinforcement the shields, and take potshots when they present themselves? If not, then doing the same thing while moving is definitely not nonaggression. If it is, then I would call it nonaggression, as it's basically the exact same thing except that you're moving instead of TACing.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:40 am: Edit James. To answer your question: yes
Marcus. I would consider it non-aggression.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:57 am: Edit Yeah, then it's definitely nonagression IMO.
By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 12:52 pm: Edit I'd have to say that's non-aggression. On SFBOL, you'd have the time to use effective counter-strategies against the parker (or crawler in this case, but really no difference), but with the time limits of Origins he should have been adjudicated against in at least one (if not all) of those games, imo.
I'd definitely be pissed if I flew all the way out to Columbus and had to face that crap. And no offense to Jason, I don't know the guy, I'm sure he's real nice -- but his strategy was crap, from your description, and I can't believe he got away with it at Origins.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 01:31 pm: Edit By the way non-aggression is defined in Captain's Log, Jason's strategy does not really fit it. And while you may say it's crap, it sure worked against me. That being said, it is by nature a non-aggressive approach. SPP actually did have a 10 minute talk with Jason about it during his semi final game, but Jason's argument was that he was indeed moving to engage. I'd have to agree with him there. He never corner-dodged, he didn't do the sit/tac/starcastle thing until later in the game. I think mine was the only game where he retrograded, and that was at speed 1 at the very end of turn 4.
When they adjudicated our game, the judges actually told us that they would have ruled in my favor if the game was closer. But he was clearly ahead by that point. While I was frustrated during the game, I was never pissed off because he was approaching me most of the time. He approached Bill their entire game as well. My only concern is that when a plasma ship is played this way, the player is basically saying "I don't want to bother with manuever, but you certainly will have to".
BTW - his SFBOL call sign is The_Hood. I've seen him around there alot lately.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 01:49 pm: Edit I disagree. I don't think it's non-agressive. (Frustrating? Annoying? Yes.)
"Speed Is Life" is only true if the opponent does something to make speed necessary.
I think it's a good tactic for a plasma ship when not facing an opponent that has enough seeking weapons (or web) to make you pay for it.
Why should he spend power to run when there is nothing to run from or to chase when his weapons (plasma) do that just fine for him?
I see two answers:
A) People react to the new "winning" ship/strategy by more often taking ships that this strategy doesn't work against (Tholian, Romulan, Kzinti).
B) Come up with new tactics to deal with this.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 01:52 pm: Edit Hold on a sec guys. Let’s keep in mind that Jason is playing poker in Las Vegas right now without his BBS account information, so he can’t post here and defend himself. Before you all pass judgment, I think you should give the guy a chance to speak for himself.
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here and say (to the best of my knowledge) what Jason’s strategy is. We talked quite a bit, and if I misspeak for Jason he can correct me later. Note that I am not voicing an opinion on the issue, I am just paraphrasing what I think Jason would say. I am personally conflicted on the whole matter (will elaborate at the bottom of this post).
Jason and I played 2 games at Origins, and when he announced speed 7 the 1st time I admit I thought he was a newbie (sorry Jason, it’s true). Only later when my ship was breathing heavy did I realize what he was trying to do and how effective it could be.
The main ideas Jason uses are:
- take the center of the board by turn 3, using reinforcement and WWs to avoid early damage - use plasmas to punish people who overrun - degrade opponent’s shields with Gorn P1s
The idea is not to do damage with the plasmas. The plasmas are only there to herd the opponent around, and as a deterrent against the overrun – the real damage comes from the Gorn P1s.
7/4 on turn 1 gets him 6 hexes closer to the center, and allows a 1.32 plasma launch. This means that the opponent is most likely spending all of turn 2 outrunning the plasma. Reinforcement and WWs basically means that by turn 3 he is in the center of the map with little or no damage, probably with S,F, and a fastload armed.
Once in the center of the map, he can speed up to 12/17 and phaser your rears until you stop, keeping plasmas as an overrun deterrent.
His plots against Marcus look pretty bad because after his 7/4 he stopped, but honestly it is not uncommon for Galactics to stop against an Orion because taccing is the only way to not get crushed. In the final Jason started 7/4 against me but once he gained the center of the map by turn 4 his plots were 12 (all turn), 17 (all turn), 17/30, 17/30, 12 (all turn), and -10 (after an Emer Decel).
As Marcus says, this strategy is less useful against some ships (LYR, ISC, any plasma ship that uses EPT strategy), and more useful against others (ORI because it is on a clock, and WAX because of movement restrictions).
Here is where I am conflicted. On one hand, do I consider it a valid strategy? Yes – Jason is trying to take the center by turn 3 and start the game then, using plasmas as deterrent and Gorn P1s to do damage. In addition, it does not work against some ships, and it is by no means an auto-win. I won our 1st game, and definitely had opportunities in the final. On the other hand, is it fun to fly against? Gotta say no on that one. The defensive shell the Gorn goes into for the first 2-3 turns is difficult to crack without having a lot of patience (or S-torps). I know there were several people who found it, I guess distasteful would be the most polite way of saying it.
So there it is. Me personally I was OK with it; didn’t have a great time flying against it but won the 1st game and definitely had chances in the 2nd. However, it seemed to cause enough of a stir that I wouldn’t be surprised if the judges did something (or nothing) about it..
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 02:26 pm: Edit I don't know how you can call moving slowly "non-agression". If you are moving toward your opponent, you are engaging.
Moving slowly is a very effective strategy. From what I've seen, people getting locked into the mentality of "speed is life" is what has created a lot of the dominance of certain CW hulls in the tournament. If you are flying a cruiser versus a CW, and you go fast, you are playing to the CW's strength.
Certain ships do well with the "turtle" approach - go slow, use the power for reinforcement, etc. While your opponent is burning power on speed, you are using the extra power to do more damage or reinforce away your opponent's damage. Of course you are giving up some things, but for some matchups it is less than you are gaining. This approach works particularly well against DF ships, not so well against BP or heavy droners.
The Kzinti does well at speed 12-14 against many opponents. Its drones make it difficult for opponents to gain a positional advantage, and the disruptors are flexible enough that, whatever range the opponent picks, will be OK for the Kzinti.
Reactive ships, like the Hydran, can also do well moving slowly. (Note that the Hydran must be careful with slow speeds on the battle pass, though, as that can lead to getting mizia'd.)
I can definitely see where the Gorn would do well with the turtle approach, particularly against an Orion or Seltorian.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 02:30 pm: Edit There's a difference IMO between "moving slowly" and "moving speed 6 (or 7/4)." In one, to use your example, you're moving speed 12, which is still plenty to maneuver and press the action. With the other you're basically taccing except for a tiny shift in board position.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 02:40 pm: Edit IMO, it is Non-Aggression for two primary reasons.
1. Like the star castle, you are forcing your opponent to close with you, on your terms (arguably with the same power, as the Star Castler will usually have power in tractor and TACs).
2. Time. This strategy aims for an adjudication victory in FTF play. Aiming for a T3 center map strategy, when most tourney games don't last 5 turns, is just asking for adjudication in a situation in which it is impossible for opponents to score more damage, unless using the identical strategy (i.e., even against plasma, dropping to 4 to weasel isn't exactly a big loss in speed).
By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit This sound like a tad bit of sour grapes.
For once speed WASN'T life for the two that picked high speed ships (the AUX and Orion). As everyone noted, the tourney seems to have become a haven for high speed and I, for one, think a bit of balance is due.
PART 2. 5 turns in how many hours? I think that there really needs to be a limit to the amount of time people spend in EA and agonizing over every impulse step...
Part 3. I am certainly not an ace and just play for fun.
By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 04:52 pm: Edit The time issue is why I called the tactic crap... Due to time restrictions, you're forced to press the attack against a turtler, putting you at a disadvantage when the adjudication inevitably comes. In an online game, I wouldn't whine about the tactic, I would just take my time in trying to crack the turtle's shell, without impaling myself on his weapons in the process.
Other than the time limit factor at Origins, I guess it's a pretty good tactic. He managed to defeat a couple of ships that I've always struggled against in the Gorn.
I normally don't like it when people cry & moan for Non-aggression at the first sign of a slowdown or parking (Gorn is one of those ships that almost always retrogrades during some part of the game, it's just how it's made), but when you spend time & money going to a tourny out of state, you don't really want to face this.
Other than that...to get the Hat, I imagine he had to face some ships that didn't play into the turtle strategy, what did he do against those opponents?
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit "This sound like a tad bit of sour grapes"
For me it's not. Jason's plan confounded me and it worked totally to my ship's weaknesses (the engine clock, reliance on speed). His plan against me was golden and he deserved to win.
I didn't start this debate to simply focus on the non-aggression issue, but also to figure out which ships it works against, which ships it won't work against, best ways to beat it, and how the turtler can counter those things. And getting back to the non-aggression thing, I'm still not sold on whether it is or not.
I guess we can all settle on "The Turtle" as a viable name for this? ;) "Other than that...to get the Hat, I imagine he had to face some ships that didn't play into the turtle strategy, what did he do against those opponents?"
Jason only fought 4 games before the tree was set. I know he lost to Ken Lin's Selt in the patrol portion of Captains and I know that he beat Bret O'Neal's HHf1B Orion, but I don't know who his other 2 opponents where or what they where flying.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 05:56 pm: Edit To beat the turtle:
1. Turtle. The viability of this option depends on the matchup, of course. Some ships turtle better than others. If your ship is as good or better at it than the opponent, this is a good option. Far from being a non-agressive, drawn-out match, this leads to, not a knife-fight, but more of a "sword-fight".
2. Anti-starcastle tactics. Use the same tactics that you would use against a star- castling opponent. If you just charge in, you're at a disadvantage, so back off, set up for next turn, then face him with an EA designed to counter it. You can arrange a battle pass on your terms -- if he continues to go slow, you can set up a nice shoot-and-scoot, or you can use your movement precedence to set up the attack angle you want.
There are a few differences here. With a true starcastle, you could hang back and complain to the judge about non-agression if it continues. If he's moving toward you at low speed, this doesn't work. Also, he's not giving up all the initiative, and could accelerate to a decent speed the following turn. However, unlike the true starcastle, he also can't weasel without stopping, or have as much control over the shield he gives you, which leads to the next two:
3. Mass seeking weapons. If you have them, there are many ways to make the turtle pay for going slow. He can't outrun the seekers, and must ED to weasel them, at which point he is worse off than if he had just starcastled.
4. Mizia. Unlike the starcastler, the turtle is much more limited in the ability to turn a down shield. Keep the range open and snipe; you can use your speed to stay on the shield you want.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 07:42 pm: Edit Assuming he was moving slowly most of the time (which seemed to be the case), albeit moving, calling "non agression" (which I clearly have opinions on, based on moderately recent discussion many of you remember) is certainly questionable. I mean, yeah, he is moving slowly, and has a lot of rienforcement, but without a cloak, there is certainly going to be a window to get close and mug him between plasma cycles. After you find the psuedoes, it should not be that difficult to get in on a low plasma turn and do a lot of damage. I'd think that other plasma ships (Rom, ISC) would be able to devestate the Gorn doing this. I'd think that the Kzinti would probably be able to make a nice mess on a low plasma turn overrun. The Fed could probably make a solid game of it by taking multiple R8 shots for not much in return. Lyran might be able to get a nice ESG ram on a low plasma turn.
This all being said, I find it difficult to fathom that such a game would take that long to do turns--if the Gorn is moving, like, 8 hexes a turn, or whatever, you should easily be able to get 8-10 turns done in the three hours alotted for a tournament round. I'm not sure why Marcus only got 4 turns done, but who knows?
-Peter
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 08:49 pm: Edit You can't really complain because he was moving slow, what's that lead to, a "minimum speed rule"? All ships must go at least speed 20 every other turn?
It's not NON-agressive, maybe its just SMART agressive.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 08:51 pm: Edit As I mentioned in my previous post, (against me at least) Jason was slow only until he gained the center of the map. After that he was quite aggressive. Instead of "The Turtle", a more apt name might be "Rope-a-Dope". Again, I urge you to let the guy defend himself before you all make up your minds.
I'd also like to see what other who played him at Origins (***not*** who are reading it here for the 1st time) think. Bill, Bret, John, Brian? (I kinda know what Brian thinks, but...)
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 09:10 pm: Edit BTW in the patrol rounds, Jason beat Bret O'Neal (ORI) and John Mountford (TKR), and lost to Brian Evans (HYD) and Ken Lin (SEL).
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:21 pm: Edit I played 7 turns (and EA for 8) in 3 hours in my game against Jason. He was not trying to get the game to an adjudication. He was trying to take the center of the board without taking excessive losses. He accomplished this goal. Once he was in the center he set up a position from which he could launch and pursue.
I complained after turns 1, and 2 to the judges. (This is the way you are instructed to deal with non aggressive tactics in the write up). After turn 1, I was told this was not a pattern. After turn 2, the judges spoke to him, and he told them he had a plan to win. The judges suggested to continue playing the game, and they would take any non-aggression into account in an adjudication if his strategy was non-aggression. After turn 5, the judges had carefully checked the non-aggression rules, and informed me that these rules cover 3 specific things
1) Star-castling (speed 0 with tacs) 2) Retrograding 3) Excessive cloaking
Nothing of what he was doing was considered to be a break of the letter of the rules. Therefore, they could not judge against him.
On turn 7 we had a big exchange. He had accelerated when he was in good position to get into a better plasma position.
I had opportunities to win the game and I made 2 key mistakes in this exchange. If I had not made the first mistake, he would have had to deal with my drones in a much more difficult manner. This may have tied up more of his phasers, or may have forced him to weasel. The second mistake was turning in to hit him with the hellbore. I did hit him with the hellbore for 10 internals, but took 26 internals from his f torps to do it. This difference in internals done might have enabled me to win the adjudication, but I would have had to take 1 f torp for 15 (to a 14 box #4) on impulse 1 of turn 8 (or weasel), and his other torp would still have been around. I probably would have put about 5 reinforcement (and not taken internals) on this shield if that had happened.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit Peter said - "I'm not sure why Marcus only got 4 turns done, but who knows?"
Because I was spending about 15 minutes in each EA becasue I had no idea how to successfully deal with him. And I made a few extremely manuever sensative attack runs that caused me to really evaluate my moves. I also knew that I would never win a delaying adjudication, so I was sorta forced to make these attack runs.
Bill said - "Nothing of what he was doing was considered to be a break of the letter of the rules. Therefore, they could not judge against him."
My thoughts exactly
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 08:53 am: Edit It may not be against the letter of the rules, but is definately against the spirit.
You guys have more patience than I. After 3 turns of that, I'd have reached over, said "good game" and gone and played something else, something fun. Heck, I'll never take a Gorn in a RAT again after the experience I had in the last one fighting a TKE. At my age, I've got better things to do with my time than play tourney battles less exciting than watching paint dry. By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 08:55 am: Edit Marcus,
Fair enough.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 09:05 am: Edit Marcus said:
Quote:
I also knew that I would never win a delaying adjudication, so I was sorta forced to make these attack runs.
I disagree with you Marcus. The judges basically told you after your adjudication they felt Jason had been non-aggressive. If you had simply circled at a distance you'd have won based on that. ps: When I get a few minutes to write it up, I'll tell ya how you could have killed him.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 09:30 am: Edit Except the judges told Bill that they couldn't rule against him due to the letter of the rules.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 12:27 pm: Edit Wow. The Pokey Plasma makes its return...
Everything Old is New Again.
When I was just starting out in SFB, this was THE killer tactic for the plasma crowd in my local group. It would kill Klingons, it would kill Kzintis, it died to EPTs and it died to Hydrans.
The countertactics we used for it back in '92 or so:
Take the middle of the map - if you see the Gorn going slow, use your batteries to arm more weasels on the approach. Make sure you reach the middle of the map late in the turn. If you have 4 WWs, you can almost always trade a range 4 or 5 alpha strike for two of them, doing a speedy-weasel plot over a turn break. (He reaches the middle the map at the end of turn 2, or middle of turn 3). Use your SP if you have one, recycle the shuttle.
Get into a turning duel - make sure you're one speed UNDER your turn mode for unplotted mid turn speed changes to get the unanticipated double or triple move.
Your strategic objectives
1) Don't weasel for anything less than 50. Because of his slow speed, it's worth it to cut the inside corner of overload range and eat a range 15-16 plasma for the shot.
2) Be prepared to blast and weasel when you do dive in.
3) Try when he's going slow, to kill two shields that are adjacent to each other (5/6, 2/3) and force him to do the slow turn to bring his good side to you.
The Hydran became the top tourney ship in our group for years because of how it dealt with this tactic.
Bring the fighters in, tractor them if need be. End the turn at range 10; salvo 8 fusion beams at the Gorn (2 from the ship on 2 impulses, 4 from fighters). You can usually arrange this on turn 1, and if you look at the impulse chart, you'll get them all on the same shield.
You will average, barring EW, right around 17-18 points with the fusions. You have decent odds of more than 20 points. He won't have more than 10-12 points on a single shield - and he won't be firing phasers back.
Over the turn break, allocate tractors to suck the fighters back in, overload both 'bores, and plot slow/fast to draw out the plasma. If you can get onto the same shield that the fusions hit last time, fire the phaser 1s, otherwise, hold them and just use the 'bores. Expect one hellbore to miss. You're going for range 8 in the FA, turn mode satisfied, fighters outside of range 10, and at a position you can reach (so they can phaser plasmas). You'll need about 18-20 movement total, plus 12 for bores, plus 2 for fighter tractors, plus 4 for HK, plus 2 WWs)
He has to launch to deter the overrun. You just want to punish that shield and get out.
When you link up with the fighters, tractor them again, use them and the ship gats to whittle down plasmas, and leave. Suck the fighters on board, reload them with the free fusion charges you get.
Late turn 3, repeat turn 1. Probably on a different shield, but you're effectively playing the plasma ballet here. Turn 4, repeat turn 2, and it may be worth it to recharg those fighter fusion charges on the off turn. You never want your fighters to be within range 10 of the Gorn if possible, until you're sacrificing them on the overrun.
If you could "juke" a plasma for the overrun, you could end this pretty quickly.
We were never able to make this work for the disruptor ships - you pretty much had to get OL range to punch the reinforcement, and you had nothing to punish weak shields from range until he started losing power.
I would imagine that either Tholian will do a number on this; EPT ballet will force him out of his game. Mostly, it makes disruptor ships, and ships on a clock, suffer.
The key to this is that the Pokey Plasma ship is very predictable for the first two to four turns of this fight.
(My local group was wildly derided for playing Pokey Plasma when we got onto GEnie in '91, were told we were playing plasma wrong, and that our Hydran tactics were so obviously idiotic as to be not worth mocking.)
By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 12:46 pm: Edit adding my comments in. I don't think that what I saw described above should in anyway consitute non aggression. If once the player gets to the center and all they do is castle and retrograde at -4 then I think there is a problem. Lots of strategies work. Sometimes because they are so different from normal, they will throw players off.
Gregg
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 12:50 pm: Edit James said:
Quote:
Except the judges told Bill that they couldn't rule against him due to the letter of the rules.
After having seen the previous game against Marcus, Bill was looking for a non- aggression disqualification. That is different than trying to win an adjudication. I believe that Marcus would have won an adjudication based on Jason not engaging, if he had turned off instead of trying to run through the plasma star castle. Comments by the Judges after their adjudication also supported this. Keep in mind that there was a significant difference between the games against Bill and Marcus. Jason did not stop after he got to the middle agaisnt Bill, but he did against Marcus.
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 01:40 pm: Edit Hi Guys,
I’ve been busy in Vegas and have only just found the time (and the Password Retrieval function on the forum) to reply to the discussions.
First of all I have to say I’m kinda disappointed that I have to defend myself for flying a different strategy and having some luck at the right times while doing so. I’m really not interested in arguing back and forth I’ll let my games stand for me. Perhaps because I am unknown it has upset the apple-cart but when I played regularly in Australia in the late 80’s I was known as a tough aggressive player. Also if any of the players I played disagree with the following battle summaries I am happy to discuss the details.
Day1. Game 1 Patrol Round vs Brian Evans (Hydran) Brian and I played a long 5-6 hour game over about 9 Turns. The first couple of turns saw the Gorn take the centre, from there it was a to-and-fro battle, the Hydran was taking steady damage, the fighters were in and out of the shuttle bay and Brian surprised me with some nice range 10 Fusion fire. On about turn 9 the Hydran ship with its last remaining fighter managed to close to range 2 and deliver a knockout alpha-strike. I really enjoyed this game and after the match had lunch with Brian who said it was a cool game (although maybe he was just being polite). 0-1
Game 2 Patrol Round vs Ken Lin (Seltorian) Ken and I played a 3 turn game in about 2 hours. The Gorn gained the centre of the map during the first two turns but on Turn 3 Ken flew straight through an S- torp taking down the Selt front shield and then junked my ship with a 77 point alpha-strike at range 2. I also found this an exciting game, if I had made a HET at the right time it could have been much closer. 0-2
After 8 hours play I was done for the day, I had dinner with Ken, Brian and another group. I even thought of changing ships after Brian said I could re-enter with a different ship but decided to stick with the Gorn and try and improve on the Friday. Day2. Game 3 Patrol Round vs John Mountford (Romulan) John and I played a long 5-6 hour game over 9-10 Turns. This was the only game of my tournament that wasn’t very interesting, John and I spent the first 4 hours of this game in a series of maneuvers that resulted in us both expending 2 wild- weasels each. Then on about Turn 9 I took a 22 point plasma on my #4, I thought it was most likely Pseudo but once it was revealed as Real I made an aggressive HET and thanks to pre-plotted HET+Tractor energy while moving at about speed-12 I was able to get to range 1 Tractor the Romulan and put 70 points of plasma in for 40 in return. 1-2 Note- Many of my opponents assumed that my power was in re-enforcement but after the first couple of turns all my excess power was usually in HET and Tractor.
Game 4 Patrol Round vs Bret O'Neal (Orion) Bret and I played a 6 turn game over about 4 hours. By Turn 2 the Gorn had the centre but had taken some shield damage from Hellbores, by Turn 6 the Orion engines were starting to feel the strain but the Gorn shields had been more or less shredded by O/L Hellbore fire. Then on Turn 6 the Orion was somewhat surprised when the Gorn made an HET Tractored the Orion and still had Batteries for a fast-load torp, the 20 points of extra internals was enough for the Orion to call it a day. A tough battle that could of gone either way. 2-2
After 10 hours of play I was pretty much done for the day, thought of trying for one more game but no one was really around so that was it and I went to dinner.
I didn’t know if 2 and 2 would get me to the last 8? I think there were a few players on 2/2 all I can assume is that I got though on count-back because I had played players who had strong winning records.
Day3. Game 5 Quarter Final vs Marcus Giegerich (Orion) Marcus and I played a 4 Turn, 3 hour game. By Turn 2 the Gorn was in the centre, Marcus was trying to formulate a plan on the run (which is always hard), then on Turn 3 Marcus gambled that my S-torp was Pseudo, the Orion lost a rear a shield and a handful of internals. On Turn 4 I knew Marcus had to double both engines and attack while I was low on plasma, since I knew he was coming I plotted speed 0 (I think this was the only turn all tournament I plotted speed-0) and put 18 power into Tractor!! I was worried the Orion might fire at range 2 and HET away so I tractored at range 2, I needed two batteries (20 power total) to hook the Orion, I then used 2 batteries for a fast-load, and 1 battery on imp27 for -1 movement to drag the Orion into a suicide shuttle on impulse 32!!! The game went to adjudication, the Orion had effectively four down shields + 20 odd internals, the Gorn had 2 down shields and 7 internals.
A close battle, if Marcus had had one or two more points in Tractor he would not have suffered that much damage on Turn 4 and adjudication could then have easily gone his way.
Game 6 Semi-Final vs Bill Schoeller (Wyn Aux) Bill and I played a 7-8 Turn game over 3 hours. By Turn 2 the Gorn had the centre, Bill stayed at pretty much speed-31 the entire battle circling my Gorn ship (which was doing smaller circles moving 8-17 hexes a turn inside the Wyns) completely twice in the course of the battle. The Gorn phaser 1’s were steadily stripping the Wyn shields while taking less but some damage in return, then on turn 7 the Gorn with an enveloping S already on the board attempted to close at speed-17 with the somewhat cornered Wyn, at range 3 the Wyn launched 5 Drones I was pretty sure two were type IV’s so I was now faced with the tough decision of Weaseling or flying through them? I decided to go for it, all my left side phasers were used on the drones and when Bill launched a Suicide Shuttle at range 1 amied at my down front shield things were looking grim, all I had left was my R/S phaser-3!! Luckily this crippled the SS allowing me to side-slip around the SS while at the same time getting my 3 remaining plasmas into the Wyn ship at various points of the turn, the last 20 from the D-torp caused amazing internals taking I think 4 phasers, a Drone and the Disruptor!!
The game was adjudicated on Turn 8, the Wyn had 30 odd internals and pretty much all its side shields destroyed (only the #1 and #4 were in good shape). While the Gorn had taken nearly 30 internals, it still had strong shields on one side and the phasers 1’s were virtually untouched. The Wyn was now low on weapons and with a 3-6 Breakdown it was going to be very hard for the Wyn to turn about and continue the fight.
The early turns were fast, the middle turns had some interesting maneuver and the last turn was tense and exciting, if my last R/S phaser 3 had failed to cripple the SS the resulting 18 internals would have got Bill the victory. A near run battle and an enjoyable game.
I’ll leave the Final battle vs Ken for another time (Hopefully they will put it in Captains Log) but that too was very close and if he had rolled somewhat better at the critical moment it would be Ken in the Selt answering the questions.
I hope the above battle reports give an idea as to my strategy, I have flown the Gorn many times in the past (late 80’s), the only way to win in short time is to anchor and deliver 80-100 points of plasma, the only problem is that good players don’t just sit there and let themselves be anchored!! In my opinion it often takes 6-10 turns to win with a plasma ship, if you can trade internals/shields and get to the later stages of the battle the S-torps do a very good job in the endgame.
I know my battles were not all that spectacular and I had some luck at the right times, but winning 5 games in a row at Origins against tough players after 15 years away from the game is something I am happy to have achieved.
Cheers,
-Jason Gray (Gorn)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:10 pm: Edit Jason wrote: >>I have flown the Gorn many times in the past (late 80’s), the only way to win in short time is to anchor and deliver 80-100 points of plasma, the only problem is that good players don’t just sit there and let themselves be anchored!!>>
Just as an aside, I don't think this is true. I do just fine in the Gorn, and very rarely anchor/plasma mug, and I win in a very reasonable amount of time (I was, like, top 2 or 3 seed going into the final 8 this year). Rarely do games go to even T8, and very rarely do games time out/get adjudicated (i.e. most of my games are over in 3 hours or less). I play very agressively and launch plasmas to push people around the map and take phaser/bolt F shots on rear sheilds. I went 4-2 at Origins (losing to Ken's Selt primarily 'cause I was dumb and Bill's WYN 'cause it was his year :-) this year, and no games even hit the 3 hour mark (my game vs Al Rae's Kzinti came close, and got to T9, but it was still not a real long a grueling game).
So while it isn't really applicable to the discussion at hand, I disagree that the Gorn can only win with a crushing anchor (or a protracted ballet). 'Cause I do it all the time :-)
-Peter
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 02:11 pm: Edit Jason,
1st of all, congrats! We had ot leave before your game concluded and we didn't have a chance ot say goodbye.
I'd suggest taking down your report ASAP because it's going to be wanted for a future Captain's Log and ADB won't publish it if it's already posted here.
I just want to be clear that I wasn't attacking you or your strategy, I was just wondering what other players thought of it. I think it's viable myself. My only concern that the strategy *may* have been close to what's considered to be non- aggression. I have no hard feelings whatsoever about our game and I'd have no reason to have them becasue you beat me fair and square.
Enjoy the rest of your stay in Vegas!
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 03:14 pm: Edit Jason, How is the WSOP going? What (if any) events are you playing in? I wanted to be there this year, but the same thing that kept me from Origins kept me from going to Vegas (wife due with 3rd child any day now). Congrats on winning at Origins and good luck in Vegas. BTW, don't take this discussion personally, it is just standard after action discussion and not meant by anyone as an attack on you or your tactics. Stephen
By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 03:59 am: Edit Ken said: >>The countertactics we used for it back in '92 or so:
Take the middle of the map - if you see the Gorn going slow, use your batteries to arm more weasels on the approach. Make sure you reach the middle of the map late in the turn. If you have 4 WWs, you can almost always trade a range 4 or 5 alpha strike for two of them, doing a speedy-weasel plot over a turn break. (He reaches the middle the map at the end of turn 2, or middle of turn 3).
Use your SP if you have one, recycle the shuttle.
Get into a turning duel - make sure you're one speed UNDER your turn mode for unplotted mid turn speed changes to get the unanticipated double or triple move. >>
I'm not sure I would agree with this approach to the Turtle strategy. Taking the middle of the map goes without say, because the Gorn is conceding it to you early on, but once he crawls into position, he'll have the center of the map if he wants it. I wouldn't give it to him free of charge, but I wouldn't sell out to keep him away from it.
Arming four weasels is too much, because it reduces power I would use for speed and I really don't want to get into a protracted parking lot exchange with this ship. I wouldn't deploy a scatter pack against this ship, because that is simply throwing away 6 drones. If I don't escort them, he'll just phaser them; if I do, he'll chase me away with plasma, phaser me up a little and weasel them. Part of the reason he's going so slowly is to deal with problems just like this. SPs are for speed 17 Gorns, not speed 4 Gorns.
Finally , I would not get into a turning duel with this ship. At his speeds he will out-turn me and I'm not sure what I gain by employing this. My strategy, instead, would be hit-and-run attacks down the boundaries of his shields. I would charge in with as much of my own reinforcement as I could spare, compelling him into defensive launches from which I would run in an attempt to cycle out his plasma. That would be my strategy, not entirely sure about the particulars.
With that said, the thing I particularly like about the way Jason flew the Gorn, as I understand it, is that he did actually have a coherent and continuous strategy and he employed it to good effect. He knew he wanted to occupy the center of the map without suffering damage. The only way to do this effectively is to deploy plasma, but in doing so, you're down plasma, so, realizing that a turn 2 arrival is no different from a turn 4 arrival if you make it there intact, he deployed plasma, while protecting his ship with reinforcement and softening up his opponent with shield damage and drained power curves (as the opponent runs in and attacks), while perhaps mitigating the negative impact of his pre-emptive plasma launch, as he would have fresh plasmas around the time he'd reach the center of the map on Turn 3 or 4. "Turtle" is certainly one name for this strategy, but if he's employing it simply to manuever into a position to inflict punishment from the center, I would be more inclined to give it the more militarily-honorable Roman name of "Testudo."
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:15 am: Edit Yeah, while moving a total of, what, 6 hexes on T1 is certainly skirting the hairy edge of "non engagement" without actually going over it, I'd still think that it would be not that difficult to work around as the opponent. I didn't fight against this particular strategy (as I was flying Gorn also, so was spared a civil war by design, and was dead by the time it would have happened anyway :-), but I'd figure that if your opponent moved that slowly, plasma or no, most opponents would be able move into a good position. I mean, like, unless he launches all of his plasma at once, it isn't that difficult to run it out a bit, eat it on flank shields, take some internals, and then corner the slow moving Gorn and mug him to death. If he was launching 50 point chunks while moving slowly, you run those out to 11 (so 50 damage becomes 32 damage), phaser the F a bit, eat it on a flank sheild. If it is real, you lose a sheild, and the Gorn is down to 50 plasma when you run him over. Yeah, you are going to take some damage, but if you are a drone heavy ship, you'll probably kill him. If you are a Hydran, you'll probably kill him. If you are a Lyran and can get the ESGs to hit before you take the next 50, you'll probably kill him. If you are a plasma ship (and this is the strategy the Gorn is flying), you should kill him. And Tholians. And maybe even the Fed (lose a shield, get the best shot you can, HET and run from the next plasma if you can get a R4-5 shot without eating it). And the Andro, even.
I mean, like, if your response to the Gorn moving slowly and lobbing plasmas is to just keep running away and letting him rearm, the Gorn is probably going to kill you. But as I play the Gorn, a lot, what kills me more often than not is when someone takes my 50 plasma or whatever for not much damage and gets on top of me instead of running off to evade the plasma and letting me reload. But that is me.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:19 am: Edit my thoughts on my fight vs Jason
It looked like a castle to me and I played against it like it was a castle. No sweat, I fly Orion, I see it all the time. But, when people start going speed 4 in front of me they usually stay put.
So in the beginning when I expected him to move he didn't, then when I expected him to stay put he didn't.
Last I heard, Confusion to thine enemies is a winning game plan.
Cudos to Jason.
By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:49 pm: Edit My two cents on the non-aggression thing:
Even non-aggressive play has it's time and place to survive a turn or two. IIRC it is only a factor in adjuciations not during the game and going to a referee to try and prod your opponent to change his game play is not right for a variety of reasons. I was surprised to hear the judges even said anything to him about it rather than telling the person complaining about it that it would only be a factor in adjucations etc.
The tactic being argued about is not non-aggression-it is simply a strategy using the ships power curve in a manner different than what was expected by his opponents who did not adapt well to it and lost. It is also not a perfect strategy as he did lose before making the run for the hat etc.
If we take the logical extreme of bashing his tactic into the dirt and/or getting it banned as/considered as "non-aggressive" then we would simply be saying "define speed X as the minimum everyone must run at to be considered aggressive" etc and would not be good.
All that said; If he's doing that then:
Punch down one shield and mizia him through as a high speed phaser boat.
Get the overrun you've dreamed after stringing out his plasmas by ducking in and running. Make a bunch of range 8/10 passes (depending on ships best zone without closing to tractor) with Alpha's every turn or two until the time limit is up.
Do the same thing back to him using reinforcement and phasers and manuevering to tone down his plasma hits and get into position to finish him off...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 01:21 pm: Edit Doug wrote: >>Even non-aggressive play has it's time and place to survive a turn or two. IIRC it is only a factor in adjuciations not during the game and going to a referee to try and prod your opponent to change his game play is not right for a variety of reasons.>>
Well, except that the published rules on Non Agression (in CL#23) specifically tell players to alert the judge immediately when their opponent begins an example of "non agressive" play, to start the "non agression" clock (wherein their opponent is DQed after, I think, 4 turns of continual non agression, which is defined in the article as retrograding, cloaking, or sitting still).
In the games in question, where possibly non agressive play was being engaged, alerting the judge is a completely reasonable action. At which point the judge investigates, rules that no non agression is going on, and the game continues.
>>If we take the logical extreme of bashing his tactic into the dirt and/or getting it banned as/considered as "non-aggressive" then we would simply be saying "define speed X as the minimum everyone must run at to be considered aggressive" etc and would not be good.>>
No one is doing that here. The strategy being followed (extremely low speeds for the first few turns of the game) certainly raise an eyebrow, in terms of "non agression". In context, however, it does not appear that the "non agression" rules were being broken, so all is fine.
See, as I have mentioned before, the Rules on Non Agression (article in CL#23) are important to exist, if only to let people know what is or is not "non agression" in tournament play, and even if the rules are never used, that you can, in theory, be DQed for moving backwards for 4 turns in a row compells folks not to do this. The problem is that this article/rules set is difficult to find, so not everyone has actually seen it. Which is why I keep trying to get them put up on the SFBOL site or something. Anyone? Paul?
-Peter
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 02:54 pm: Edit Peter, I will remind SVC about this.
Paul Franz
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 03:02 pm: Edit NOTES FOR JUDGES: NON-AGGRESSION
Perhaps nothing is more complicated or controversial than a judge ruling that a player has not fought aggressively and will lose the game. Even more frustrating is when a player, exhausted by six hours of following a cloaked opponent, gets tired and fires an alpha strike into limbo and is then destroyed. A panel of top SFB judges offer these guidelines. First, what actually is “non-aggression”. This is defined as any of the following: • STARCASTLE (i.e., parking) to use the energy that would have gone into movement for shield reinforcement, forcing the enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange weapons fire at a disadvantage. • RETROGRADE, i.e., backing away from the enemy with your weapons pointing toward him, forcing the enemy to chase you through a wall of seeking weapons while his own seeking weapons are useless. (Note: this comes into play even if neither ship has seeking weapons beyond suicide shuttles.) • CLOAKING is by definition non-aggressive, but (like the above) is ok to reload and conduct a few repairs and, within limits, get into a firing position. It is not legal to cruise around, cloaked and holding plasmas or overloads, and refuse to uncloak until the enemy tried to shoot at your cloaked ship and missed. Note that moving in reverse toward the enemy is not a problem, and note that just plain running away (forward) isn’t illegal as you will get run down and shot. Parking and moving in retrograde are non-aggressive even if that ship is firing weapons at the enemy. All forms of non-aggression are interchangeable and changing from Starcastle to Retrograde does not “start the clock” over again; the count of non-aggression continues. No one is required to engage a ship using non-aggressive tactics, since that player is, unfairly and with bad sportsmanship, refusing to play unless you hand him a major tactical advantage. If the enemy starcastles or retrogrades, you are not obliged to attack him. If the enemy stays cloaked, you are not obliged to fire at him (although many players use the “subhunt” tactic of firing a phaser-1 now and then just to rattle the cloaked ship, and do so to good effect). Two problems can result from non-aggression. One is that the other player will simply do nothing for several hours and then insist that the judge summarily execute his opponent for him (rather than him having to work for the win). The other is when a judge doesn’t understand the mechanics of non-aggression and allows it to go on and on. While a couple of turns of non-aggression can allow a ship that is hurt to reload and get back in the game, there must be some limits. Here is the procedure: 1. A player who notes that his opponent has been non-aggressive for one entire turn should verbally warn him. 2. After two consecutive turns of non-aggression, the other player may summon a judge who (if he agrees the above conditions were met) will issue a formal “advisory of non-aggression”. 3. At the end of a third consecutive turn of non-aggression, the judge (if the conditions have been met) will issue the formal (and final) “warning of imminent judgement”. 4. At the end of the fourth consecutive turn of non-aggression, the judge must (if the conditions have been met for most of that turn) rule against the non- aggressive player, ending the game and giving the victory to the other player. The other player can never be penalized for refusing to take the “sucker bet” offered by the non-aggressive player. Anything that happened more than two turns before the judge was called does not count. It is up to the judge to rule if the conditions have been met or, in some way, avoided. PBEM and SFBOL may use a slightly modified system due to the nature of those venues. If done right, it will never come up as both players know the penalties.
By James Mcmurray (Jmcmurra) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 04:34 pm: Edit It seems to me like 4 turns is an awful lot. It gives leeway to people that don't mind being buttheads to starcastle for 3 turns, repairing systems, rearming weapons, and generally leaving you to fly around in circles or charge into the lion's den.
By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit It seems to me that having enough time to repair and rearm is the whole POINT of giving 4 turns. If my opponent doesn't stay close and punish me on reload turns I'm not required to chase him down before I'm ready. Non-agression is specifically for when I don't try to hunt him down even though I am as ready as I'm likely to get.
By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:35 pm: Edit SPP, Is that the SFB non-aggression pact to be recognized by all parties at the table then? (ok, reporting to the booth now)
By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:35 pm: Edit [deleted-double post]
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 05:57 pm: Edit Steve,
Thanks for posting that. Is there somewhere it could be posted permanently (like in the SFBOL rules or on the site here or something) so it could be readily accessed and/or pointed to when necessary? -Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 06:00 pm: Edit James wrote: >>It seems to me like 4 turns is an awful lot. It gives leeway to people that don't mind being buttheads to starcastle for 3 turns, repairing systems, rearming weapons, and generally leaving you to fly around in circles or charge into the lion's den.>>
4 turns seems reasonable, assuming that the rules are adhered to (i.e. you actually alert the judge at the appropriate point). Any shorter, and your likely to run into a lot of "But I'm not being non agressive! I'm just reloading!", and really, I think the point of the non agression rules is far more one of "these are the rules, and if you break them, you get DQed, so don't break them..." rather than one of "So I got my third opponent DQed for non agression in a row!", in the sense that I suspect that very few if any people have ever actually been DQed for non agression, but that the rules are out there means that you can point to them and say "don't do that".
-Peter
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 06:09 pm: Edit PJB: I suppose we could, but given the size and complexity of the site, I'm dubious anyone would ever find it. Anyway, I sent it to Joe before posting it here and asked him to find a spot. I then came here and posted it so you wouldn't have to wait or hunt for it.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 06:47 pm: Edit Personally, I think Jason Gray's victory is a good thing. An unknown comes to town, flies with non-standard (i.e., "speed is life") tactics, and takes the Gold Hat. Awesome! That encourages participation beyond the "usual crowd" that defines the "accepted doctrine" on how to WIN at SFB tourney play.
Trying to label his approach as "non-aggression" is just sour grapes. What's next - a minimum speed limit for SFB tourney play?
Heavens forfend someone try something different and not conform to "accepted doctrine"!
Congrats Jason on a win well-deserved!
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Quote:
I suppose we could, but given the size and complexity of the site, I'm dubious anyone would ever find it. Anyway, I sent it to Joe before posting it here and asked him to find a spot.
From the main site, TOURNAMENTS AND CONVENTIONS > TOURNAMENT DOWNLOADS seems an appropriate spot.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 08:44 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>From the main site, TOURNAMENTS AND CONVENTIONS > TOURNAMENT DOWNLOADS seems an appropriate spot.>>
Yep. Or maybe in a thread at the top of the tournament section set up as, like, TOURNAMENT RESOURCES or something.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 08:45 pm: Edit Dale wrote: >>Trying to label his approach as "non-aggression" is just sour grapes. What's next - a minimum speed limit for SFB tourney play?>>
And again, no one is doing this.
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:47 pm: Edit Well, couple of ways to look at this...
The real problem to me wasn't the tactics, but the fact that someone went 0-2 and still made the finals, laugh. Not sure when it changed, but I remember it was net 3 wins, had to defeat another 'A' player to make it. (Had to change either this year or last, since I was there before that) It will be somewhat humorous to read a victory article in which the player lost twice to start. Consider that in any 'normal' year when Captains started, that he would have lost game #1 and that would be the end of this conversation.
Now, there are some ships that are going to make a mockery of this strategy, like the Hydran, and Brian not so suprisingly won his match. On the other hand, any ship that doesn't have equal armanents will have trouble in varying degrees in dealing with a slow speeder.
As for it being nonaggressive, I don't see that at all. Even if he never sped up, I certainly don't see any problem with low speed. And, low speed if FAR inferior to 0 speed in engagements anyway. The fact he was using low speed to gain board position, and then generally speeding up later is clearly aggressive anyway.
I also think the strange ship selections had some serious impact in this as well. How Brian didn't win with the Hydran against that field of ships is the most astounding thing I read in all of this.
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 01:00 am: Edit here is where I chip in again.
I played against him like he was a Tac meister. Going into turn 5 I thought I was ahead. I had just ripped the last shields off of his ship. 4 Shields were 4 box or less. In the process I lost FOUR engines. (by turn 6)
I was looking at setting up a RA 2 strike on a down shield. (He's only moving 12)
Then he HETs, tracs and Fast loads. oops. ;)
It was weird to face a ship that started out slow then speeded up. Which was where my error was.
I'm used to fast for a bit then park.
Not crawl for a bit then chase. I HET'd for game he was ready with a HET, trac and batts for A Quickload.
I miss guessed where his power was and he won. Fair and square.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 06:20 am: Edit Tim, Jason Gray's record was 2-2 not 0-2.
Paul Franz
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 06:47 am: Edit Tim does have a point.
From: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/origins.htm
Quote:
The Star Fleet Battles National Championships (Captains' Tournament): Compete against the top Star Fleet Battles players in the nation for the prized "Gold Hat." Modified patrol format matching in initial rounds. Minimum three net wins (total wins - total losses) to qualify for "B" finals seat, minimum four (4) net wins to qualify for "A" finals seat. Sixteen (16) "B" qualifiers play other "B" qualifiers to qualify for eight (8) "A" seats. Eight (8) Rated Ace cards awarded. Non-qualifiers automatically entered into Saturday Patrol. Open to all participants.
According to this, to get a seat in the Finals you need either 3 or 4 net wins.
Did the format change? If so, this information needs to be updated.
By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 07:47 am: Edit I suspect due to the low attendance they took the 8 best records. I would guess that 2-2 was one of the 8 best. I believe this happened last year, as well. I was not at either so take that for what it is worth.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 08:51 am: Edit That's my point then.
The format for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP needs to be updated to say, "Number of entries = X, Format A. Number of entries less than X, Format B."
Unless the format has changed no matter then number of entries?
Is there no longer any advantage to having a current ACE card at Origins? Other than being ineligable for Patrol?
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 01:41 pm: Edit Ken said "I suspect due to the low attendance they took the 8 best records. I would guess that 2-2 was one of the 8 best"
Yup, that's the way it worked. With only 20 or so total entries, there was really no better way to do it. There was a tie between Jason's 2-2 record, Brook's 2-2 record, and maybe a third guy with a 2-2 record for the last seed. That actually confuses me, cause I think I was the #2 seed at 4-1. So that then means that #'s 7 and 8 where both 2-2. Hmmm....
The thing that helped Jason most was that most of his opponents where befuddled as to what to do against him. I know that when he announced speed 7 on turn 1, I was like "what in the flaming hell?!?!?" and from there on I was at a loss as to how to deal with it.
Now IMO the turtle game is kinda boring, but I think it's great that such a style of play is now viable again because it gives plasma ships (but especially the Gorn) a wider variety of game plans. By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 01:57 pm: Edit Sounds to me like he had a good idea and made it work for him. How disturbing; someone with fresh ideas and a new approach. Oh, désolé.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:02 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>The format for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP needs to be updated to say, "Number of entries = X, Format A. Number of entries less than X, Format B." >>
The format for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (uh, why the all caps?) was adjusted as necessary, to make it work based on the number of players in attendance. A couple years ago, there was the first "new format", based on declining attendance and to address the issue of people not being so psyched about losing their first game and being bombed out of the tournament. So they invented the "3 net wins" rule, which was good in theory, but turned out to not work based on the number of players that happened to show up (as there weren't 16 players with 3 net wins by Saturday morning). So they adjusted as necessary.
This year, based on the low turnout (about 20 players), we ended up playing patrol all day Thursday and Friday, and then the top 8 players were built into a 3 round, single elimination tree on Saturday morning. Which worked fine, and was a very reasonable solution to the existing problem (i.e. a low turnout).
>>Unless the format has changed no matter then number of entries? >>
The format has changed as necessary to make the tournament run smoothly. The judges did what they needed to do. And it worked out fine.
>>Is there no longer any advantage to having a current ACE card at Origins? Other than being ineligable for Patrol?>>
There is no advantage at all to having an Ace card at Origins. The last couple of years, the (non Ace) Patrol event didn't even actually occur. This year, there were about 20 people in the Gold Hat tournament. Everyone played everyone regardless of Ace cards, which was fine. After 2 days of patrol play, the top 8 were arranged into a single elimination tree. Which also worked fine.
In the end, it would probably make some sense to change the write up of how the event works, but as it has worked differently every year for the past 3 years or so, there really isn't a good way to write that up.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:07 pm: Edit Tim wrote: >>The real problem to me wasn't the tactics, but the fact that someone went 0-2 and still made the finals, laugh.>>
As mentioned, he was 2-2, not 0-2.
>> Not sure when it changed, but I remember it was net 3 wins, had to defeat another 'A' player to make it. (Had to change either this year or last, since I was there before that)>>
Low turnout results in adjusted rules. They do what they gotta do.
-Peter
By Douglass E. Howard (Doug_Howard) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit Just a few thoughts on the Tournament;
Maybe a current valid Ace card could mean automatically in the first bracket on Saturday?
Incentive beyond the hat itself like a paid for (cheap) hotel room for next year (or at another convention like Gen-Con etc) to go with the hat as a final prize.
More sponsored tournaments at other conventions around the country where the winner gets a nice prize and is automatically in the finals for Nationals-possibly coupling it with splitting (cheap) rooms among the winners... or something-attendence has been getting lower and lower the last several years.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 02:48 pm: Edit
Quote:
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (uh, why the all caps?)
Because my CAPS key was missing the love?
Quote:
Low turnout results in adjusted rules. They do what they gotta do.
I don't have a problem with that, it's the right thing to do under the circumstances. I just think that the alternate plan for low attendance should be thought out in advance (which I hope it was in this case) and published so that people will know what to expect.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:33 pm: Edit I can think of a bunch of "regulars" who have attended Origins in the not too distant past but didn't make it in 2006 - Ralph, Jim, Stephen, Tom, Paul, Tim, Joe, Allen (could go on and on, please don't read anything into it if I didn't put your name down here).
The point being, despite having a great time (as usual), I too was disappointed in the low turnout, but remain hopeful and optimistic that attendance will pick up in 2007.
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit My absence was an anomaly, due to the fact that my wife is due with a baby any day now and I didn't want to be 400 miles away from her if she went into labor. I have every intention of being there next year if at all possible. Stephen
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit Doug wrote: >>Maybe a current valid Ace card could mean automatically in the first bracket on Saturday?>>
Heh. The problem with that was that everyone but, like, maybe 3 guys in the room, had Ace cards. So that wouldn't help so much :-)
>>Incentive beyond the hat itself like a paid for (cheap) hotel room for next year (or at another convention like Gen-Con etc) to go with the hat as a final prize. >>
People aren't not showing up due to lack of incentive. There are likely a lot of reasons, but I don't think that a free hotel romm for the winner is gonna help.
>>or something-attendence has been getting lower and lower the last several years. >>
Yep. Which is sad. But what we have working against us is an aging player base, not many new tournament players coming into the system, and general economics. Then this year we had a new location working against us, which likely cost us at least a few players. But I'm sure everyone is trying to figure out ways to get more folks to show up.
-Peter By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 06:50 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>Because my CAPS key was missing the love?>>
Heh. Sometimes that is the case, I guess :-)
>>I just think that the alternate plan for low attendance should be thought out in advance (which I hope it was in this case) and published so that people will know what to expect.>>
While in theory, you are probably correct, in practice, I don't really think it makes a difference. Folks go to Origins for SFB to play SFB. I honestly don't think that the nitty-gritty aspects of the tournament organization really has much impact on the situation, in terms of actual entertainment. Sure, the theory for the current tournament is "3 net kills for the finals", which, given the turnout for the last few years, is an unreasonable expectation (if for no other reason than it is difficult to get games in on a reasonable schedule--years ago, you could get an opponent every time you walked up to the desk. These days, you put your name in the hat and have to wait for one of the current games to end, and then hope that one of those opponents is both willing to play again imediately and isn't someone you have already played). So the end result is while the system changes as needed, it never changes to make it *harder* to get in the finals (i.e they aren't making the goal for the finals 4 net kills out of nowhere, they are just, say, changing "3 net kills" into "top 8 records, whatever those are").
But yeah, in a perfect environment, the system that is going to be used should be known in advance. But again, in practice, I don't really think it matters much.
-Peter
By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 01:04 pm: Edit I know there are a myriad of reasons why this won't happen, but I think the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (it looks more important in all caps ;) should be done on SFBOL.
1) Everyone in the world has access to SFBOL, the tournament is likely to be huge (and with almost all the top players in it).
2) No time limits on games (makes for better games, imo)
3) No huge costs involved (a few bucks for a few months subscription to get the tourney in, vs huge costs for flights/hotels/etc.)
4) Much more room for spectators (will have to find a way to silence kibitzers)
There are a lot more reasons, no time to brainstorm them up at the moment. I just want to see the National Tourney to have more than 20 participants (it's just sad when most local tourneys are bigger than the national tourney), and an SFBOL National Tourney would likely have over 100 entries.
You can make the Origins tourney "Hat jr." or something. Or heck, keep the Origins Tourney the same, with same name and create a separate SFBOL National Tourney -- it would probably be accepted as "THE" National Tourney after its first run. Archive through July 21, 2006
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone: Tactics Discussion: Archive 2006: Archive through July 21, 2006
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 02:24 pm: Edit It would make more sense to keep Origins the National Championship, and do the World Championship on SFBOL.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 02:36 pm: Edit I've got to agree. Origins isn't even the biggest convention tournament any more.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:26 pm: Edit Maybe, paradoxically, that people are avoiding Origins because they figure that they have a lesser chance of winning the bigger the field is and assume that Origins has the largest draw?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:32 pm: Edit Gary. Origins numbers have been down for years now.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:35 pm: Edit From the player's standpoint, those points are very valid (although I also enjoy the face to face socializing, and hanging out with old friends I don't get to see very often).
From ADB's point of view, I'd think having the national championship at Origins would be better for drawing a bigger SFB crowd at the actual convention.
2 side notes: - I consider winning the SFBOL RATs to be (already) very prestigious - It's not just Origins, the SFBOL RAT numbers are way down too, down to about ~32 players per RAT these days...
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:40 pm: Edit
Quote: Maybe, paradoxically, that people are avoiding Origins because they figure that they have a lesser chance of winning the bigger the field is and assume that Origins has the largest draw?
Quote:
Gary. Origins numbers have been down for years now.
So? That just means people may have been thinking this for years.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 05:18 pm: Edit Daniel wrote: >>I know there are a myriad of reasons why this won't happen, but I think the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (it looks more important in all caps ;) should be done on SFBOL.>>
See, while a lot of what you are saying makes sense in many ways, Star Fleet Battles is, in the end, a board game. Not a computer game. SFBOL is cool and all, but being a board game, SFB should be played on a board for, like, "prestige" tournaments. I mean, like, they could play the Bridge world championships on the computer too (or the World Series of Poker, for that matter), but they aren't going to do that. As playing on a computer and playing face to face are different things. And SFB is a game that is meant to be played on a table. With actual maps and counters and pencils and dice. This reason (among others) is why I think making any prestige SFB events take place on SFBOL is a bad idea.
>>1) Everyone in the world has access to SFBOL, the tournament is likely to be huge (and with almost all the top players in it).>>
Is it really likely to be any more huge than it currently is? Like, the current RAT is up to about 30 people. And unlikely to get much bigger. This year's Origins was uncharactaristically low for unusual reasons (high travel costs, new location). It seems perfectly reasonable to expect a 30 person turn out at Origins next year.
>>2) No time limits on games (makes for better games, imo) >>
I'm way out on no time limits. Like, I play a lot of face to face SFB, and 3 hours is, in general, easily enough time to play a tournament duel to a certain conclusion. Once and a while, yeah, games need to be adjudicated in FtF play. But more often than not, this is not the case. I find that SFBOL allows for 8-10 hour nightmare games a flaw in the system.
>>3) No huge costs involved (a few bucks for a few months subscription to get the tourney in, vs huge costs for flights/hotels/etc.)>>
Sure. But people like going to conventions. I'm sure the cost of travel/hotel/living for 4 days at a con keeps some folks out who would otherise like to go, sure, but mostly, not so much I'd figure. It is nice seeing the friends who you see once a year, getting to buy all the cool new stuff, getting to hang out at the bar across the street, and being at a con. Again, SFB is, for better or for worse, a board game. And part of being a board game is being played at board game conventions.
>>4) Much more room for spectators (will have to find a way to silence kibitzers)>>
Neither here nor there. I mean, it is nice to be able to watch an SFBOL game and all, but I wouldn't want to go all computer just so I could watch more games.
>>There are a lot more reasons, no time to brainstorm them up at the moment. I just want to see the National Tourney to have more than 20 participants (it's just sad when most local tourneys are bigger than the national tourney), and an SFBOL National Tourney would likely have over 100 entries.>>
Everyone would like to see the National Championships have more than 20 people. But I find the idea that such a tournament on SFBOL would have over 100 players, when RATs generally have about 30, to be unlikely (if someone is unwilling to play in a RAT, why would they be willing to play in a "Championship"?)
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>Maybe, paradoxically, that people are avoiding Origins because they figure that they have a lesser chance of winning the bigger the field is and assume that Origins has the largest draw?>>
I don't think anyone is specifically avoiding Origins who is wanting to play tournament SFB otherwise.
Like, even 6 or 7 years ago, we had upwards of 75 people playing in the SFB tournament at Origins. The population has been steadily dwindling since then (significantly, since 2001...). And I suspect it is simply a combination of aging player base (more and more people having kids and just generally other stuff to do), not much player influx (especially now with Fed Com as a great game for more casual players), general economic lull (and high gas prices), and people just having other stuff to do.
I suspect that most folks out there who, given the time and cash, would like to play in a solid SFB tournament, would go to Origins and play.
Yeah, 20 people this year was lame. But it seems likely that next year the numbers will go back up some (more folks knowing where we are playing, multiple hard core people wanting to go this year and missing out for various one off reasons). And really, I don't think changing the format or people's perceptions of their chance of winning will have any impact at all on attendance.
-Peter
By David Cheng (Davec) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 05:32 pm: Edit >>(if someone is unwilling to play in a RAT, why would they be willing to play in a "Championship"?)>>
Marketing.
If you build it, they will come.
-DC
By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 05:51 pm: Edit I'll probably never attend Origins no matter what you do. For one thing I'm not a good enough SFB player to bother trying for the Hat (and I refuse to get SFBOL until I complete my degree, so I'm unlikely to get much better anytime soon). For another, I have no desire to go to a major national con for any reason. Genghis is almost getting to a size I'm uncomfortable with, but my wife runs RPGs there (and it's in-town) so I sorta have to go. I guess this isn't really a productive post, I just wanted people to realize that there's a significant portion of the market that you'll never ever penetrate.
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:34 pm: Edit Ok, so let's talk tactics again. Here are some thoughts on how to defeat the "turtle" tactic:
The purpose of the "turtle" tactic is to claim the center of the board without taking a lot of damage. So it seems that the best way to beat it, is to turn the tables on them. Claim the center of the map, and make them wade through you if they want it.
Here's how I think you can do that. Assuming that you already have 2 wild weasels armed, I'd plan on ending turn 1 approximately 8 hexes away. I'd start charging 2 more weasels with reserve power immediately upon realizing your facing a "turtle". The idea here is to claim the center, and then weasel plasma while you continue close for a good shot. Whether this is a 4/14, or a 4 the entire turn will be a judgement call based on your position and ship.
If they have done some sorta 8/4 speed plot on turn 1, you have them trapped between you(somewhere on their side of the center), and their starting hex. Because they have gone so slow on turn 1, the best they can manage will be approximately spd 14. So even if you are at speed 4 all of turn 2, they will not be able to fly around you without giving up a solid OL shot. Chances are you will still be able to deny them the center on turn 2. So you should get at least 1 good shot(2 if you are lucky), and draw out a significant amount of plasma, while maintaining control of the center. You've probably taken minimal shield damage, and forced them to peel off to reload. I'd guess that the game turns into a typical plasma game at this point. I think this will work well for most disruptor ships.
If you are lucky enough to be flying an Orion, there is another option. Cloak out on turn 2, and close to point blank under cloak. This shouldn't be hard to arrange due to thier slow speed on turn 2. You'll need at least 2 wild weasels, and some(maybe a lot) of negative tractor to survive uncloaking on turn 3. Inside of range 3, you should do significant internals to the turtle while taking minimal internals in return. Rinse and repeat as necessary. This will be somewhat dependent on your option package.
I don't think that using the "Turtle" will work well against most of the heavy direct fire ships, or other plasma ships. The Tholians will be licking their chops over a slow plasma ship, and the Fed will have an easier time dealing with the plasma if the other ship is moving real slow. The Selt can probably play it like a disruptor ship. Plasma ships will just EPT it to death.
Thoughts?
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:45 pm: Edit Tim said:
Quote:
Now, there are some ships that are going to make a mockery of this strategy, like the Hydran, and Brian not so suprisingly won his match.
In my game against Jason, he did not use the "turtle". It was a fairly standard Gorn/Hydran game. His speed plots for the first 2 turns were: T1: 16->i23, 31->E T2: 17->E
We played 8 turns, and both ships were severly beat up at the end. It was a very good game.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:58 pm: Edit One detail that came up several times in the final that I was not expecting, was the difficulty in getting all my heavy weapons to fire effectively on the same impulse, since SCs fire during transporter step, making the sequence:
SCs (transporter step) WW (shuttle step) PCs and phasers (fire step)
This gives the opponent an opportunity to WW after the SCs fire, effectively splitting the Seltorian direct fire. Jason did an excellent job taking advantage of this weakness in the final.
By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 08:34 am: Edit What is a "standard Gorn/Hydran game"? I have to admit that there are a couple REALLY good Hydran players in my local tourney who always kick my reptilian tookus back to the RPG room. How should this one be played?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 08:51 am: Edit Brian wrote: >>The purpose of the "turtle" tactic is to claim the center of the board without taking a lot of damage.>>
While it certainly seems to do that, I'm unclear how it does so more effectively than simply flying to the middle of the map as a plasma ship. I regularly claim the center of the board while, at worst, losing a (#2/#6) shield. And then on T2, you are in the center of the map, are moving fast, and can do whatever you were planning on doing anyway. Claiming this position over the span of 3 turns while moving slowly strikes me as simply giving your opponent more opportunity to do what they want to do.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:59 pm: Edit I don't really think it's more effective than just flying to the center. One main difference though is not losing a shield on turn 1. I think there are some similiarities to the plasma ballet, in that the overall strategy is to build up damage over multiple turns while taking little damage in return. This is accomplished using different tactics, but the goal is pretty much the same. The surprise factor, combined with overall good play is why Jason was so successful with it. By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 02:18 am: Edit ISC vs Hydran
Me vs Stimpy
T1 I loaded a EPT (B) rolled Tube (C) -- Speed change to 31 imp 19 -- holding 1 SS. Dan was 17/26 all the way --- too many variables to track his power to the exact . We came in from the center #1 vs #1(one hex off centerline) at R16 I thought about getting a torp out. Decided not too until R14.Dan slipped away -- I also slipped away other direction to get a little sepation. Finally got EPT out(Range 14 next imp) as I slipped to give me a few hexes separation from my torp -- even at Sp 31. I then turned in w/ EPT 4 or 5 hexes in front. I held the PPD after Stimpy turned away keeping his # 6 to me (I thought it was reinforced at least 5 or so) We end at R10 and I struggled to NOT fire the PPD thinking I was wasting power against his reinforcement.Probably a mistake on my part. Anyway, Dan had launched his fighters at speed 15 Dir A om imp 30 . Dan ended with fighters out my EPT at R5 to his ship (they were at R1 to his ship ( he was still dir B still). We ended the Turn with me not able to get a rear F out. Decided not to put Fake C torp out on imp 32.
What does the ISC do here during T2 EA here ? A little help please
I will continue tommorrow about my matchup w/ Stimpy.
Daredevil
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 02:22 am: Edit
Oh, this game was resolved --- a JFF game but very helpful for both players here. We both learned stuff
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 08:53 am: Edit Well, I would've fired, thinking what the hay. You prob could be in a turning duiel somewhat, and he would likely have to het at you to get closer than 4/5 anyway.
However, I wouldn't have launched the EPT so soon, either. I understand you wanted the torp to get a few hexes out in front of you, so you could see what he did, but it seems you got exactly what you wanted and you still don't know what you are trying to do. (Of course, you may know exactly what you were trying, and are just polling for ansers on what others would do)
I wouldn't have launched the torp either, he would've known it was fake, or actually just prayed it was real and ignored. The Hydran is in good shape here, with no damage and a torp degrading.
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 03:09 am: Edit ISC vs Hydran
Me vs Dan
T2
Turn 2 was a headache during EA, he was in poised postion to charge me with fighters. I loaded a EPT Tube C and went 15/24 effective imp 5 held a SS, put 2 pts to tractor ( to avoid being tractored). Hope for the best. Dan came out likewise speed 15 -- his fighters started speed 11!. Anyway I started PPDing immediately and found small reinforcement only 1 pt or 2 total on his #6 shield. At R8 I got lucky and killed a fighter w/ 4 ph1's (holding the 360's). Imp 5 we both changed speed Me to 24 and Dan to speed 30! Uh-oh! I thought! He took the EPT at 10(20 pts EPT) and tractored the other fighter at R0 (his fighter was still speed 11-- I challanged him at this --thinking he would be death dragging his fighter-- he explained correctly that the fighter would not be dragged to death because he was only going 30 , not 31) I turned away and put out a 40 pt stack (FAke G, rear F) for Dan to mull on. Dan likely shot too much at the torps (they were going to do 20/20 and hit a rear shield #5 for signifciant internals if he held fire) Dan shot the fighter gatling, the onside ship gat and 2 ph1's -degraded as ph3's (8 at the F , 2 at the G). I then launced the EPT from tube C the next impulse and turned to Dir A with Dan in hot pursuit!-- Dan had used his BATT's to maintain his speed 30 the rest of the turn! Yikes! He ate the EPT at full strength-- not a huge deal-- but it was damage and it was starting to add up a bit. I then started placing shuttles out to hopefully kill the tractored fighter w/ fusions remaining. Dan tractored my shuttle to death drag it -- I thought -- whoa! no me getting tractored Yippee . Dan was manuvering me into the corner pretty well near rhe end of T2. He then made a turn (still at speed 30) that allowed me to HET back to escape the R0 SS and fusion death. I played conservative and killed the fighter at R3 rather than doing extra int's ( Dans #6 was down -2 ints from my 2 LS ph3's)Dan did 7 ints at R2 to my ship. That was basically game --- as I was able to escape the corner and reload both G's and the PPD-- and both fighters were dead! Very interesting game-- came down to the last few impulses of movement . I feel that if Dan had made a more conservative turn near the end of T2 he had a guaranteed R3 or R4 on my #4 shield -- which was would have killed me likely.
Daredevil By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 05:18 pm: Edit range 3 or 4 on your rear shield wouldn't have killed you. Which means I would've had to try and catch you on turn 3, facing a parked ISC, a fast load F and the other rear-F, reinf. and phasers. I was pretty much screwed either way.
I think my mistake was giving you too much of the map on turn 1.
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 11:46 pm: Edit Dan
Very true dan --- but things were not looking good for me -- inside myopic range and I would have had to HET to get those fast loads out. You played the fighters right -- made mostly ignore your ship for T2 --- which is what a angry Hydran wants toward the overrun! I should have fired the PPD on imp 32 to set it up for T3 hehe-- as it was it would not fire until T4 DOH!!
Daredevil
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 03:25 pm: Edit Orion: So, I am sitting here thinking about a goofy Orion package to fly at the upcoming 5 Nations, and was thinking dronex5. Then, for other package, was thinking 5p1. (Because hey, gats are overrated!!)
Thinking my 'main' package would be the drones. Not sure who, if anyone, I'd switch the into the p1 package.
Any thoughts?
(This doesn't mean I'll fly the Orion, but I know I won't fly the Hydran)
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 03:35 pm: Edit My thoughts are practice once or twice with it before you get to a single elim event. I tried it with drones once and nothing felt right. It may take some getting used to.
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 03:39 pm: Edit === IMO you'll tend to make most foes hold back a lot of phasers for drone defense, and have LOTS of extra power for reinf, trac, etc. Probably be trading phaser fire of yours for heavy weapons of theirs. YMMV.. By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Edit One thing to note about that package: You get OAKDISC, which means you get double drone control. I would be thinking anchor.
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 09:35 pm: Edit I have never heard of anyone doing 5 drone as anything other than a joke package, but I have seen 4 drone and 1 hellbore. 3 drone and 2 hellbore is a pretty good anti-Fed package. As for the phaser package, take the one gatling, Tim. And if it makes you feel better, use it only defensively, that will surprise some people. And don't forget to cloak.
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 03:10 am: Edit 2 Packages of courage
PPD 3 Drones 5 fusion beams
Daredevil
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:08 am: Edit I've seen 4 drones and a gat. Was a reasonable package I thought. Actually got my butt whipped by it ;)
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 01:22 pm: Edit And I thought my Litterbug package was funny.
With a 5 drone Orion, you need drones to hit to do any kind of internal damage unless you're at point blank with hot dice. With the gat, you'll at least have a range 2 or less threat to punch through a shield. Or you'll have something to shoot down your opponent's seekers. If you need to use your phasers to shoot down stuff in a 5 drone Orion, you're not going to be doing much to your opponent at all.
One package I was toying with the idea of playing was a 2 photon, F torp package with p1's in the wings. You can still launch the F torp if it gets blown off to preserve the photons, or you can bolt it as a poor man's photon (that holds for free) at range 4 to compliment your photons. In addition, you can use a psuedo launch just to influnce you're opponent's movement (not that 1 F topr is horrifying or anything) and to suck up some phaser firepower. While the 3 photon Orion can be fearsome, you need to double 1 warp engine just to load the darned thing. Hmmmm.... now that I think about it, I should try this sucker out on SFBOL myself.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 07:04 am: Edit Yeah, well, I realize replacing anything in the world with a gat is better, but screw that, gats are too good anyway.
I don't think the 5 drone Orion will be all that bad, actually. (Of course, since I've played the Orion like twice, my opinion is nothing but smoke as of right now) I realize I'll need to land drones, but my thought was that I wanted a supremely low power option to screw around with.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 10:30 am: Edit Was Litterbug the one where you thought the Disrupter was a Hellbore?
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit Naw, it's the HffBB package that makes a supreme mess on the map. It's actually on the fence between a high power package and a low power package once you have to start re-arming the F torps and it has the wierdest arming/attack run cycle you can imagine after the 1st exchange.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:03 am: Edit Ok, still thinking about this some more, and making Orion packages without any hellbores or gatlings.
I actually considered the 5 fusion thing Robert, but determined 5 p1's would generally be superior to that. (Except range 0, laugh) I also considered that package would be able to win a point blank war, but on the other hand, would likely ONLY win a point blank war.
Another thought I had was 3p1, 2 drones, or reversed for 2p1, 3drone. The more I consider the Orion, the better the silly thing seems.
I do like the Marcus idea of 2phot and a F, but jnot sure I like the idea of bolting the F at all. Would be fun to launch the F to maybe blast the opponents rears with the phots, or maybe get same shield as the F.
That might be a tryer, 2p1, 2 phot, and F.
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:28 am: Edit HB, PG 3 drones (utilize oakdisc)
2 Plasma F's, Photon ,2 Fusion
3 Plasma F's , 2 Fusion
3 photons 2 ph1's
4 Fusion , 1 PG Daredevil
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 12:46 pm: Edit No HB or gat?
PPD, 3 drones. If your opponent stays at range, he gets PPD'd to death. If he closes, he is closing through drones and you double everything. Drones pad the PPD as well.
Pl-F, 2xPl-D, 2x1 or Fus. Charge your opponent behind a wave of little plasmas.
Pl-S, Pl-F, 2x1. Play half-strength BP ship with EPT and cloak until he gets fed up and charges, then double everything. Or go for the anchor.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 01:16 pm: Edit ESG, Plas-F, 2xB. If any ship could get an ESG to actually hit a ship, it would be the Orion.
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 01:18 pm: Edit ESG, HB, 2xB. Might as well make the ESG as difficult to use as possible.
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 01:27 pm: Edit 2xDisr, 3xP1. Not perfect but it's a good "run and gun" package. Sadly, I also truly like the five fusion package. Dunno why, I just do.
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 05:51 pm: Edit
Quote:
That might be a tryer, 2p1, 2 phot, and F.
Tim, you probably don't know it, but this used to be the standard Orion package that everyone flew in the late '80s, before the phaser boat became well know. Sometimes it was modified to 2 Fs and 1 photon.
The five drone pack can (at times) work, but so can the octopig. If you are seriously considering it then you need to come up with a good name for it, like maybe penta-drone or B-5 or Five Aces. I did once witness a game between an octopig and the five drone Orion at a tournament back in '89. My recollection is that they tractored each other and both blew up on the same impulse.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 05:57 pm: Edit FiDO (Five Drone Orion) By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:19 pm: Edit groan,
We're Rabbits not dogs
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:30 pm: Edit 3 Photons and 2 P-1 Good for the Range 4 and scoot. Just don't try it against an actual Fed.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:46 am: Edit Conroy always used 3 photons, P1, Fusion. Fusion to lose on a lucky internal or for a "he's shot everything--let's get him with the P3s!" overrun. Go to R4, shoot the Photons and P1s, and then HET away, letting them shoot you on your heavily rienforced, like, #3 or something.
Yeah, hell to arm on the first turn, but still pretty solid.
-Peter
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit The real question is does an Orion want to win style points or just plain win!
Go With stype Tim! More fun that way
Daredevil
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 08:58 pm: Edit A while back, Tim entered one of the RAT's with the Stinger-O(Gat, 4xFus). I don't remember him actually flying that package though. I've been tempted to try it, just for giggles. It'd be interesting to see what happened, and which opponents it would be good against.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:28 pm: Edit You want style points? 3xADD12, 2xFus.
By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:26 am: Edit I've had some success with 2xphot, 1xGat, 2xFusion. A bit more power hungry, but it has some punch outside of range 2. Never tried the Stinger-O, but it is tempting.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:07 am: Edit Another thought, completely unrelated... In the web policy thread on this board of all places, they are talking about dice, automated dice, and putting the mojo on the dice. This got me thinking about something that happened to me in a FTF game, and wondering if others have tried anything like it.
It doesn't really matter who my opponent was, except that he was a very methodical and reasonably slow player. I was doing the EPT ballet almost every game, and did my EA generally in like 25 secods. (Pretty easy writing 2-2-8-2-2-8 all the time) Anyway, as is usual in alot of ballet games, my advantage was increasing little by little every turn, and I was reasonably confident it would continue. However, this doesn't mean my ship was pristine, and at some point(s) my opponent would call for fire.
So, I'd do my usual and say out loud, "I'm not firing a thing, so take all the time you want and fire whatever you want". My opponent would ask out loud to himself if I was reinforced, and would generally pick up the dice and just knead them around in his hands. He told me later he could generally get a good read off of people when he did this, but he was befuddled by my lack of response whatsoever. (I was generally bored to death is the problem I think here, and generally could care less what he did)
However, I've noticed a similar thing happen when I talk out loud during the FTF games since then. I notice different opponents react differently to what I'm talking about, and some even give back information that IS useful to me. (Like the time the opponent mentioned he KNEW I did not have a weasel)
Now, except for the one opponent, I've never seen anyone try to use psychology to help them in the game. I have learned things by accident, but it didn't bother me a second to learn what I did, since it was in no way cheating. My question is, has anyone here ever tried to use psychology, or had it used against you that you recall?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:33 am: Edit Tim wrote: >> My question is, has anyone here ever tried to use psychology, or had it used against you that you recall?>>
I have thankfully never run into anyone who was trying to "psyche" me out, or whatever, through clever, clever mind tricks (or maybe I have, and they were so subtle that I didn't notice...). Maybe I have tells when I play, but really, as I mentioned in that FtF-v-SFBOL discussion a few months back, I am generally unconcerened with what my opponent does or does not know in terms of secret information. I rarely find secret surprises to have much of an impact on play, such that trying to "read" my opponent or worrying about my opponent reading my tells or something to be mostly irrelevant. Yeah, sometimes you gotta make a guess here and there, but the vast majority of the time, I look at the table, see what I think my opponent's best move is, and then assume they are going to do that. When they don't do that, I am usually surprised, but as they then aren't doing what I figured was their best move (especially as I figured it was their best move based on knowing what I was doing that turn), it isn't usually a bad surprise.
As you mention above, whether someone fires or not, usually, is a forgone conclusion based on the board situation. Once and a while, there is a game of chicken (usually involving a Fed as ships move through ranges 5-2) where whoever shoots first is probably disadvantaged (or advantaged or whatever--it'll actually make a difference who shoots first as a surprise or something). But most of the time, I get by just fine by saying "I got fire" when I'm gonna shoot something regardless of what my opponent is planning on doing.
-Peter
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:41 am: Edit Back in the early 90s I played a player who tried to psyche me out (although it was more like intimidation rather than trying to trick me into revealing information). On another thread, I think it was the same player than Arthur Dodge described as "lining up his Ace cards in a row on the table". I think that was the only time I can remember where psychology may have come into play...
Ironically, against some people I have to say, "Doh! Don't tell me that Joe, you don't *have* to tell me that it's from the batteries!"
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit I have played a few subterfuge games. Things like making notes on my EA form every time I announce a speed change, etc. Just things to hide whether an activity was allocated or done with battery. You can read a lot in FTF on battery use if the person is not careful.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit Does doing "Call For Fire" when you have no intention to fire considered a psych game?
Don't confuse mind games with subterfuge.
Mind games is either trying to intimidate, get your opponent to reveal information, or make them act in a way you want them to act.
Subterfuge is things like Andy's always marking the EA when doing a speed change, allocating 5 power to specific reinforcement and then "marking" the EA when you use it (making your opponent think you've burned batts), etc.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:57 am: Edit Gary wrote: >>Does doing "Call For Fire" when you have no intention to fire considered a psych game? >>
I wouldn't think so. There is an implicit "call for fire" every impulse. On impulses where it seems likely that someone will fire (i.e. you roll into R8. Or R5. Or R4. Or whatever), it just seems like good manners to call for fire even if you don't intend on firing anything, as your opponent might. I mean, like, it is possible that someone might try and use this sort of thing as some sort of psychological ploy (i.e. call for fire, spend 2 minutes looking at charts and making notes, and then revealing that you are firing nothing or something) over and over again, but in all likelyhood, just saying "call for fire" and jotting down "3.17-nothing" is simply good manners.
>>Subterfuge is things like Andy's always marking the EA when doing a speed change, allocating 5 power to specific reinforcement and then "marking" the EA when you use it (making your opponent think you've burned batts), etc.>>
Oh, sure. There is always a certain amount of subterfuge in games. But then the very core of the game is subterfuge (i.e. hidden energy allocation). Taking minor actions to disguise what could be very obvious uses of battery power or speed changes or something is just an extention of hidden EA. Just like not revealing that the unidentified drone in a stack of random type I's that just got blown up by a lucky roll of 2 on a P1 at R1 was actually a type IV is just an extention of the subterfugeous aspects of the game. But as noted, these aren't psychological warfare or whatever. Just keeping hidden information hidden.
I mean, in reality, much like fire, I think how much batteries are used isn't really that important, in terms of overall strategy--either you'll be able to, say, tractor them or not, regardless of their battery use. If you can tractor them, you will. If you can't, and you can't 'cause you didn't read their battery use right, then you are likely in the same spot you would have been if you didn't try in the first place.
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:02 pm: Edit Hidden mines (not an issue in tournament play, I know) also demand some subterfuge. Shuttle launch is another area - in a casual game, if I'm launching an admin, I might not write anything down, but that would be a tell if my opponent was wanting to know if I am launching an SS or SP.
I've also known players to secretly note at the beginning of the game which drone counters correspond to which drone, or even which counter corresponds to a real plasma torp and which corresponds to a pseudo. Then, when they launch, they draw the counter at random. They figure that way, their opponent will not be able to read their expression or deduce any pattern from the launches.
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:21 pm: Edit === I've told my favorite psych story before, but here it is again. ;)
Origins (i forgot the year) a Colo Rated Ace friend of mine was flying an F torp Orion vs the dreaded Dr. Pundy, flying his usual Auxbox. Orion closed, launched 2 F's, and waited for Aux response.
Dr. P looked him over, hmmed to himself, and then rolled right thru both pseudos, anchoring and killing the Orion soon after.
My Orion friend then ruefully told me, "Never play SFB vs a psychologist!"
By John C. Malis (Malis) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:27 pm: Edit Sup Goofy, Strange, I thought DR. Pundy was a Dentist?
Malis
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:38 pm: Edit When I play an FtF tourney game, I try to be the opposite of intimidating. I want to be as casual as possible because after all, it's a game and it should be fun. And while many of the things I do on the board may be "sneaky" (I mostly play Orion for cyrin out loud!), I never make a conscious effort to psyche my opponent out or even read him. That's not to say that I've had some players give themselves away from their actions, but I never really look for it.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 04:10 pm: Edit Gents,
We've never done this at Council before, but I am thinking about instituting a "no match goes beyond 4 hours" rule for our upcoming Patrol tournament (Oct 6-8).
Your thoughts?
-DC http://www.swa-gaming.org/ By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit Dave wrote: >>We've never done this at Council before, but I am thinking about instituting a "no match goes beyond 4 hours" rule for our upcoming Patrol tournament (Oct 6- 8).>>
At Origins, it runs with strict 3 hour time limits, which usually works out ok (i.e. only rarely does it require adjudication). I suspect strict 4 hour time limits should be very sufficient for the vast majority of the games.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit As long as you are prepared and willing to break a few games, a time limit is a good idea. Time limits tend to be problematic for Plasma vs. Plasma games though. On the other hand, if you don't put a limit on the game, they might never finish.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit I time limit on games in the finals tree portion of the tournament is not a bad idea, but I'm not too sure about one during the patrol portion.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 10:41 pm: Edit I can't help but remember a Patrol game from a few Councils ago: it was Wampler vs somebody, plasma vs ISC. I think Steve said that game went 8 hours.
I'm personally on the fence about which is better: let them play for 8 hours, or tell people they have a max of 4 at the beginning.
That's why I'm asking for opinions here. It is my intent to make a decision and post the formal rules for the tournament ahead of time.
-DC
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 02:17 am: Edit Plasma vs. Plasma, with both sides doing the ballet, may take a lot of turns to resolve, but there's no reason those turns can't go quickly. Time limits can work regardless of the matchup.
OTOH, for the patrol portion, if neither player is complaining, I don't see any reason to put a time limit on it. I would only adjudicate if a) the game had been going at least 3 hours, b) at least one of the players was asking for a resolution, and c) both players had been given warning that the game would be adjudicated soon. (Of course, if both players wanted adjudication, then I would adjudicate regardless.) By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 09:43 am: Edit David wrote: >>I can't help but remember a Patrol game from a few Councils ago: it was Wampler vs somebody, plasma vs ISC. I think Steve said that game went 8 hours. >>
Heh, yeah, that was crazy.
>>I'm personally on the fence about which is better: let them play for 8 hours, or tell people they have a max of 4 at the beginning. >>
I'd totally be inclined to make a flat 4 hour time limit. In my experience, most SFB tournament games don't even go 3 hours (i.e. when I go to Origins, where there is a pretty strict 3 hour limit, most games get finished before adjudication), so it seems likely that a 4 hour time limit is going to be sufficient for the vast majority of the games, and allowing games to go on past that point generally means that someone is probably not doing what they should be doing anyway (i.e. if a game is still going after 4 hours, someone is likely either playing absurdly slowly or engaging in non agressive tactics, both of which are against the rules). Once and a while, sure, this isn't the case--both people are playing at a reasonable pace and both players are being agressive, but again, most of the time, games simply shouldn't be going that long.
Yeah, there is always the option that one player could ask for an adjudication in a long game, but that kind of places the onus on the person who wants the game to conclude to be The Jerk and call in a judgement, which isn't so much good for game relations. I'd much rather see a flat 4 hour game time limit, so everyone is on the same page, and everyone knows that if they play to long, the game might get adjudicated. Granted, this then leaves the adjudication onus on the Judge (who is judging this year?), which is a pain, but in reality, with 4 hour limits, it really shouldn't come up all that much.
>>That's why I'm asking for opinions here. It is my intent to make a decision and post the formal rules for the tournament ahead of time. >>
Go with the flat, across the board, 4 hour time limit for all games.
-Peter
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:39 pm: Edit That 8 hour game, was me and Wampler. We played 8 hours, and neither of us made any major mistakes. IIRC, the last turn Steve didn't even power his shields, where I did because my last 10 or so shield boxes were facing him. After 4 hours, neither of us had taken any internals, so an adjudication would have been fairly arbitrary IMO. All that said, I think 4 hours is in general plenty of time to complete a game. By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 01:47 pm: Edit I agree with Peter, make it a 4 hour flat limit. I think it'd be hard on someone to have to call for the adjudication. (I've never played a game yet I wanted adjudicated)
On the hand, if you say it is up to the players, I'll be informing my opponent on turn1 imp1 we'll be adjudicating, since I want to play as many games as possible!!
By David Cheng (Davec) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 05:04 pm: Edit Re: Andy's post 4 up from this one...
I think the risk of ill will is much higher when you give the players the discretion for when a game gets adjudicated. I can definitely see the risk of what Peter cautions - one player looks like the "bad guy".
My preference is the "all or nothing" approach: There is a posted time limit for all games, or all games play to completion (explosion or resignation).
It looks like the opinions here so far are pretty clearly in favor of 4-hour time limit is OK. We'll probably go that way, but let's see if more opinions pop up.
-DC
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 06:54 pm: Edit I think games should be adjudicated after each player fills out their EA for turn 1. The judge inspects each form and determines which player won. The judge has up to 4 hours to make his decision.
By Brook J. Villa (Brookie) on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 06:57 pm: Edit heh, hey Marcus! I'd still miss with heavy weapons with that approach!!
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 08:00 pm: Edit Marcus wrote: >>I think games should be adjudicated after each player fills out their EA for turn 1. The judge inspects each form and determines which player won. The judge has up to 4 hours to make his decision.>>
Smart ass :-)
-Peter
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 05:16 am: Edit If you think something is against the rules, asking the other player to read aloud from the rule book, tends to resolve the problem without you (the guy not reading) having to wear the "black hat". I've got a new policy for players who won't read the rule aloud and won't let me read that rule aloud to them...get up and leave. I got totally stomped on once in battletech by a guy who said Clan targeting computers worked in a particular manner and when I said; "how `bout you read those rules out to everyone seated here", got a responce of "NO!" and when I said, "okay, I'll read them", got exactly the same responce...I should have left then and there.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 09:55 am: Edit Michael wrote: >>If you think something is against the rules, asking the other player to read aloud from the rule book, tends to resolve the problem without you (the guy not reading) having to wear the "black hat".>>
Uhh, what are you talking about?
This wasn't a discussion about what is or is not against the rules. It was a discussion about calling for an adjudication after a long game, when no time limit is being enforced.
Confused.
-Peter
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 10:14 pm: Edit Okay, it wasn't directly related but I wanted to mention my new policy.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 01:01 am: Edit Needed: Kzinti tactics vs. Lyran. I told a certain Scottish Engineer to corner dodge and follow the scatter-pack drones, but I'm not the expert. I just know what it looks like when Peter makes it look easy.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:45 am: Edit There is certainly debate that comes from folks who advocate Lyran advantage in this fight. But generally, what I would do is:
T1: Plot 16 till 24 then 31 till end. Arm 4 standards. Put 5 rienforcement somewhere (#2 usually). Turn right. Launch SP on impulse 5. Slip and move so I am 4 hexes from SP when it opens on 11. Launch 4 drones, so there are two stacks--6 in front and 4 another four hexes behind that. Turn in to follow the pack. Fire the disruptors on 25. Face the Lyran with the rienforcement. End the turn a bit behind the drone stacks.
If the Lyran closed as best as he could, he'd be close to the first stack of drones, and possibly just got to R8 from my ship. If he shoots at R8 on i32, he is hitting a rienforced sheild and is unlikely to do internals, and then is without weapons for the first 8 impulses of the turn (and not in a good position--OldSchool is a huge proponent of making sure the Lyran fires on T2 as late as possible, and not from R8). If the Lyran doesn't get to 8, but generally closes, T2 starts with the Lyran having to deal with 10 drones and then 4 more drones, and if he weasels, the drone seperation makes activating AFC difficult. If the Lyran corner dodges himself on T1, the drone set up works differently (you go towards the center some before launching), but the end result is close to the same.
-Peter
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit
Quote:
Launch SP on impulse 5. Slip and move so I am 4 hexes from SP when it opens on 11.
I don't think this works like you tink it does.
11-5=6 impulses. You're about 3 short.
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:41 am: Edit Peter is well aware that sometimes he types faster than he tinks.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:42 am: Edit Following drones is good, but so is being there when the drones strike and speed 20 drones are good for this. Also note you can launch a PSS ( is that possible in tourney?) just as you are about to strike the ESG to soak off atleast 6 points of damage that would otherwise strike your ship.
The thing to try to do is get the Lyran to ESG cheaply and then hammer him when he's recharging the ESG. The trouble is most Lyrans keep their big hammer in their toolbox until the end...where upon taking lots of dis-porportion damage has put the Lyran behind the eight-ball. Getting him to raise the ESG cheaply will cost you with either a big drone stack (but not so big that you draw the weasel) or by offering up your ship in the hope that your trailing drone stack will kill him after he cripples you. If he does weasel, dropping an SP (especially at speed 0 ) behind you should put him in a bind that allows you to use your forrest of Ph-3s against his ship to good effect. By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:18 am: Edit Gary wrote: >>11-5=6 impulses. You're about 3 short.>>
Ahh, yes. I clearly meant 14 (the shuttle moves on 11 is maybe why I though 11...)
So yeah. 14.
-Peter
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit I think Peter uses the same approach against Hydrans and Feds. In fact, I know he uses it against Feds because he did it to me a couple years ago at Total Con, and I watched him do it against Dave Cheng's Hydran a couple years before that. It's a standard opening of his and it does make life difficult on the opposing captain.
I've heard Peter say that if the Lyran doesn't weasel the drone stacks on T2, he's probably lost the game. Now the Lyran can choose to use a combination of ESG's, tractors and phasers to clean drones off the map on turn 2, but he'll be light a few phasers compared to the Kzinti. And then on turn 3, there will be 4 more drones on the map for him to play with and no ESG help until later in the turn.
By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:36 am: Edit As a certain Scottish Engineer, I thank you guys wholeheartedly for the info. Hopefully it'll come to good use here soon.
-- Mike
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:38 am: Edit Yeah, I figured it was a typo by Peter (hence the smiley-face) and it didn't change the actual tactical advice.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:53 am: Edit Marcus wrote: >>I think Peter uses the same approach against Hydrans and Feds. In fact, I know he uses it against Feds because he did it to me a couple years ago at Total Con, and I watched him do it against Dave Cheng's Hydran a couple years before that. It's a standard opening of his and it does make life difficult on the opposing captain. >>
Yeah, I use that same opening in the Kzinti vs pretty much all the DF races, although not so much against the Klingon. Or the Tholians. So really, it is good against the Fed, Lyran, LDR, Shark, Hydran, Selt. >>I've heard Peter say that if the Lyran doesn't weasel the drone stacks on T2, he's probably lost the game. Now the Lyran can choose to use a combination of ESG's, tractors and phasers to clean drones off the map on turn 2, but he'll be light a few phasers compared to the Kzinti. And then on turn 3, there will be 4 more drones on the map for him to play with and no ESG help until later in the turn.>>
Yep. That is pretty much the angle. If the Lyran doesn't weasel the drones and engages the Kzinti at the same time (i.e. uses the ESGs to kill the drones and then comes in to exchange fire), the Lyran has probably lost. If the Lyran kills the drones and runs away for a while, he can make a game of it. If the Lyran avoids the drones, shoots late on T2, and deals with the drones somehow on T3, he can do well (but then, the Kzinti has probably done something wrong in this instance...) If the Lyran weasels the 10 drones, he can make a game of it. But if he is just like "Hey! I have ESGs and phasers and tractors! I can scoff at those 14 drones I have to deal with this turn!", he is likely just dead.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Edit For this reason I try to hit a stack of drones with an ESG on turn 1. ESG up late on turn 1, down and cooling by impulse 32, powered and available again on turn 3. Unfortunately ending the first turn close to the Kzinti makes it difficult to survive turn 2. Peter is right that the correct response to 10 drones is a weasel, but I don't like to weasel against a ship that has 20 guns firing every turn.
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 04:19 am: Edit Non-aggression (I'm confused?)
Hi Guys, Just played the following NK game, Klingon vs Orion FFF11. Turn 1. Klingon goes speed 16, Orion cloaks out at start of turn, we end turn with the Klingon in the middle of the map with the Orion 9 hexes away, can't launch drones because of cloak.
Turn 2. Looks like Orion is going to double both (actually only doubled one) so Klingon plots speed 4. Orion goes speed 26, decides not to close and instead circles around ending the turn in the top right corner, the Klingon follows slowly and on impulse 32 the Orion launches 2 X F-torps from 9 hexes, the Klingon fires 4 standards scratching the Orion shields.
Turn 3. With 2 F's on the board the Klingon goes speed 4, weasels the torps then accelerates to 14. The Orion stays at high speed, the Klingon fires standards again on 32 and the turn ends with the Klingon 10 hexes away and the Orion kinda boxed in in the top left corner. At this point after 45 mins of play my opponent says he's bored and not interested in playing people who use such tactics, says it's a no-game and quits before I can even really respond.
I enjoy playing online and would like to know wether other online players consider the Klingon tactics unsportsmanlike and non-aggression? If so I am happy to stop flying the old dinosaurs and move onto flying the 2/3 move ships.
-Jason G
By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 04:44 am: Edit He was a weenie.
He's flying a ship that can increase it's power output by 100%, cloak, customize it's weapons, het twice, has a 6 BD rating, can HET at 31, has a AA turn mode.
Now if you had kept going speed 4 turn after turn he'd be be right, but you did it only 1 turn and had a plotted accel up from 4 to max capable speed the next turn.
By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 05:30 am: Edit If you were a real gentleman, you would have loaded standards, bounced them off his brick at range 15 and maybe fattening the shot up with 5 ph-1s, then immediately turn off with a full turn no-man's-land speed plot of 21, and launching a few easily-avoidable IM drones as he comes roaring up your #4 to make him feel even more heroic. Silly Orion, what did he expect?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 09:23 am: Edit A non-aggression complaint coming from a guy who cloaks out on turn 1?
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit === As the 'weenie' involved, I just lacked the patience to play with a foe crawling around the map at spd 4, since I didn't feel like impaling myself on his (probable) overloads, reinf, etc.
Nothing wrong with 'dinosaurs', I just prefer it when both players 'engage the enemy aggressively', which is what the rules state in the tourney book. The T1 cloak was trying not to deal with 2 turns of drones (a/o a SP set) from T1 on T2.
But, that's just one opinion. Probably another day I would have the time and patience for a marathon session. Silly Orion. ;) By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 11:27 am: Edit I can understand the cloak if you launched your scatterpack....????? But why bother otherwise? You went slow to weasel off his F's...whats wrong with that? You follwed that up by chasing him(slowly of course)..nothing wrong there.
Sounds to me like he realize he was cornered without weapons and didn't want to get killed...
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 11:41 am: Edit In my Holier than Thou opinion:
Sir Goofy, you should be ashamed. Fleet Captain Gray, you have a reputation for exploring the boundaries of non- aggression.
That said: Either of you are welcome in my gunsights any time.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 02:28 pm: Edit I can understand Goofy's point, but the fact that he cloaked out the 1st turn really hurts his argument. Jason did move 16 the 1st turn. Going speed 4 for all of turn 2 may be a tad like "playing it safe", but I can't see it being too harmful for 1 turn. Turn 3 was a classic 4/14 plot. And if it was only 45 minutes of play, I don't see it as too big a deal.
Now if it was a FtF tournament with an enforced time limit and this behavior persisted for longer, then Scott may have had a case. But online with the game moving as swiftly as it was doesn't seem to be an issue.
I think the real issue is that Scott had to take a poo and he wanted to finish the game before he dropped the kids off at the pool ;)
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 03:14 pm: Edit If you want a fast game, double everything and charge while he's under a WW. This looks like a very bad and non-aggressive play by Orion. Sort of like a thief suing a homeowner for a getting a heart attack caused by a burglar alarm.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 05:06 pm: Edit Jason: I don't usually play tournament, focusing more on campaign play. But I'd be happy to play you online sometime. In my opinion you weren't non- aggressive, you simply were not playing into the Orion's hands. The oldest rule in the book: Make the enemy play YOUR game... don't play his. ;-)
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 05:56 pm: Edit == Mark- Was not without weapons and probably would not have gotten killed, at least quickly. Chris- I definitely could have handled it better. Shame, I dunno. Where is the 'holy' bit coming from, if I may ask? ;)
Marcus- No poo involved. ;)
Ralph- Welcome to your opinion. Because I don't charge a slow, reinforced, probably overloaded Klingon, I'M non aggressive? This from Mr Hundred Points of Plasma? Funny... ;)
But having had a day to think it over, it was definitely rude and immature. My apologies, Jason, and will try to improve. I have not been handling the stresses of a $1k/month pay cut with my recent job change very well. ;(
By Les LeBlanc (Lessss) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 06:01 pm: Edit Oh I missed the Orion Cloaked out on T1 bit, upgrade that weenie to munchkin. :-)
By Scott Moellmer (Goofy) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 06:35 pm: Edit == Is that better or worse? ;)
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit Just that nobody ever said I was non-aggressive. I have historically played the Lyran which gets Dick Butkus out of stopping. Now I'm flying Firehawk which can benefit from opponent frustration. Plus the sheer hubris of scolding the defending World Champion. Dude! $1000 a month? That's a lot of pizza.
By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 01:17 pm: Edit The cloaking on turn 1 should not be an issue. The Orion can do offensive cloaking better than any other ship in the tourny, and I have won against several aces in Klinks by doing a cloaked charge on turn one in the phaser boat. It is very tricky but it can be done, and it is nice bragging rites when you pull it off.
By Brook J. Villa (Brookie) on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 11:39 pm: Edit Why is flying slow and putting a huge brick considered non agression? I have a hard time thinking that it is. I have played Jason twice and both times my first alpha was directed to a shield that had 20+ points of reiforcement. However I could of easily have fired on a different shield, but I was unlucky. Flying slow does have it's disadvantages, allowing the opponent to pick the shield that he is firing on is one of them. I feel like a fool when I dedicate alot of power to reinforcemnt and somebody hits a different shield but that's just good play by my opponent and bad play by me.
Now, what I don't like is when a person cloaks when weapons are armed, that is a total abuse of the cloaking device imho. I think something must be done to deter people from cloaking unless absolutely necessary. How about making all sheilds half strength when cloaking or some kind of penalty for every turn you are cloaked after the first, or a greater chance to lockon to a cloaked ship for each consecutive turn it is cloaked. Just throwing some stuff out there!
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 09:00 am: Edit Brook. How is flying slow with a huge brick noticably different from starcastling? Same concept - you aren't forcing the engagement and are forcing your opponent to engage on your terms. Outside of outrunning seeking weapons and arming cycle specific situations, if your opponent's smartest move is to avoid engagement for the turn, then you are using non-aggression tactics.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 09:56 am: Edit Personally, I think there is a huge difference between TACing and moving speed 4. (Humorous, since I got speed 0 and TAC more than anyone I know, but I think the TAC rules are insane anyway)
Regardless, a 3 plasma F Orion is a fantastic ship fly if the opponent goes speed 4 anyway. (Or any other ship carrying plasma's)
What is wrong with people nowadays!?!
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:25 am: Edit One of the reasons I find this non-aggression subject strange is that apart from continued cloak I cannot think of a non-aggrssion tactic that I could not successfuly attack?
Also when players launch plasma and then run for several turns nobody calls that non-aggression? But it seems if you move slow for several turns to improve your postion that is?
Whenever I move slowly it is for the purpose of setting up a future attack, speed 4 is very different to 0 with Tacs, by going 0 and staying 0 turn after turn you really are using non-aggression but on a fixed map as long as you keep moving you can really influence an opponents position, even with a full-turn plot of 4 you can move 9 hexes for the turn by using reserve power, and from speed 4 you can be at speed 28 thirty-two impulses later in many cases.
The old adage of "speed is life" is true only to a certain point, basically if your opponent has better manouverabilty (turn mode) and more discretionary power while moving fast, trying to match their speed can often equal death.
Funny thing is when someone goes slow and loses people are like "what did expect? don't you know speed is life in SFB" but if you go slow and win, then people are like "hmmm, shifty no good slow mover" like suddenly there is something not quite right with the universe?
-Jason G
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:48 am: Edit I guess the bottom line is I agree with both Brook and Jason, chuckle.
Here's the thing thing, though. I agree with Scott that I also would be bored.
Scott, I recommend you do what I do, drink as much as humanly possible during any game you think might be too boring.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:24 am: Edit
By that criteria, you consider that all games might be too booring?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:04 pm: Edit Jason. IMO, going speed 4 is the same as going speed 0. You still have the ready option of weaseling without having to ED (and suffering the restrictions therein) so you are still, in effect, forcing your opponent to engage you on your terms when you both 1) have a lot of excess power for reinforcement/tractor and 2) can get the EW and Seeker defense from a WW without major negatives. The fact that it is part of a multi-turn strategy does not, IMO, negate the core "non- aggressiveness" of the action.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:33 pm: Edit For what it's worth, I agree with Brook/Jason/Tim. Speed 4 is definitely *not* the same as speed 0, and as Tim points out, it is much easier to attack a speed 4 ship than a speed 0 ship.
Furthermore, let's not lose sight of the fact that Jason was fighting an Orion. I tac all the time against Orions, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. *shrug*
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:42 pm: Edit Jason wrote: >>One of the reasons I find this non-aggression subject strange is that apart from continued cloak I cannot think of a non-aggrssion tactic that I could not successfuly attack? >>
There are a lot of situations where your opponent suddenly stops, and you end up in a situation where you have 20+ power in movement, and your opponent has 20+ power in rienforcement and/or tractor. Making it very disadvantageous simply to run up to them and impale yourself on their pike. So often, the moving ship will see his opponent stop, and the moving ship will just turn off and leave, watching the slow ship barf overloads into space, planning on coming back when the stopped ship speeds up to the very disadvantageous speed of 10.
As speeding up to 10 from 0 is very disadvantageous, the stopped ship has a great deal of incentive to not go up to speed 10, as moving zero is so much better, especially if your opponent runs up to you to fight.
As a result, without the non engagement rules, the game can easily result in stalemate--I don't want to run up to you while you are at speed zero; you don't want to try and speed up as it is disadvantageous to do so. So by having the non engagement rules, the onus of forcing engagement is placed upon the guy who stopped, making it (slightly) disadvantageous to stop, as you are then compelled to get the action going again, otherwise, when the game is called, you lose.
Sure, there are plenty of good ways to engage someone who is not moving. But really, why should you be *forced* to do so, when it is your opponent who decides to stop and tac with 20 points of rienforcement when you have 20 points "wasted" in movement?
>>Also when players launch plasma and then run for several turns nobody calls that non-aggression? But it seems if you move slow for several turns to improve your postion that is?>>
The issue with plasma is that it has a long rearm cycle, and it is easy to corner a plasma ship on a reload turn and kill him. Unless he has a cloak. Which is why the Romulan is the ship voted "Most Likely To Get Called For Non Agression".
Moving slow, however, does not fall under the "non agression" rules. Only:
-Stopping/tacing -Cloaking -Retrograding (i.e. moving in reverse)
-Peter
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:45 pm: Edit Well, the idea of the strategy is to force your opponent to engage on your terms. The difference is at speed 0 you aren't forcing your opponent to do anything, where as using 4-14 movement/plots you _can_ pin the opponent against a map edge where you can then launch seeking weapons or fire overloads to full effect. To me there is a significant difference, in one instance (speed 0) you are completely relying on your opponent to engage, where as in the other you are saying engage me now or engage when you are cornered, it's their choice but either way the battle gets fought. That is a big difference IMO.
-Jason G
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:46 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>Jason. IMO, going speed 4 is the same as going speed 0. >>
It really isn't, for both purposes of the non agression rules and basic play. The non agression rules do not come into play when someone moves speed 4 (only when someone stops, cloaks, or retrogrades). And in terms of general play, I'd *much* rather have my opponent move speed 4 than speed 0. 'Cause when you are speed 4, I know exactly where you will be and where you will be facing at any given moment, unless you HET (which totally blows the advantage of going speed 4). When you are speed zero, you get to TAC. And as Tim points out, TACing is insane.
That being said, often if my opponent is moving at speed 4, I'll just leave till he speeds up. And then kill him when he is moving 14.
-Peter
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit Hi Peter,
I agree with your explanation of the stalemate/non-aggression situation, and btw, I've been killed plenty of times when moving speed 4/14 which is another reason why I don't understand what the fuss is about?
-Jason G
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 01:21 pm: Edit
Quote:
TACing is insane
From reasonable to absurd:
TACs should be forced to happen before movement?
TACs should be declared the impulse before they are executed? TACs should be pre-plotted?
TACs should be banned?
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 01:52 pm: Edit Well, Peter lead a thread awhile ago trying to change the rules, in which I (who admittedly abuses the rules more often than anyone on the planet), totally agreed with him. However, basically 90% of the people, including the designers, thought either it would change too much, wouldn't matter, or thought everything was peachy already anyway.
One person went so far as to say that changing the p1 table would be less of a change. Now, I personally don't see how changing basically every SSD, almost every battle pass strategy between almost every ship whatsoever, and who knows how many actual rules in order to put in a p1 change somehow compares to a small time changing the TACs in the order of precedence.
The thread is still in existence, leads to interesting reading I think.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:07 pm: Edit I would argue that, until this Origins, the tactic of "moving speed 4 until you take the center of the map and can corner your opponent" has not really come up. So to me, the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the non-aggression rules in no way indicates tacit approval of said tactic.
As for the "engage me now or engage me later" line - I think that makes my point for me.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:12 pm: Edit I was right there beside Peter (what-two years ago?), arguing that TACs are too powerful.
Why are TACs given an _exception_ to the fundamental principle "slower ship moves first"?
Yes, I know the answer, as it was debated two years ago, but i still disagree with the logic of it.
Put TACing ships back in the proper Order of Precedence and all will be well...
-DC p.s. See you all at Council. 46 days and counting!
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 02:52 pm: Edit Guys, one thing to keep in mind is Jason didn't spend the entire game at speed-4. He started at 16, slowed down to 4 at one point, then sped back up to 14.
I hardly think he was non-aggressive. He just isn't racing around the map in a speed contest he can't win.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 03:42 pm: Edit I also agree that TACing is far too good, but everybody can do it so that "sorta" smooths that over.
While Jason's plan is valid, I can see it being an issue if it occurred during a FtF tournament where a time limit was being enforced. If you have only 3 hours to play a game and it takes somebody 3+ turns just to get from one side of the map to another in a straight line, then it's tough to justify that you're "actively" engaging. It's true that speed 4 is not the same as speed 0, but it's not far off either. And you could have a plotted decel down to 0 at anytime unbeknownst to your opponent, which would turn into instant starcastling. The non-engagement rules where put into place to keep the game moving and to simplify things for the judges.
Jason's style of play is tough to pigeonhole because while it isn't non-agressive, it *seems* to be on the surface. So it's not surprising that somebody that hasn't played him before would play the non-aggression card. Would I say anyting about it the next time I play him and he uses the same strategy against me? No. I know that is the way he plays it. He'll just have to tolerate a few tasteless turtle jokes I toss at him from time to time.
On the flip side, I don't think it's a big deal when done online since time limits are far more lax. And I agree with Jason that there is nothing wrong with forcing your opponent to engage on your terms in the context of what he does.
By Stephen Jones (Kojones) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit >>>I would argue that, until this Origins, the tactic of "moving speed 4 until you take the center of the map and can corner your opponent" has not really come up. So to me, the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the non-aggression rules in no way indicates tacit approval of said tactic. >>>
Now that's just not fair. Not only is speed 4 tacitly legal, but it is as explicitly legal as any other speed from 1 to 31. The rules do not specify that it is non- aggression, so therefore it is not. Perhaps you feel that it should be ruled non- aggression, but posturing for the moral high ground here is disingenuous at best.
To me, the speed 4 movement phenomenon simply represents the the natural dialectics of SFB tourney play. I don't think it's fair to assume that speed 4 is only left out of the definition of non-aggression simply because the framers of the non- aggression rule had not conceived of it. I believe that people tend to get really wired into dealing with a certain type of behavior and when someone starts doing something and having success with it that is radically different from the current norm, people start complaining, because "he don't fight right." I don't personally see a speed 4 crawl to the center of the map as an inherently unbeatable strategy that requires rules intervention, but I think it has been effective in the current backdrop of the tourney setting and will continue to be so until people start examining proper ways to address it, rather than wasting energy condemning it out of hand as being outside the spirit of the rules.
By David Beeson (Monster) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 04:15 pm: Edit as someone who has extereme difficulty breaking the castle, i am fully in favor of changing the tac rules to : tac's happen first.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 05:42 pm: Edit Heads Up!
I will be the Tournament Judge this year at Council of Five Nations.
Please know now that if your opponent approaches slowly, and you come to me asking if this is non-aggression, I will say "No, it is not."
I will ask you to think about how you will take advantage of your opponent's slowness.
He gets to Weasel at will, you say? OK, he's only got 4 of them, max. Run him out of weasels.
If it comes down to adjudicating after 4 hours, and one ship moved very slowly all game, I expect that would be a _few_ points in favor of the faster ship. But that would be far less significant than internals taken and other relevant factors.
Most of the Ace-level players say that "Speed is Life". Prove it!
-DC p.s. Council is still 46 days away... http://www.swa-gaming.org/
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 08:09 pm: Edit Stephen. The speed 4 tactic gives up a slight amount of shield determination preference over not explicitly breaking the letter of the non-aggression rules. How is it otherwise not the same thing as starcastling?
For me, its not a matter of being "wired a certain way." The non-aggression rules were put in place for a reason; I am merely pointing out that the reasoning behind the non-aggression ruling applies equally to the "move 4 per turn" tactic as it does to those explicitly listed.
David Cheng. By those arguments, starcastling for the whole game wouldn't lose you many points either. I guess its a good thing I wasn't planning on going up.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 08:43 pm: Edit Andy: Come on man, nobody's saying that. Jason didn't go speed 4 the entire battle, nor does he advocate that.
But even if he did, it is not defined non-aggression by the rules. What's next? A "minimum speed limit" rule? "Thou SHALT NOT dip below SPEED-20 or thou shalt be ruled being NON AGGRESSIVE"?
Seems to me this whole thing is just a case of someone breaking convention and flying a different way... and the existing group not liking it, since it flies in the face of their (established, tried-and-true) tactics.
Personally, I think different tactics are healthy and a GOOD thing for SFB. It avoids the whole "Speed is Life" / "Only one way to fly" methodology.
Sincerely, no offense intended here. Just my thoughts.
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 09:16 pm: Edit Well Andy, it is different from Starcastling in that, as many others have said, it is much easier to beat a speed 4 opponent than it is one who is Starcastling. The speed 4 thing is no big deal, certainly not nearly as big as many people are making it out to be. I played Jason before Origins and he used it against me. It was a good game (that he won) and had I not made some maneuvering mistakes it would have been even closer. There are plenty of ways to punish a ship moving at speed 4/14, it is just that we are not used to that tactic right now. We, as players just need to adjust a bit, not go calling non-aggression when someone does something a little bit different. As far as the specific game in question goes, I see nothing wrong in what either player did. Cloaking on turn 1 for the Orion is often a good option, especially with a low power package. At the same time the Orion can't be too surprised when his opponent moves slowly or tacs the next turn, since to do otherwise is basically handing the game over to the Orion. Same thing for a turn when there are 2 F torps inbound, many ships would use a 4/14 plot, that is just good practices, nothing non-aggressive there, just smart play.
Just my $.02
Stephen
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit Agree with Stephen 100%. By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:27 pm: Edit Steve,
Agreed. It is very situational. A ship facing an Orion with full engines is foolish to try to go speed 30 and fight. Hence when you get in that situation you slow down to arm your weapons. When you do so, you CAN'T go really fast....Not going fast means you can't turn quickly...that leads to TACs. Peter "Moving slow, however, does not fall under the "non agression" rules. Only:
-Stopping/tacing -Cloaking -Retrograding (i.e. moving in reverse)"
I violently disagree with part of this...
As long as the game has weapon systems that have...um...unrealistic ranges, this is not true. Consider: An ISC ship in a knife fight. He can't use a PPD at that close of a range. The only way he can, is to (say) plot a speed change in reverse, to open the distance, so he can use his weapons. He isn't stalling, he isn't Non-agressive, he is trying to fight using the parameters his ship provides...if thats a situation that is untolerable, you should campaign for: 1)Change the PPD rule to remove the myopic zone 2)Remove the ability of ships to move in reverse.
Consider: A Klingon fires at range four and turns off from his Hydran opponent...the Hydran can't use his fusions to their best advantage...is the Klink being non agressive, or just smart? Consider: A cloak is for the purpose of reloading weapons and not getting killed. If a Rom stays cloaked until all his plasma is armed...is that N/A? Should he uncloak while he has three plasmas unarmed?
(Personal stuff aside..) I have to disagree with Dave and Peter about the TAC thing and take Marcus' side. Everyone can do it. Plain physical motion (IMO) says its much easier to turn and object 60d than to move and object 10,000 kilometers. Now as far as game balance...well that might be a different story.. Consider: Watch a kid on a bicycle. In a pinch, the kid will pick up the bike and turn it around, instead of riding it around in a circle to get turned around...
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:33 pm: Edit As far as TACs 1st, I am OK with it *AS LONG AS* everybody realizes it does change the tourney balance which has so carefully been established over the past 30 years.
Specifically and most importantly, it makes the most powerful ship in the tourney game (Orion) even more powerful than it already is. Hope all you guys suggesting this TAC change have a good balancing fix. Looking forward to your suggestions.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:35 pm: Edit Tim wrote: >>Well, Peter lead a thread awhile ago trying to change the rules, in which I (who admittedly abuses the rules more often than anyone on the planet), totally agreed with him. However, basically 90% of the people, including the designers, thought either it would change too much, wouldn't matter, or thought everything was peachy already anyway. >>
Yeah, the general consensus among the people who didn't want to change the TAC rules (including, ya know, the designers) was that changing them would have a very significant effect on the game as a whole, changing a lot of balance issues in the whole game, as they were certainly not willing to change the TAC rules just for tournament play.
I mean, like, just looking at the tournament, if you make TACing worse, you make the Orion better (as 90% of the time, the appropriate thing to do against the Orion is to stop and TAC). And if you make the Orion better, you either have to then make it worse, or make all the ships it is good against better. And so on.
That being said, that Fed Commander was designed *without* TACs is certainly an indicator of something...
So the end result is--the TAC rules aren't going to change. The "non agression" rules aleviate the issue, at least to some extent, assuming both players know they exist.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:45 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>I would argue that, until this Origins, the tactic of "moving speed 4 until you take the center of the map and can corner your opponent" has not really come up. So to me, the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the non-aggression rules in no way indicates tacit approval of said tactic.>>
I don't think that the "move at speed 4 until you take the center of the map" is actually all that effective, Origins win or no--, like, it works very poorly against an awful lot of opponents. It works best in a plasma ship, as you can force people away with plasma, but the slow plasma ship gets totally hosed by other plasma ships and Tholians. And probably plenty of other ships as well (ISC?).
Like, Jason (who won the Hat with some version of this) is certainly a good player, but he also got lucky in his pairings (no Tholians, for instance) and a lot of folks were surprised by the strategy, which put them off their games. Now that people have and will see it in action (when is that CL coming out :-), fewer folks will be surprised by it, and more people will know how to react.
That being said, again, I'd maintain that moving speed 4 is not just 4 worse than moving speed zero. It is *very* worse than moving speed zero, simply because of the power of the TAC rules. You move once in 8 impulses, can't turn during those 8 impulses without HETting, which totally blows the speed 4 advantage (i.e. weaseling). I'm not a huge fan of attacking someone who is moving speed 4 when I am moving 26 or something, no, but given the choice, I'd take the speed 4 a hundred times before the speed 0.
-Peter
By David Cheng (Davec) on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:53 pm: Edit Andy Palmer:
"By those arguments, starcastling for the whole game wouldn't lose you many points either."
Clearly, that's different. There is a PDF handout, downloadable here on the ADB web site, that outlines when a player should talk to the Tournament Judge about his opponent playing in a way that has been defined in policy as "non- aggressive".
It is the Judge's responsibility to enforce this ADB policy. I suspect a tournament could lose its "Rated Ace" or "Sanctioned" status if this official tournament policy was not enforced.
That said, nowhere in the document does it say that moving at low speed counts as non-aggression.
And, count me in the group that considers a ship moving slowly to be a much easier target than a ship TACing at 0.
-DC p.s. 45 days until Council of Five Nations (Oct 6-8). We can get 32+ if you commit to going. We hope to see you there! www.swa-gaming.org
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:18 am: Edit I'll be judging Tacticon in a couple weeks. I will enforce the non-aggression guidelines, as posted on this website.
Approaching someone at speed 4 is never non-aggression. Flying away from someone to reload after you have fired, is not non-aggression. Parking is not non- aggression. Cloaking is not non-aggression. Flying backwards, either toward or away from your enemy, is not non-aggression.
In order for parking, cloaking or flying backwards to be non-aggression, one additional ingredient needs to be present: It needs to be done in such a way that you are placing your opponent in a position where either a) the game is a stalemate, or b) your opponent must place himself in a disadvantaged position in order to make the game progress. If you read the guidelines carefully, this condition is implicit.
Parking is legitimate. If you park, your opponent can charge you, or break off. If he breaks off, and you stay parked, you are being non-aggressive. If he charges in, and the two of you spend the next 5 turns parked next to each other, beating each other up, neither of you is being non-aggressive.
Cloaking is legitimate. For matches where there is a limit on cloaking, you are using up resources. For matches without a cloak limit, it is still legal for you to cloak. What you can't do is stay cloaked with the intent to make your opponent waste his weapons firing on a cloaked ship so that you can uncloak and attack. If you are cloaked, and your opponent does not fire, you are being non-aggressive if you stay cloaked longer than necessary to rearm.
Flying away from your opponent is legitimate. Continually running away such that your opponent must swim upstream through your seekers, fire from a bad position, or put the game in a stalemate, is non-aggression.
Flying backwards is legitimate. You can attack someone going forwards, you can attack going backwards. Sometimes flying backwards makes sense, like if your forward shields are down. Sometimes while flying backwards, you might be flying away from your opponent. If you are wondering whether this is non-aggressive, see the above paragraph.
You may notice that in the above paragraph I did not say "retrograding". Retrograding is, by definition, non-aggressive, because it implies that you are flying backwards away from your opponent in such a way that he must put himself in a disadvantaged position, or break off the chase.
Finally, I should point out that being non-aggressive is legal. It's perfectly reasonable to try to put your opponent in a position where he is disadvantaged. Most tactics involve this in some form. You can park, cloak, or fly backwards to try and put your opponent at a disadvantage.
What you can't do is use these tactics turn after turn. If you are non-aggressive for 4 turns, you lose. If you are non-aggressive for less than 4 turns, your opponent gets a tie-breaker if the game must be adjudicated.
As a judge, I will be happy to issue warnings for non-aggression if you ask me to, provided they are warranted. I will not, however, make your opponent impale himself on your weapons. I will not force your opponent to not fly slow. And if your opponent beats you, he beats you, even if he spent a turn or two being non- aggresssive.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:23 am: Edit As a footnote to the above, I will note that the non-aggression rules specifically allow you to run away (moving forward) because "you will get run down and shot." However, if I am called to adjudicate a game where one player is consistently moving toward the other player, who is consistently circling or running away, the player who is chasing will have a definite advantage in the tie- breakers.
By Mark Russman (Cannich) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 08:13 am: Edit Hit the nail on the head he did... Give that man a prize...
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 08:41 am: Edit Andy. I see the "move forward at speed 4" to meet condition b) of the non- aggression rules. Yes, it is EASIER to take on a speed 4 opponent than a speed 0 one. However, the speed 4 ship is still, in most cases, the one with the advantage.
I see and hear all of you disagreeing, but IMO, nothing will put the final nails in the tournament coffin faster than half of the games starting off with the "move slow to the center of the map with heavy reinforcement and readied weasels" tactic. It is dull, it is boring, it is not fun to play against and, as stated above, breaks the spirit of the non-aggression rules.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 09:23 am: Edit Andy wrote: >>Approaching someone at speed 4 is never non-aggression. Flying away from someone to reload after you have fired, is not non-aggression. Parking is not non- aggression. Cloaking is not non-aggression. Flying backwards, either toward or away from your enemy, is not non-aggression. >>
This understanding is not strictly true. If you look at the non agression rules, there is much less ambiguity and interpretation necessary. Parking, cloaking, and flying backwards *are* non agression, and start the "non agression clock" simply by being done. My opponent stops? The "non agression clock" is engaged. The trick is the length necessary.
The way the non agression rules technically work are:
-You stop. I alert the judge to start the "non agression clock". -Next turn starts. If you are still stopped, I alert the judge again. -Next turn starts. If you are still stopped, I alert the judge yet again.
And so on, until the game is adjudicated, or the non agression stops.
In reality, this is very impractical (alerting the judge every time someone stops moving or cloaks). But in theory, at any point when one is using "non agressive" tactics, the judge could be alerted.
>>Parking is legitimate.>>
All forms of "non agression" have a point and time to be legitimately used. Just not for 4 turns in a row.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 09:30 am: Edit The other Andy wrote: >>I see and hear all of you disagreeing, but IMO, nothing will put the final nails in the tournament coffin faster than half of the games starting off with the "move slow to the center of the map with heavy reinforcement and readied weasels" tactic. >>
And it is also not actually that good of an idea. And will often just get you killed. I'm unconvinced that it is likely to become a standard tactic, let alone something that happens often enough to have people run into that often.
Again, the only ships that really benefit from this are plasma ships. And it makes them very vulnerable to other plasma ships, Tholians, and probably multiple other ships (hard hitting Orions, say).
>>It is dull, it is boring, it is not fun to play against and, as stated above, breaks the spirit of the non-aggression rules.>>
All things being equal, you are probably right. But it doesn't actually break the letter of the non agression rules. And most of the time, really isn't a good idea anyway.
-Peter By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 09:34 am: Edit I'm gonna go on record as agreeing with Andy Palmer. Speed 4 with a ton of reinforcement, overloads, etc may not be non-aggression from a strictly "legal" standpoint. But it does push the edges of non-aggression, and will have a negative affect on tournament play in general. One turn of slow speed, reinforcement, etc is no big deal(sometimes it's the right thing to do), but multiple turns is really gonna bog games down. I don't think the tactic is unbeatable either, but it is not gonna be fun to play against. I can hardly find time to play now. If games stop being fun and interesting, I have lots of other hobbies I can spend that time on. that's my $0.02
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 09:44 am: Edit Andy: The interesting thing here is, I remember playing against you one time, my TKE versus your Hydran. On turn 1, you went relatively low speed, and corner dodged. On turn 2, you went speed 4 for like 10 imps, launched a weasel, then ED'd when the plasma hit a fighter, all in order to recover a shuttle that you evidently planned on creating yet another weasel with.
Now, considering your stance so far on what constitutes nonaggression, I'd think a low speed corner dodging, with the express intent of doing a presumed 4-14 next turn, in order to hopefully get a better board position next turn seems to fit right in there. I personally didn't think so, since obviously your intent is that you won't win the game turn 1 or turn 2, but you're trying hopefully for a favorable outcome turn3 maybe 4. I see what Jason does as not being a whole lot different, personally.
However, it is boring....
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:01 am: Edit Tim. Different game, different circumstances. I went 14-16 on T1 and corner dodged to arm my fusions and get my fighters in position. You launched an R-torp so reacted with a 4-14 plot. I did ED, but that was purely a pride thing - I wasn't about to lose a Fighter AND a shuttle (rapidly headed toward the wall at that point) to a single R-torp . Regardless of the admitedly silly ED move, my use of a 4-14 was in REACTION to your plasma launch. I didn't go speed 4 just daring you to launch plasma.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:05 am: Edit Oh, Andy's point of nonagression....
Not sure if anyone remembers this, but for awhile Paul was the Romulan strategic commander, and I did the battles for Absolute War. I was roundly ridiculed and and put upon for doing what Jason did, except on a larger scale.
I had my entire fleet of Rom War Eagles all move speed 0, with a speed increase to 1 late in the turn, with mammoth reinforcement. I would launch 2-3 EPT R's every turn, with the sole purpose of doing nothing whatsoever except keeping the enemy ships away.
The enemy would fly around, and though they moved a great deal more hexes than me, I was the one 'advancing' towards the middle. So, looking at it that way, I was the 'aggressor'. At some point in every battle, I would get 'lucky' with a set of die rolls, and the opposing captain would have a ship with a shield so damaged that it couldn't continue or risk taking internals. (Whenever I got unlucky, I'd just cloak that particular ship out for as long as necessary, and repair all the shield damage) So, what happened is that the enemy disengaged, and we gained another strategic hex....which was our whole point. (We didn't want to fight at all til we could blow away bases and planets anyway)
Now, I have no doubt what I did was well within the rules, it had to be frustrating and boring as all get out to play against.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:16 am: Edit Andy, You say 'reacted' with a 4-14.
Now, my personal belief is that you had every intention whatsoever in going 4-14 on turn 2, before you did your EA for turn 1. You knew I would likely EPT, and you knew that if you didn't corner dodge, you would have to deal with it turn 1. So, you planned a corner dodge, and planned a 4-14 on the presumed imp 32 launch, with the idea your TM would be satisfied, and in a better chase position than sprinting at top speed towards the map wall.
I can think of no reason whatsoever in corner dodging on turn1 against any plasma ship whatsoever is a good idea, and it is especially insane unless one is specifically planning on weaseling anything launched anyway.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit Brian wrote: >>I'm gonna go on record as agreeing with Andy Palmer. Speed 4 with a ton of reinforcement, overloads, etc may not be non-aggression from a strictly "legal" standpoint. But it does push the edges of non-aggression, and will have a negative affect on tournament play in general.>>
Sure. I agree with this. I agree that starting a game at speed 4 certainly pushes the boundries of non agression. But really, again, is it A) that likely to catch on and B) even all that good of an idea for most matchups? Like, I am hard pressed to think of many situations where this sort of plan is going to work all that well. And a lot of situations where it is going to work poorly.
It is going to work ok if you are a plasma ship, and your opponent isn't also a plasma ship. But if you are the Gorn playing this game, most folks will be certainly capable of crashing through a plasma or two to get to range 1 and mug the hell out of the ship at some point in the game. If you are the Romulan playing this game, you are going to have to cloak, which activates "non agression" rules.
So yeah, it certainly is stretching the intent of the non agression rules (assuming a constant strategy of "moving speed 4 with rienforcement", which I am yet to be convinced is actually ever done), but highly unlikely to catch on as a serious strategy for anyone.
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit Peter,
My reading of the rules is slightly different from yours. Take Starcastling, for example:
Quote:
STARCASTLE (i.e., parking) to use the energy that would have gone into movement for shield reinforcement, forcing the enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange weapons fire at a disadvantage.
You could read this to say starcastling = parking. However, there is more to the description. The part that says "forcing the enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange weapons fire at a disadvantage" is a key part of the definition, IMO.
If your opponent parks, you analyze the situation. If you feel like it is to your advantage to charge in, you do. If you feel like it is to your advantage to make a r5 battle pass and turn off, you do. If you feel like it would be best to brush r8, threatening to shoot-and-scoot or maybe turn in if he fires at you at that range, you do.
The key point is to realize you are not obligated to engage him. You can turn off, stay at range, and verbally warn him that if he stays parked, he is guilty of non- aggression.
And note: Your first recourse against a non-aggressive opponent is to verbally warn him, and that happens after a turn of non-aggression. You don't go whining to the judge the instant your opponent stops.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:43 am: Edit Andy Palmer,
If a game is a draw and must be adjudicated, and one player has consistently gone speed 4 with weasels and reinforcement, that player would have a definite disadvantage in the tiebreakers.
However, as others have pointed out, most ships should be able to take advantage of someone who consistently goes speed 4. Pick a matchup, and I'm sure there are people here who can illuminate exactly how they would tear apart such an opponent.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:51 am: Edit
Quote:
STARCASTLE (i.e., parking) to use the energy that would have gone into movement for shield reinforcement, forcing the enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange weapons fire at a disadvantage.
So, by this definition, ending a turn at close range (R4 or less) and then plotting speed 0 on the following turn would NOT be "Starcastling" as your opponent did not have to spend power for movement to get close (as you already are close).
Interesting. Not really relevant to the current discussion, but still interesting.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:46 pm: Edit
Quote:
Andy. I see the "move forward at speed 4" to meet condition b) of the non-aggression rules. Yes, it is EASIER to take on a speed 4 opponent than a speed 0 one. However, the speed 4 ship is still, in most cases, the one with the advantage.
I see and hear all of you disagreeing, but IMO, nothing will put the final nails in the tournament coffin faster than half of the games starting off with the "move slow to the center of the map with heavy reinforcement and readied weasels" tactic. It is dull, it is boring, it is not fun to play against and, as stated above, breaks the spirit of the non-aggression rules.
Did this really happen??? Surely the other guy either ran down to his effective range and left with relative immunity or got close and then crawled in himself where upon his point blank range weapons were better. This guy can't have the best R8, R4 and R3; hammer, all at the same time! How does he not avoid R8 disruptors and speed 20 drones and SS or just the plasma string...is he really going to weasel the first EPT-S he sees!?!
Quote:
This understanding is not strictly true. If you look at the non agression rules, there is much less ambiguity and interpretation necessary. Parking, cloaking, and flying backwards *are* non agression, and start the "non agression clock" simply by being done. My opponent stops? The "non agression clock" is engaged. The trick is the length necessary.
If my reading of those rules (many months ago) is correct, the clock starts when one player calls over the Judge to adjudicate, hence two guys knief fighting at R1 & speed 0 will not call the judge because in doing so will put them both under the cloak there and then. I don't see anything wrong with both parties moving in at speed 4 each as weapons do outclass reinforcement by quite a bit. The speed 4 guy only gets to move/turn on impulses 8, 16, 24 & 32 whereas 1 Warp and one Impulse TAC will let you TAC on any two consecutive impulse barr Imp 1. The speed 4 guy still has 4 fewer point of specific reinforcement. Hitting this is somewhat easier than hitting a starcastle but then a starcastle isn't the world's hardest tactic to beat, it's just hard paying for his closure of range...but Photon batteries and (frontloading) and SS bateries (3+3+1 SS) do something starcastling generally does not; allow energy from several turns to be focused in a single turn! EPTs are great against reinforced shileds as well, so basically on the Disruptor races have a problem and with their much lorded Turn Mode and R8 proficency, the should be able to get a few more points of shield damage than they recieve.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:01 pm: Edit Andy Vancil:
Well said! I am saving your entry here to a separate file that I will have as an "addendum" to the official Non-Aggression Policy handout. Thank you.
-DC
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Quote:
So, by this definition, ending a turn at close range (R4 or less) and then plotting speed 0 on the following turn would NOT be "Starcastling" as your opponent did not have to spend power for movement to get close (as you already are close).
Interesting. Not really relevant to the current discussion, but still interesting.
Isn't that called the Hack & Slash??? Stopping is quite legal. Stopping in the hopes that the other guy will be fool enough to do 24 fewer points of internals to you than him is legal. Setting up the situation for turn upon turn upon turn so that he must do it to get beyond a stalemate result is where illegality occours. Sitting at R5 with an SP and a few SS in your shuttle-bay against a Fed Starcastler can be fun, watching him turn red with stress as he makes up his mind, speed 1 where your SSs can get him (or just force a weasel) or speed 10 where the weasel stops being an option against the SP and all along you've got about 12 fewer point of reinforcement than him and Over-loaded disruptors...and you with all that reserve warp power and no chance of him knowing where you'll put it! What causes the problem is when neither party is willing to step up to the plate even after the Umpire has called batter-up several times!
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:46 pm: Edit
Quote:
Isn't that called the Hack & Slash???
Not really. H&S is phasers on T(X)I32, overloads (usually disruptor, although photons and fusions can work too) on T(X+1)I1.
It often does involve moving slow or stopping on the second turn, because of the power drain of overloads.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 03:17 pm: Edit It could also be done the other way around.
For example: A Fed could fly through a Klingon Drone cloud using all of his phasers to kill off the drones in mid turn, then get an overload shot on impulse 32. He then follows up that shot on impulse 1 with the now cycled phasers.
Of course the Klingon (or any other droner, for that matter) would have to oblige you a bit, but you get the idea.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:24 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>My reading of the rules is slightly different from yours. Take Starcastling, for example:>>
(reasonable example snipped)
I think the way you are looking at things, while certainly reasonable, leaves way too much open to interpretation and subjectivity. If the non agression rules are to accomplish anything, they really need to work as written, at least in theory: someone stops, their opponent alerts the judge not asd a punitive measure, but simply to say "non agression clock started". And if in 4 turns, their opponent is still stopped, game over.
4 turns is a really long time, and it is hughly unlikely that anyone would ever park/cloak/retrograde for 4 turns in a row, so it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever get DQed for non agression. But that the rules exist indicate that the onus of engagement is placed upon the guy who starts the non agression in the first place, and that the other player is in no way compelled to throw themselves on the non agressive player.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:30 pm: Edit Andy also wrote: >>You don't go whining to the judge the instant your opponent stops.>>
Well, as the rules go, actually you kinda do. Well, on the second turn you do. But it isn't "whining to the judge". It is simply a non judgemental procedure, that works like this:
T1: Opponent stops. You note that he stops. At the end of the turn, you say "you have been non agresisve for 1 turn." T2: Opponent is still stopped. At the end of the turn, you alert the judge, who says "you have been non agressive for 2 turns." T3: Opponent is still stopped. You alert the judge again, who says "You have been non agressive for 3 turns. Judgement iminent." T4: Opponent is still stopped. At the end of the turn, you alert the judge. Judge issues DQ.
Again, as this sort of thing (someone sitting still for 4 full turns or whatever) is wildly unlikely to ever actually occur, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would ever get the DQ for this. But that the rules exist mean that both players know doing this is against the rules, and need to avoid it.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 04:49 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>So, by this definition, ending a turn at close range (R4 or less) and then plotting speed 0 on the following turn would NOT be "Starcastling" as your opponent did not have to spend power for movement to get close (as you already are close). >>
Again, if the non agression rules are to be taken for what they are, ending a turn at close range and plotting speed zero *is* actually "non agression", as you aren't moving. But as the realities of the game are such that generally speaking, when a game gets to such a point, either it ends soon or both players stop and tac for the rest of the game. In either case, it is unlikely that the game will get to the point of someone not moving for 4 turns in a row. And if a game goes for 4 turns with *both* players sitting still the whole time, it is unlikely that either will be DQed for non agression.
-Peter
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 05:02 pm: Edit My point, though, is that the procedure does not involve the judge until after 2 turns. Your initial post gave the impression that the instant someone stops, you call the judge.
As for subjectivity, there has to be some. Here's an example to illustrate:
Turn 7, impulse 1, the Fed and Klink are in a knife fight, and the Fed parks. K notes that F has stopped, and starts counting impulses. By the end of turn 7, both are so badly trashed that they can't both move and power weapons, so both park and continue to pummel each other. Do I DQ the Fed at the beginning of turn 11?
I would say no. If at that point, neither ship has power, shuttles or repair remaining, and both ships have about the same number of internals, I could use the fact that the Fed had stopped first as a tie-breaker to award the game to the Klink. Otherwise, either they keep playing, or, if an adjudication is necessary, other factors would weigh heavier in the final determination.
Now, I can see the argument that the judge should start the non-aggression clock regardless of the situation, on the theory that the time limit is generous enough that the player will still pretty much be free to use good tactics, and if he does keep cloaking, parking or retrograding for 4 turns, he really is being non- aggressive and should be DQ'd. In general, I would tend to operate on that theory. However, there does need to be some room for interpretation.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 05:39 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>My point, though, is that the procedure does not involve the judge until after 2 turns. Your initial post gave the impression that the instant someone stops, you call the judge.>>
Heh. Yeah, I hadn't actually read the rule for a while--you can see in my posts where it is clearly "pre rereading the rule" and "post rereading the rule" :-)
But in either case, the rule seems to want a very cut and dry kind of action--end of T1 with stoppoed opponent, you say "Hey. You have been stopped for a full turn"; end of T2 with stopped opponent, you alert the judge, and so on.
>>Turn 7, impulse 1, the Fed and Klink are in a knife fight, and the Fed parks. K notes that F has stopped, and starts counting impulses. By the end of turn 7, both are so badly trashed that they can't both move and power weapons, so both park and continue to pummel each other. Do I DQ the Fed at the beginning of turn 11? >>
No, as both players are not moving. I mean, like, yeah, there *has* to be a certain amount of subjectivity involved, as it requires a judge to make a judgement. But the basic system is pretty cut and dry.
>>Now, I can see the argument that the judge should start the non-aggression clock regardless of the situation, on the theory that the time limit is generous enough that the player will still pretty much be free to use good tactics, and if he does keep cloaking, parking or retrograding for 4 turns, he really is being non- aggressive and should be DQ'd. In general, I would tend to operate on that theory. However, there does need to be some room for interpretation.>> Oh, sure. But in the case you mention, really, if both ships are just sitting still and shooting each other for 4 turns, how is the game not going to be over before someone needs to be theoretically DQed?
-Peter
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 07:11 pm: Edit
Lots of sixes.
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 07:55 pm: Edit Some thoughts on the advantages/disadvantages of speed 0 and speed 4:
1) Speed 0 is clearly superior in a situation where you expect your oppenent to actually attempt to close or overrun, due to advantagous TAC rules. It's also better if you are starting the turn close together. In a way this isn't really non- aggression, since you know that battle is coming to you whether you want it or not. It's more like an attempt at survival.
2) Speed 4 has the advantage of being able to increase your max speed to 28 after just 33 impulses, versus a max of 20 for speed 0.
3) It's not hard to keep a bricked shield facing your opponent at speed 4, if they are not already close. Trying to get to a non-bricked shield will require you to close, which is what the speed 4 ship wants. You'll likely take significant damage prior to getting the shield you want.
4) Speed 4 has more options for timely speed changes against a opponent that is closing. The speed change is also more likely to be plotted, saving the batts for other unpleasant surprises.
IMO, trying to close with a ship going speed 4 is very nearly as difficult as closing with a ship going speed 0. By the time you are close enough that the TAC rules comes into play, you probably have already swapped fire at a disadvantage or taken damage from a pre-emptive strike. The reality is that most people will treat a ship going speed 4 exactly like they do a parked ship. So it's kinda the same thing, only it won't get you DQ'd.
I also think that an argument could be made that going speed 4 all turn with an undamaged(or nearly undamaged) ship is starcastling. Here's the rule excerpt again:
Quote:
STARCASTLE (i.e., parking) to use the energy that would have gone into movement for shield reinforcement, forcing the enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange weapons fire at a disadvantage.
Everything stated in that rule is just as true of speed 4 as it is speed 0, with the exception of being stopped. Assuming that you plot 4 TACs, you have spent the same in movement whether you go speed 0 or speed 4. This allows the speed 4 ship all the same power advantages. So in a way speed 4 is breaking the spirit of the rule, the same way speed 0 does. At any rate, I don't think it's as cut and dried as some people are implying. It seems to me that if you really just want the other person to go away and leave you alone, without getting warned about non- aggression, just go speed 4. You get almost all the advantages as going speed 0, without the possibility of a DQ.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:49 pm: Edit I would argue with #3. Once the speed-4 ship moves, you have 7 impulses to get to a different shield facing. Once you reach that facing, all the speed-4 ship can do is HET. Even then, he must HET before you move. If you are on a shield boundary, you can easily choose the shield, even if you are at range 15. What's more, since your target is moving so slow, even if he moves, you will still be close to the boundary and will be able to cross it before he moves again. A speed-4 ship can keep a certain shield away from an opponent, but he cannot easily keep a certain shield facing an opponent. This makes it hard to brick.
I'm not sure I understand #4. You can plot speed changes starting from 0 just as easily as from 4. Perhaps you mean that a speed-4 ship has a wider range of speeds to change to (0-14 vs. 0-10), except that from 0 you can start moving either forward or backwards, so you still get a wider range. For unplotted changes, a speed-4 ship can change to a speed 5-14. A speed-0 ship can change to 1-10 or -1 to -10.
Finally, I think you are underestimating the advantage gained from TACing. Moving speed 4, you move on impulses 8, 16, 24, and 32, and you move before your opponent does (assuming he is not going slower). Once you move, you are just sitting there for 7 more impulses. When you are TACing, you can choose the impulse you move. You move after your opponent. You can move 2, sometimes even 3, times in a row if you need to. It's also easier to use the tournament barrier to shield one side (or more, if you are in the corner) of your ship, as the wall does not limit your turning options.
And I don't know about you, but if my car is going 4 mph, I would not consider it parked...
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 02:58 am: Edit Quote:
The reality is that most people will treat a ship going speed 4 exactly like they do a parked ship.
Just because most people wouldn't do X does not mean X is not the right thing to do.
Quote:
Everything stated in that rule is just as true of speed 4 as it is speed 0, with the exception of being stopped. Assuming that you plot 4 TACs, you have spent the same in movement whether you go speed 0 or speed 4. This allows the speed 4 ship all the same power advantages. So in a way speed 4 is breaking the spirit of the rule, the same way speed 0 does.
But by that logic, IRON JAWTM or any amount of shield reinfiorcement beyond BTTYs would contravien the rules. Sheild reinforcement, even lots of of it doesn't win games. If he's moving speed 4 then SS become a threat (since the Fed Tourney Cruiser has no drones, but four shuttles, four 3+3+1 SS will be a huge threat to him). Sure he can weasel but then he can't fire! You get to waltz down to R1 and slam him for no return damage (lest he open himself up to take 56 damage from SS) barr feedback and even though he has lots of reinforcement, your front loaded Photons not only clobber his shield reinforcement but your phasers at that range are close enough to crack his shield reinforcement by themselves. Meanwhile he can't do any damage to you until the weasel takes care of the SS. Sure he could jump up to speed 14 just as you were in trouble but hey, he can't use his WW unless he EDs and he's paying (assuming half and half ) 9 for movement which cuts into his reinforcement some and the chances that he'll pick the right turn when your comming in instead of circling and arming/making- everything-ready is unlikely. Reinfocrment and weaseling here are more bark than bite.
By zach walke (Zackwalk) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:00 am: Edit The problem with the Orion is that it can 1 cloak 2 brick at battle speeds people would say that the damage of anengine loss is severe but i do not think so their is only so far you can run.all the orion has to do is cloak on turn one then it is at center of board,tuirn 2 double chase and kill .just look at NK standings.
By zach walke (Zackwalk) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:14 am: Edit to take care od starcastling bricking ect it is easy. limt renforcement t battery power in tourneys. after all 1/2 the Mastr Rules are not used in tourney. then maneuver will be more important
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:25 am: Edit Manuver is alreay important. Rienforcement isn't a big deal. Really.
There is a flurry of discussion right now, 'cause the guy who won the National Championships this year did so by spending an awful lot of time going slowly with a lot of rienforcement. Which worked, 'cause he was in a plasma ship (Gorn) and didn't run into any Tholians. And I'm pretty sure when he ran into other plasma ships (Romulans--I don't think he met an ISC), he played a standard speed game. But really, having played him now, I'm pretty sure Jason's greatest strength in SFB is not moving slowly and using rienforcement, but his apparent endless patience, which really improves someone's game.
I just played a 21 (?!?!?) turn duel against him (my Gorn vs his Klingon), which was a very good game, and he beat me in the end, primarily 'cause he never gave up and never did anything risky in the name of possibly ending the game quicker. I could have been a bit luckier early in the game (both the bolts I fired at R5 missed), which would have helped, but in the late game, I made mistakes and did some risky stuff which didn't pay off, where he did not. So in the end, while he did spend some turns slow and rienforced (as did I), he beat me through careful and persistent play. Which is, I suspect why he won the National Championships, and not 'cause he moved slowly with rienforcement.
Back to the rienforcement issue, again, it isn't really a problem. That you can trade speed or overloads for rienforcement is a reasonable tactical trade off. That sometimes someone will just sit, park, and rienforce is a problem, but it is mostly solved by virtue of tournament specific "non agression" rules, and changing the rienforcement rules just for the tournament simply isn't necessary.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit Zach wrote: >>The problem with the Orion is that it can 1 cloak 2 brick at battle speeds >>
The Orion doesn't really have a problem. The Orion is still, and always has been, a top tier, but not overwhelming ship. It is no better, in a strategic sense, than the TFH, the Kzinti, the Klingon, or the Archeo Tholian (which are still, likely, the top 5 ships with the Orion). It is a very knife edge ship that is disadvantaged against opponents who are patient, and ofen loses based on a single lucky (or unlucky) guess on either its part or its opponent's part.
-Peter
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit "The problem with the Orion is that it can 1 cloak 2 brick at battle speeds"
Why is this a problem?
;)
By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 11:33 am: Edit To change the subject entirely... This weekend I flew a Stinger-O for the first time. Neat little over-run monster. One buddy played Kzinti and I couldn't figure out how to beat the 10-drone stack turn 1. I'd like some tips on that. My other buddy flew LDR and he couldn't figure out how to punish me enough to discourage the overrun. Any ideas there?
By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 12:28 pm: Edit
Quote:
If he's moving speed 4 then SS become a threat (since the Fed Tourney Cruiser has no drones, but four shuttles, four 3+3+1 SS will be a huge threat to him). Sure he can weasel but then he can't fire! You get to waltz down to R1 and slam him for no return damage (lest he open himself up to take 56 damage from SS) barr feedback and even though he has lots of reinforcement, your front loaded Photons not only clobber his shield reinforcement but your phasers at that range are close enough to crack his shield reinforcement by themselves. Meanwhile he can't do any damage to you until the weasel takes care of the SS.
A minor nit: I don't think the tournament rules have an exception to the rule that ships without seeking weapons can only control 1/2 their sensor rating of seekers. So only 3 SS on the board at a time.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit MJC also forgets that this is a Big Plasma tactic, invalidating 99% of his post. By Michael W. Sweet (Mwsweet) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Quote:
One buddy played Kzinti and I couldn't figure out how to beat the 10- drone stack turn 1. I'd like some tips on that.
Short answer: Cloak.
Longer answer: You know it is coming, plan for it.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 02:27 pm: Edit To add detail to Micheal's answer, power the cloak turn 1 so he cannot get 10 drones on the map on turn 1 since he'll have no lockon. He may be able to launch the SP ballistically so that it blossoms when you come out of cloak the next turn, but it's much tougher to make those drones interfere with your overrun.
Now you'll have to start the game out at speed 12 to guarentee he loses lockon, but you can bump it up to 16 on impulse 7 after your fadeout is complete. That plot costs only 10 power, so you'll still be able to hold 2 weasels under cloak if you like. The downside of this is that you're stuck with a max speed of 24 until impulse 7 of turn 2, but I don't see that being too big a deal.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit Troy wrote: >>To change the subject entirely... This weekend I flew a Stinger-O for the first time. Neat little over-run monster. One buddy played Kzinti and I couldn't figure out how to beat the 10-drone stack turn 1.>>
To echo others--uhh, cloak?
It is pretty standard Orion doctrine to cloak against the Kzinti on T1 in any situation, so when you make an attack run on T2, you only have to deal with the 4 drones he launches then, not the first 4 and then 4 more. And even without doing this, if you find yourself in a situation where the Kzinti has 8-10 drones on the map, just run away and cloak the next turn. Depending on packages, the Orion can move some sort of 15/14 plot or something that only costs like power for 13 movement, cloak, and hold most of his weapons while undoubled. You adjust speed as necessary to maximize the chance of shaking lockon, and come out next turn with guns blazing. -Peter
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 09:43 am: Edit
Quote:
MJC also forgets that this is a Big Plasma tactic, invalidating 99% of his post.
Thanks, now I'll solve both problems...the fourth SS is armed as a WW.
But what do you mean big plasma??? A Fed cruiser can pass through EPTs and hammer at point blank range. A vessel moving at speed 28 in the "dive & surface" part of the turn can get into good overload range against standards...do they have Sabot Plasma in Tourney now!?! 60 points of plasma will hurt if it all strikes the same shield but now the Feds Photons will rearm quicker (and you're looking at generating 64 points from your photons alone) than the plasma tubes and if going speed 4 gives you three SS hits then you'll inflict 42 to 54 points of damage that he wasn't expecting. Go fast to keep his plasma at bay and if you have to ED/WW at some distance 6 or more hexes away from him as his speed 4 ships won't reach phaser range of you. It's a pitty the narrow volley isn't allowed in Tourney play as frequent Fed R8 narrow vollies through his reinforcement would soon make him look for a new solution. Even with standard spreads, he can't really generate 32 points of shield reinforcement even if he throughs in BTTYs because HK and Weapons will just draw off too much power so eventually R8 overloaded Photons do the trick.
• EPTs; you can walk through and hammer him at point blank. • PTs; you're photons and phasers will generate less than his plasma because he's fighting with arms behind his back. • If you're a D&D ship then your IVM drones and IM SPs will become a very real threat to any ship moving at speed 4. I still say the speed 4 tactic is more bark than bite!
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 09:53 am: Edit I should say, as with any counter-plasma work; knowing when to pull out from on comming plasma spread and hit him next turn with your held photons and when to follow through on the commitment and get that R4 or less Photon shot, is always part of the game: speed 4 doctrine or no!
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 10:27 am: Edit MJC wrote: >>Thanks, now I'll solve both problems...the fourth SS is armed as a WW. >> Arming a third SS in a tournament game is usually a losing proposition. Especially as you need weasels against big plasma.
>>But what do you mean big plasma???>>
Standard tournament term for Gorn and the Romulans. They are the ships with "big plasma", as opposed to the ISC and weird Orion plasma models.
>>A Fed cruiser can pass through EPTs and hammer at point blank range.>>
Not really so much. Eating 2 EPTs and 2 F torps on the way in to hammer at point blank is likely to get you killed (20 damage to each sheild and then 20 more to 2 more of them? And then phasers? And then the plasma ship weasels when you hit R4?).
>> A vessel moving at speed 28 in the "dive & surface" part of the turn can get into good overload range against standards...do they have Sabot Plasma in Tourney now!?! >>
No plasma Sabbot in tournament. Not that this is a dig or anything, but it strikes me that you should probably have a better understanding of the tournament environment before jumpping into a lengthy discussion of tournament tactics.
>>60 points of plasma will hurt if it all strikes the same shield but now the Feds Photons will rearm quicker (and you're looking at generating 64 points from your photons alone)>>
Well, except for the 2 that get shot off before you get to R4. You ate 2 envelopers and 2 F torps and some phasers, remember?
>> than the plasma tubes and if going speed 4 gives you three SS hits then you'll inflict 42 to 54 points of damage that he wasn't expecting.>>
How are the 3 SS going to hit? The plasma ship has weasels. And P3s. And tractors.
>>Go fast to keep his plasma at bay and if you have to ED/WW at some distance 6 or more hexes away from him as his speed 4 ships won't reach phaser range of you.>>
If you decel, he just leaves and reloads.
>>It's a pitty the narrow volley isn't allowed in Tourney play as frequent Fed R8 narrow vollies through his reinforcement would soon make him look for a new solution. >> It isn't remotely a pitty that narrow salvoes aren't allowed in tournament play:
Turn 1, impulse 27: "Ooh! I get R8! I narrow salvoe my OL Photons!" (die rolls a 3) "I win!"
Yeah, that'd be awsome.
>>¥ EPTs; you can walk through and hammer him at point blank. >>
Not really.
>>¥ If you're a D&D ship then your IVM drones and IM SPs will become a very real threat to any ship moving at speed 4. >>
There is only ever 1 SP. And very vew type IVs. And any large volley of drones can get weaseled. And any small volley of drones can be killed by phaser 3s and tractors.
>>I still say the speed 4 tactic is more bark than bite!>>
I agree. But not for the reasons you seem to think are the reasons.
-Peter
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:14 am: Edit MJC, After reading just three of your posts I am convinced this must be the same Mike Campbell that posts on the DBM group! Small world.
-Jason G
PS. Just found this quote by Steve Cole- "Everyone can assume that everything Michael John Campbell says is WRONG until it is confirmed by somebody who actually understands the game system."
PPS. Just stirring Mike, I know you can take it :-)
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 01:11 am: Edit Hey Peter,
How often do you load TWO envelopers in the same turn?
I've done it a few times. But, it is not standard operating procedure.
A full strength ship can run through 1 Env + 2 F's (assuming they hit different shields) and kill a BP. It takes guts, timing, and my preference 3 down shields on HIS ship, BEFORE we start this silly battle run. But it can be done.
Orion vs Kzin: It really depends on options, but I generally do an end run around the speed 20's & cloak them away on turn 3.
A stinger O really is not really good vs Kzin. It has to go too close. It wants range 0, the Zin will kill you at 1, aka before you get there.
LDR vs Stinger O Put the ESG's @ 1. & fly straight @ em. Feel free to contact someone who can actually fly a 2/3 move ship.
RE: The Guy who stole the hat from the rightfull heads of the Orions it belonged on. I've never seen anyone (expept him) go speed 0-4 against an Orion. Heathen, burn him. The nerve. That bath tub is supposed to get in a turning war with the most maneuverable ship in the game.
He got me by speeding up 3-4 turns in to the game after I had got used to him going slow. oops. What do you mean you are going 17? I counted on you going <12.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:25 am: Edit What the hell is a "DBM group"???
I knew SVCs post would come back to bite me...
I'm not sure FP5.22 applies under tourney but I think the threat will be from Standard Plasma. Still a hundred points of plasma is something that must be teased out before attacking the vessel. Standard plasma tactics apply and you should fly past and run down his plasma and then swing back and strike or he'll hold his plasma `til it's too later and your overloads can work.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:27 am: Edit Bret wrote: >>How often do you load TWO envelopers in the same turn? >>
Oh, never. But you launch Enveloper 1 at the end of N and then arm Enveloper 2 on N+1. If they run through Enveloper 1 to seem like they want to charge, you launch Enveloper 2. If they run from Enveloper 1, you hold Enveloper 2 till they seem like they are coming back, or launch it late on turn N+1 to keep them running on turn N+2.
>>A full strength ship can run through 1 Env + 2 F's (assuming they hit different shields) and kill a BP.>>
Oh, sure. But that wasn't what was being suggested.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit MJC wrote: >>I'm not sure FP5.22 applies under tourney but I think the threat will be from Standard Plasma.>>
Why would you be able to hold an enveloping plasma in a tournament? Man. Really. Again. Not busting on you. But it would totally behoove you to increase your understanding of the tournament environment so as to increase your ability to discuss the tactics therin.
-Peter
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 03:37 pm: Edit MJC said
"Still a hundred points of plasma is something that must be teased out before attacking the vessel."
So he's not wrong all the time Peter ;)
If you're talking Fed vs BP matchups, it's all in the Fed's speed plots and his ability to manuever. Photons not whiffing also helps. Deliberately blowing through near full strength EPT's and both F torps basically means that you'd better kill the plasma ship with your alpha or he'd be able to kill you with phaser fire alone over the following turns.
I also agree with Bret's assesment that the Stinger-0 may not be the way to go vs Kzinti. But it does cloak just as well as and if not better than any other Orion package. For whatever it's worth.
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 07:13 am: Edit The thing I was getting at was that at speed 28 Vs speed 4:- on the important impulses; it's easier to choose to tease/early-clobber than it is for the Big Plasma ship to know that an early launch of plasma is going to be productive/counter- productive within his own recycling time; because the answer to both questions rest more in the hands of the guy going speed 28 than the guy going speed 4.
By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit Tournament coming up and there's an opponent type I have severe problems with. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fly the Kzin vs. big plasma?
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 01:09 pm: Edit Depends whether you're talking Gorn or Romulan. Against Gorn, avoiding eating 100 points of plasssma, and just launch drones until his brain melts. Against Romulan, the cloak will complicate drone use.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 01:10 pm: Edit Go Fast. Even if it means not arming the disruptors.
The Kzinti is most dangerous in close, both with drones and it's phaser-3 suite.
Speed will let you run out plasma and to close.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 03:05 pm: Edit PracticeCon: Ithaca
As I always do, going to post my game summaries or writeups or whatever you call them. Before we played any games, it was necessary to actually find Cornell in NY, and after driving 4 hours to get there, it was actually hard to believe I was in the same state I started in. Ithaca is a geographical oddity, being 4 hours from anywhere useful, and man did I drive through the twilight zone to get there.
I didn't really care what ship I flew, but was determined not to fly the Hydran. I have flown the TKE many times before, and figured I could wing it in that ship anyway.
Game 1: Steve (Klink) I figured I'd start fast, slow down midturn, likely launch an F torp to see what he did with it, and then chase him and try to crush him turn 2. (So, holding an S)
So, I plotted that, and Steve came out at 31 I think. We cooked towards the middle, and I turned left to put my bricked #2 at him. (Think I bricked 6) When we hit oblique, he fired stds. I then turned towards him, and when my LP torp was about to go out of arc I tossed it out, in an effort to get him to turn off.
This worked well, and turn off he did. At range 4 I was right behind him, and shot up his #4. He used all his phasers and tore up my #2, almost knocking it down. My torp was set to impact his #4 for 5 points on imp 1 next turn. I plotted a reasonably fast pursuit, thinking I would get my shields shot up somemore, and I would continue chasing him and keep shoot his #4. Things went basically according to plan, except he was sprinting down map, so I tossed out the Real R torp to continue to make him run. This began more interesting to me when he ran out of real estate on imp 32, and he'd be munching 50 on his #3 imp 1. (He miscounted by 1 hex it turns out) So, a potentially long drawn out game completely switched to a fast game. We played some more turns, but I still hadn't had a internal and he was down like 50-60 when he conceded.
Game 2: Peter (Gorn) I had 2 plans here. 1) Don't do a thing til he launches or turns off, no matter what. 2) If he launches two 30's, blow through them like they aren't there. I plotted like 26 all the way, holding the R as an S again.
Turn 1 was interesting, in that Peter launched an EPT at like range 12, and I closed to range 8 and fired my mammoth 4 p1's at his #5, doing 3...dangit. I used bats to speed up a little, and launched my real R, then turned off.
Turn 2 was boring, I ran out his torp to nothing, and he ran mine out for awhile, but ate it for 20 points minus 11 phaser damage. We both went towards middle of map, and late in turn I fired my p1's again at him, this time doing something. (Can't remember how much) I tossed out two real F's as well, and turned off. We ended range 6, me a little more in middle than him.
Turn 3 was really boring. I cloaked out, he bolted a S and F at range 6, hitting with the F, which I blocked. He phasered up the plasmas, but took a good chunk. He crusied around, shot me with some phasers, doing like 4 or something.
Turn 4 I was thinking I'd come out a second, have him launch, and I'd just go back under and dust them. However, I decided I'd had enough of this, so I just came out of cloak and ate his 50 points and phasers, and he went 8-4 and weaseled my torp, so I died.
Game 3: Andrew (Selt)
I figured I'd do the exact same thing as I did against the Klink, and toss out an F at some point and begin my chase.
Turn 1: The most interesting thing about this game by far was that on Turn 1, Andrew fired at some range, and then turned off without any launch whatsoever from me. The turn ended with him heading dir A, with me chasing Dir A after him. I went ahead and tossed out the Real R imp 32, he was going to get hit by a sizeable chunk without any help from me, figured what the hay. I think I did 4 p1's at range 8 on his #5 shield, doing 12. (Mighty dice!!) Turn 2: I figured I'd chase him a little, and nail him with the 2 F's. He sprinted for awhile, but the map wall is only so long, and eventually the mighty R torp tracks you dowsn. He ended up turning into to not have a down shield facing me, and blew away his #1. He shot up my #1, and took out 8 of my armor. My plasmas impacted him, and I followed that up with my mighty 4 p1 and 3p3 strike at range 2. Late in the turn, I got range 3 with my other side P3's, and did a cool 5 through the down shield. He know had a down #3, down #4, and a 1 box #1. (And like 30 internals) I had a down #1, and missing 8 armor.
Turn 3: Empty bats, low phasers, no torps, I'll plot a high speed runaway!! I recharged everything, including loading my torps, and had a mammoth 12 left to put into movement...not exactly high speed. I figured the Selt would park anyway. Boy, sure called that....Selt came out at speed 28!! I think he wanted to increase distance quickly between us, to stop me from getting too good a phaser strike against him.
I ran away, and he slowed down a little, turned around, and then sped back up. I used all 6 bats, and sped up to help maintain some range. I also kciked out the tbomb to gain a much needed hex of space. (Finally got to use that thing!!)
Turn 4: So, I parked, and TACed. He went speed 8, and it was likely to me he would slow down and weasel. I tossed out the pseudo, and launched a shuttle myself. He did indeed slow down, and he weaseled. I launched 2 more shuttles, my 3 man swarm heading at him. My pseudo impacted his weasel. Late in the turn, I sped up to a flying speed 10. In an effort to stop my shuttles from getting repeated cracks at his down shields, he sped up to 6 and activated AFC. I HET in place, and launched the Real R. He had to ED, and my shuttles got to tear him up. (11 internals spread doesn't seem so bad until you've been miziad a few already)
It was around now Peter came by and told Andrew he was in a must win game, humorously enough. Late in the turn, he fired his remaining alpha, his 3 SC all whiffed. Then rest of the dice were ok, but I blocked like 18 of his 24 point alpha on my #6.
Turn 5: I got to finish 2 F's this turn, which actually represent more firepower than the Selt has left. I wasn't certain which shield he'd fire on, so I just put 6 in general...woohoo. He couldn't fire anything for awhile anyway, figured it'd wouldn't break through.
I launched an F, and had my shuttles start firing. He guessed the F was fake, (which it wasn't), and ate my phasers and shuttles fire and plasma damage for like 30 more internals total. he fired his remaining 6 p1's at me, rolling, 6/6/6/6/5/4. (So, I didn't even have to use bats to block this garbage, laugh) After doing the imps, he had no PCs, like 1 p1, but still did have 2 SCs!! My ship was still just missing the 8 armor, so Peter let him resign.
Thoughts: About the only thing that struck me was that the TKE seems to have an unreal amount of fear factor going, in that all 3 opponents turned off without anything from me. I have some non tactical thoughts I'll post in a few.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 03:28 pm: Edit Non Tactical Thoughts:
1) Getting a hotel room on come back to school weekend in Ithaca is basically impossible. I'm not even certain I understand the rationale...are students actually not physically able to go to Cornell without having their parents in a hotel room nearby?
2) If you are in a room with 8-10 other guys, it might be ok to check your voice messages by speakerphone. However, it might not.
3) For us having no plan whatsoever, and no real destination in mind, the few drinks we had at that sports bar was a blast. From Museums, bad movies, old Chinese women, and Your Mom jokes, that was actually pretty fun. Oh, and lest I forget, the drunkest person I have seen in a long time. (I'm guessing she won't be coming to the Con...)
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 04:11 pm: Edit I had Liza Minelli's a$$ painted on the front of your ship when you where on shore leave. That's why they all turned off...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 05:00 pm: Edit Tim!
It was great to have you show up. Apparently, you had trouble finding a hotel room, huh. Sucks. Sorry about that. It didn't occur to me that it was come back to Cornell weekend. Doh. But apparently, you found somewhere to stay, so everything was presumably ok :-)
Man. She musta been awfully drunk to have come up to our table...
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit Tim wrote: >>About the only thing that struck me was that the TKE seems to have an unreal amount of fear factor going, in that all 3 opponents turned off without anything from me. I have some non tactical thoughts I'll post in a few.>> Well, in my case, I wanted to possibly deny range 8, although your speed change flumoxed that plan at the cost of some of your batteries. I didn't have AFC up, so firing at 12(?) and turning off works out of, assuming my opponent doesn't want to eat the enveloper, and at worst, I get shot for a few points with phasers.
As for the other two, well, I gotta convince them that turning off from the Romulan before he does anything isn't a good idea :-)
-Peter
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 09:06 pm: Edit Hi Tim,
Just a quick query, I was told previously that the the R-torp cannot be held as an S on turn 1 because of what it says under W/S III. Just wondering which is correct?
-Jason G
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 09:48 am: Edit Well, I certainly never heard any rule saying you couldn't hold a R as an S. (Not like I am going to go look this up). Unless I way off, the reason the TKE was given 6 bats was in order for it to be able to 'finish' the R, and still be able to Het.
I do know you cannot hold an R, though, and that has bit me a few times.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 10:01 am: Edit
Quote:
I was told previously that the the R-torp cannot be held as an S on turn 1 because of what it says under W/S III.
Jason - Can you cite the rule?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 10:24 am: Edit
Quote:
(Not like I am going to go look this up). ..since that would require having a rulebook
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 02:53 pm: Edit (S4.13) "*Multi-turn arming weapons may be assumed to be fully armed and are being held in their launch tubes; in this case holding energy must be allocated on the first turn. Note that weapons which cannot be held (e.g. plasma-R torpedoes) cannot be completed prior to this point."
This quote is from my 1990 Captains set, the S4.0 sections are not in the Master rulebook. I played the Eagle a long time ago but can remember being told I couldn't hold the R as an S on the first turn but that I could after paying the 4 power to complete it as an S.
I can see how it could be interpreted both ways so was just wondering which is correct.
Cheers,
-Jason G
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 03:36 pm: Edit My understanding is that the weapons status rules provide a ceiling for your capabilities, but do not constitute a straitjacket. For example, starting at WS-III does not require you to have previously launched drones on the board. Moreover, Feds are not required to use their available overload energy, and S-torps can begin the game holding a G-torp (as additional examples).
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Edit Of course you can have weapons at less than the maximum arming status. Otherwise, there is no way you could have an EPT S or G in turns 1-3, as you can't convert a held torp to an EPT.
The only funky interaction between tourney rules and WS is that the Kzinti and Klink are required to start the game with their SP loaded, even if they would prefer to have a second WW ready instead. Also, non-Feds don't get photon overload energy.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 12:41 am: Edit Here's the rule reference: (FP1.132) says you can start with a held, downloaded torp.
Also note that (S4.13) says "...weapons MAY [my emphasis] be assumed to be fully armed..." not that they ARE fully armed, so you could use rolling delay.
By Jason Gray (The_Hood) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 02:16 am: Edit Yes, (FP1.132) makes it pretty clear you can start with a held S downloaded in a R-launcher.
Wonder why they put in the "Note that weapons which cannot be held (e.g. plasma-R torpedoes) cannot be completed prior to this point." line in the W/S III section?
Anyway my Romulan Eagle is happy, it just found 2 extra points of power for turn 1.
Thanks for the reference,
-Jason G
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:40 am: Edit New Topic
Scatter pack use for Klingon and Kzinti vs Plasma ships
My ideas are usually load it with (4F and 2M)and sometimes begin unloading the pack early for a later WW or to present the illusion of type IV's. The issue is in my last few games vs plasma the scatter pack has never been a real factor. With the Klingon especially coming in w/ 3 OLD's is standard now to present a real treat if a plasma ship lets me get closer than R8 and not having to meet any plasma . The Scatter pack still needs to become a more of a factor instead of collecting dust in my shuttle bay. Only having 4(Klingon) or 5(Kzin) Front hull is frustrating
to just leave it on board. Ideas?
Robert in Seattle
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 11:08 am: Edit Against the Romulan (as a Kzinti), I'd pretty much always unload 2 type I's from the SP on the first turn to use as reloads in what is usually a long game, and because the Romulan has few labs, ID'ing them is difficult (and as you note, a 4 drone SP might have a type IV or two in it). Then hold it till either:
A) You want to encourage him to cloak (which is often the case). or
B) He starts a turn blazing at you and unlikely to be able to cloak, yet far enough away to get the SP out and launching before he shoots it down. Which also happens occasionallly. Don't ever launch it early, as it is too easy for a plasma ship to force you off and the Rom can always cloak out. It can be huge late in the game--keep in mind that the shuttle bay (well, on the Kzinti, at least) is protected by the center warp engine. Not so much on the Klingon, though.
Against the Gorn, don't launch it early, as he can launch enough plasma to make you turn off (or, ya know, run into if you are persistent), and then easily kill the SP with a 4/14 weasel on T2. Against the Gorn, who can't cloak, you want to launch the SP when you are chasing him into a corner on a low plasma turn, to get there after you have him stopped and caught.
-Peter
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 11:29 am: Edit My Klingon vs Plasma tactics usually have the Klingon running during part of turn 2. Hold the SP and kick it out at the end of the run, then turn around the SP, trying to be heading in the direction of you opponent when the SP blossoms (late turn 2 or early turn 3). They you can follow the wave in at that point.
By Rob Estrada (Daredevil) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 12:04 pm: Edit This is what the Klingon faces vs Big plasma T1
A. My 3 OLDs or 2OLds/1 Stand vs 100pt salvo(likely 1 EPT A/B or worse 2 S Torps's coming out at R13-15) The scatter pack is of utmost importance much more so for the klingons survival than a Kzintis IMO
B. Turn 2 has me generally running from the EPT or 2 S's at 4-6 hexes behind me #4(or off my 3/5 shield if I turned later) assuming I turned off at 10-12. The Plamsa ship is usually 3-5 hexes behind his plasma at that point. Setting up a scatter pack early T2 is extremely tricky IMO but not impossible.
Big plamsa (particualy the Gorn's 8 ph1s and Rom FH--due to FA bolting arcs) are the toughest ships for the Klingon to tangle with IMO 40/60 maybe 30/70 RPS
In the old days I used to just kick out the scatter pack T1 (4F 2M) and meet the plasma ship w/ 4 OLD's during his T1 anchor run when most players were screaming across the board at 26+ late T1 hellbent on anchoring me
Rob By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 04:56 pm: Edit Rob wrote: >>In the old days I used to just kick out the scatter pack T1 (4F 2M) and meet the plasma ship w/ 4 OLD's during his T1 anchor run when most players were screaming across the board at 26+ late T1 hellbent on anchoring me>>
Yeah, that happens a lot less these days, as a lot more folks know how to avoid getting killed by it (don't get inside R3 on T1; arm overloads in case they charge, etc). Even then, I think you are correct that, at least the Gorn, is still a 60-40 over the Klingon, although if the Klingon is careful and patient, he can do just fine. Although, the SP is usually not that big of a factor (the Gorn can usually deal with it via an Enveloper launch or a timely weasel).
-Peter
By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:26 pm: Edit Is there a "proper" way to do the 4/14? People talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion, but no one in our (relatively inexperienced) group has ever pulled off a speedy weasel. I'm pretty sure there's a term paper on it, but I don't know in what ancient CL it might have been published.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:10 pm: Edit Troy, it is kind of situational. But let me give you 2 specific examples which are pretty typical. Say for example LYR-TFH.
Example 1:
EPT launched from range 5 on impulse 32 of the previous turn. In this example let's say the Rom has very little plasma ready on this turn. In this case the Lyran can safely plot 4:1-5, 14:6-32 for 12 total hexes, weaseling the EPT and then speeding up. Note this leaves plenty of power for disruptors, tractor, etc. Also note that the Lyran is pretty much up to battle speed on the following turn (speeds 14/28).
Example 2:
EPT launched from range 5 on impulse 32 of the previous turn. In this example let's say the Rom has significant plasma ready on this turn. A plotted 4-14 is very dangerous for the Lyran, since he can weasel the EPT but risks getting crushed by follow-up plasma launch from the Rom. In this case the Lyran can plot 4:1-32. Note that if the situation allows, the Lyran can speed up to 14 mid-turn with batteries (buy 5 hexes).
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 08:49 am: Edit Troy wrote: >>Is there a "proper" way to do the 4/14? People talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion, but no one in our (relatively inexperienced) group has ever pulled off a speedy weasel.>>
To support what Ken wrote, there isn't really a "proper" way to do this sort of thing. It is just looking at what is on the map and plotting speeds as necessary. Generally, if you get to the end of a turn, and see a bunch of seeking weapons you don't really want to deal with, you plot speed 4 for enough impulses to be able to weasel off the incoming seekers, and then jump up to 14 as soon as the seeking weapons are theoretically going to be gone (from hitting the weasel).
Another example:
At the end of T1, there are 6 medium speed Klingon drones 3 hexes from my Gorn. The Klingon is about 9 hexes away, running from some Gorn plasma. I don't want to have to shoot down all those 6 drones (as it wastes power and reduces my offensive options). So I plot speed 4 till impulse 5 (I think speed 20 moves its third move on 5 off the top of my head) and then 14 for the rest of the turn. Impulse 4 shows up, the drones are one hex from my ship, so I launch a weasel. Impulse 5, the drones impact the weasel, I take some collaterall damage (as there is no speed the weasel could have gone and left my hex by impulse 5), I declare my speed change to 14, and turn my AFC back on. Impulse 6, right before movement, I start moving 14, which voids the weasel explosion, and then pursue the Klingon.
There are situations that can complicate things, such as spread out drones--if the Kzinti has, say, 10 drones on the map spread out by 4 hexes (say 6 in the front and 4 four hexes behind), you have to make sure you time your speed change correctly, as otherwise you can end up weaseling the first stack of drones, accdelerating, voiding the weasel explosion, and then having to deal with the second stack of droes without active fire control. And psuedo plasmas can certainly present a problem too--you speedy weasel off the pair of S torps coming at you, discover they are both psuedoes, turn on AFC (voiding the non destroyed weasel), accelerate to 14, and then find a fully armed plasma ship coming for you.
-Peter
By Chris Proper (Duke) on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 09:10 pm: Edit Lyran vs. Gorn from R-P-S thread.
Lyran needs to arm 3 overloads turn 1 and adapt to the Gorn's plasma strategy. Launch position is the difference between outrunning an enveloper or charging through for a UIM salvo on rear shields. Range 12 seems to be the break point, based on what I've seen Gorns do. Gorns don't succeed when the ESGs hit for full, so overrunning a fully loaded Lyran will just get you killed. One-hundred points of plasma is not good enough when two volleys strip you of your tractors. By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 11:13 pm: Edit Anchoring gorn will have an SS about 4 hexes in front of him (denying R 4 shot without eating plasma). The way I play it is 75% both fake, 25% both real. sooner than later you will decide to fire and run. You will most likely fire at a brick, and if you are not careful you will line yourself up at R5 back shield I 30- 32, do the math, roughly 27-32 internals. Most likely you will have to do some creative work avoiding close encounter.
I'll skip both real torp scenario...
If you try an overrun, and both torps are fake, you still have to hit him on the same shield as your DF and avoid shuttle launch (-12 to esg). Zero energy anchor is another problem you will have to avoid, especially close to eot. There are other tactics, used in anchoring, that can be summed up as: DO NOT eat 2xESG + DF on the same shield unless you are guaranteed to win.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 09:35 am: Edit Chris wrote: >>Lyran needs to arm 3 overloads turn 1 and adapt to the Gorn's plasma strategy. >>
Yeah, the games where you have done well (i.e. killed me) generally are the ones where you close on T1 and crash through the first two plasmas I launch, when only one is real. Although I have accidentally won at least one game by launching two real ones early which you crashed into. That never works out so well. The firing at 8 and turning off to run tends not to work so well.
I got whacked by Caillin's Lyran in the last RAT due to him having hot dice and me being dumb and launching a psuedo when I needed to launch a real torp. So it is certainly possible, but I still think the Gorn is advantaged vs the Lyran.
-Peter
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 05:21 pm: Edit Th two S-torp gambit comes down to knowing thy enemy.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 01:58 pm: Edit Lyran can make it work with the 3 OL turn 1 thing, and can also make it work not arming any disruptors and playing it speedy/tricky. I think the match is about even myself.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 03:36 pm: Edit I have an interesting idea to combat the 2 S-torp gambit. Granted it might not work. But hey I have had some crazy ideas.
What is you used the 12 points of power towards reinforcing shield #6. If he launches 2 S torps hit the torps with some if not all Phasers on one of the S torps. Let it hit and continue to close. The idea being that you still get good position on the Gorn for Turn 2.
Paul Franz
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 04:10 pm: Edit Isn't horrible, but then you aren't really doing anything to the Gorn, and if:
-Both the plasmas are real, you are ok. -Both the plasmas are fake, you are not so much. -One of the plasmas was real, you are awfully close to a Gorn who still has 70 points of plasma, and you have used most of your phasers and have no heavy weapons armed.
And you have to choose to do this *before* you know what the Gorn is gonna do--if he launches an enveloper, then what?
-Peter
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 04:55 pm: Edit Peter, I am one of those idiots that would probably eat the first enveloper and try to keep the stronger shield #6 towards the Gorn.
Paul Franz
By Ralph Wiazowski (Ralph) on Friday, November 03, 2006 - 09:02 pm: Edit Paul,
Not a good Idea if they are Real, as gorn will drop FF, fire 2 front PH1s and HET away, aining other 6 PH1s at your ship. Assuming you will take FF on #2, and all PH1s on #1 you will lose all your front shields, in exchange for close to no damage. You will have your one shot on hi rear, but you will not do enough against his 8 P1s on T2. Alternative is for gorn to anchor you for 40 + 6P1s + 2P3s (possible 32 more from SS). If plasmas are fake (75% chance) you will be anchored when you have no disruptors and phasers. One Fake one Real, well you won already, as your opponent is unlikely to have skills required to win.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 01:50 am: Edit Ralph wrote: >>One Fake one Real, well you won already, as your opponent is unlikely to have skills required to win.>> Heh. I launch 1/1 in the Gorn on a regular basis, and I've been doing pretty well like that (2 Ace cards at big tournaments, getting pretty far into all of the RATS I've played), so while I realize that it is a different strategy than you tend to play (from what I understand, you are super agressive, liking to anchor or alpha bolt), it still can work just fine as part of an overall strategy.
A real/fake on T1 will do one of the following:
A) Take down a sheild for probably nothing if your opponent calls your "they are both fake" bluff, opening up opportunties for serious phaser abuse without risking much (as you still have 70 plasma armed).
B) Does a handfull of damage on a rear sheild if your opponent runs from them and then lets them hit late or early on the next turn, which you often can shoot through later on in the turn, as you are still chasing your opponent with 70 points of plasma.
C) leaves you in a still advantageous position if they run and then keep running from the plasma, as you still have 70 plasma on board, your opponent has run himself into a corner, and you have another big plasma coming on line on T4.
I don't always launch 1/1 as an opening (sometimes both fake, sometimes both real, sometimes an Enveloper to do the same thing as a pair of standards). But most of the time when I do launch 1 and 1, I do just fine.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 04:29 pm: Edit Gary wrote: >>Bakija has the Gorn vs. Wyn AuxBC as a 4 and says, "I give the Gorn a disadvantage vs the TFH, Kzinti, Neo, Orion, WYN,...".
I'm 0-3 in the Wyn vs. his Gorn. And, while not an Ace, I feel I'm a decent player.
Whose Wyn AuxBC is whipping Peter's butt enough that he still gives it a "4"? >>
A 4/6 match up doesn't mean that I think the Wyn is a slam dunk against the Gorn, I just think that the Wyn enters the game with a bit of advantage. That the Wyn has a lot of extra power (meaning the Gorn is unlikely to anchor) and goes really fast and can launch a lot of drones means that the Gorn is fighting slightly uphill in a general sense.
In terms of our specific games, I think you have generally been using less optimal option mounts to fight the Gorn than you could be--they are packages that do well against the feild on on average, but probably remove some of the advantage that the ship has specifically against the Gorn. From what I remember, you tend to use the, like, LIIT kinda package (HB/Disr/Gat/P1 or drone or something), which tends to use a lot of power (10 to OL both HB and Disr), meaning less rienforcement and/or tractor.
I think the strong packages for the WYN against the Gorn are the phaser/drone heavy ones, and not so much the ones with disruptors in them.
>>I need pointers. Bad. Especially since he's knocked me out of the last 2 RATs. >>
I think it is just luck of the draw, mostly. You are using packages that are generally good against an average field, but tend to blunt the ship in this particular match up.
Stephen McCann killed me in the finals of Council of 5 Nations last month using a WYN with P1, P1, P1, Gat. On the first turn, he had 10 rienforcement allocated on to his #3 sheild, so when he shot me at 6 or so and turned off, I got a R5 centerline on his #3, so I shot him with 6P1 and 2 F bolt, hit with everything for 41 damage, found 15 rienforcement, and did a grand total of 2 internals. That kinda set me off in a bad way for the rest of the game, and while I lost, in the end, 'cause I failed to blow off both his tractors in 3 midsized volleys (i.e. I had a reasonably good chance of hitting both tractors, and if I had, I probably would have won, but I didn't, so I died), the game was still pretty close--4/6 is not wildly imbalanced (that'd be 3/7 or 2/8). Just one side has an advantage from the get go, even if a small one.
-Peter
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 10:39 am: Edit Shoting at a reinforced shield (#5) happened to me too. But as I am not as keen on bolting as you Peter I survived that surprise I wonder don't you think your tactics have become too well-known by now?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 12:10 pm: Edit Carl wrote: >>Shoting at a reinforced shield (#5) happened to me too. But as I am not as keen on bolting as you Peter I survived that surprise I wonder don't you think your tactics have become too well-known by now? >>
No more so than knowing that a Fed is likely to going to shoot you with overloads if you get inside R8.
Like, yeah, I was totally skunked by the #3 shield rienforcement, but it wasn't like the odds weren't good that anyone was going to shoot there--he knew he was fast, he knew he was unlikely to get inside R4 for the turn, he knew he was going to turn in that direction. Even if I didn't bolt my 2xFs and just shot him with the phasers (which likely anyone was going to do), the 10 rienforcement was going to be in the right place and going to be useful.
I could have shot him outside of R5 on a different shield (not a good idea). I could have not shot him at all (also not a good idea). That is one of the reasons why I give the WYN a 6/4 advantage over the Gorn, as it can have a lot of rienforcement, and if you have a lot of rienforcement, and you put it on the right sheild, you tend to do well (see: Orion).
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 09:07 am: Edit Moved from Tournament RPS
Andy Vancil. a) I've never seen this. Recovering the shuttle at the cost of speed 24 on turn two doesn't seem like a smart play against the TLM. b) I've seen this c) I've seen this d) I haven't seen this; I've always seen the Klingon try to keep drones between him and the TLM e) I don't think I've seen this - there is usually some more speed involved somewhere
1-2) There is no need to brick against the TLM on turn 1. Some opponents might have bricked on T1, but I never knew about it as I've never fired at a Klingon on turn 1 . Some Klingons plan for standards, with the goal of killing/damaging the fighters once they show up. Others go for overloads, hoping for a range 8 shot and knowing they can dump them for 2.1 availability if they need. The latter approach tends to be more common, IME.
Hydran, either a 16/20 or a 16/25/26. With the former, I'm arming fusions to hold them and am avoiding the range 8 shot, targeting a turn 2 rundown. With the latter, I may have 2 fusion armed, but am targeting to hit range 8 on 1.32 and take the OLs on my bricked #2/#6 (turn eligible for 2.2). If I'm against a better opponent, I may even forego arming the 2nd HB for more brickage [I take more chances when fighting the top tier players, though it has been a few years since I've done that]. If my opponent hasn't fired by 1.30 and looks like he's trying for the range 8 shot, then I'll launch fighters and give him the choice (ship or fighters). The key turn is turn 2 when I charge at a speed designed to allow me to run around/through the SP drones. With 2 in allocated tractor and good maneuvering, only the turn 2 launched drones have a chance to hit and I'll be able to dictate which shield. The Fighters either die for a Klingon Alpha (trading 2 fighters for a shield and possible internal) or they allow me to lose no movement running through the SP.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 09:21 am: Edit Andy V wrote (re: Klingon V Hydran): >>I'll assume the Klingon launches the SP to build a drone wave. But does he a) Plot 12/21, recovering the SP shuttle >>
Some folks'll do this. I don't think it is remotely necessary vs a Hydran though.
>>b) Plot 15/21 or 16/21 to keep the turn 2 speed option c) Plot 15/25/26 or some such, with a swing wide to stay behind the drones while getting speed toward the end of the turn>>
Likely what I'd do.
>>And does he 1) Load standards (or 3 std/1OL) and put up a brick to balance the HB if the Hydran presses to range 8 >>
Also likely what I'd do.
Mind you, I rarely, if ever fly Klingon, and have never actually played this match up, but played it out as a Kzinti many, many times, and won more than I lost. And the difference isn't *that* huge, in terms of the dynamic (I think the Kzinti is better in the match up vs the Hydran then the Klingon is, but certainly the early set up can likely go similarly). But I'd figure, as a Klingon on T1, I'd:
-Move some sort of 16/26 or 16/31 plot, swing wide right and then turn left to cut across the map, facing the Hydran with my #2.
-Launch the SP early and manuver to get the drones a few hexes in front of the ship.
-Arm standards and rienforce the #2.
It's ok if the Hydran gets R8 on T1, but I'd certainly manuver to avoid R5 or closer (which wouldn't happen unless the Hydran went, like, 30 all turn anyway, which is possible, but unlikely). If he gets 8 and shoots, he is gonna hit a rienforced shield and then have to run on T2. Hold disruptors till either he launches fighters or not. If he launches fighters and you can get a good shot, fire the disruptors at one of them. If he doesn't launch the fighters, don't fire the disruptors (as the 6 damage you do isn't worth not being able to fire them again till 2.8
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:28 am: Edit Generally, against most on plasma opponents, and sometimes even then, I put the fighters out imp 1, turn 1. What the hay, why not is my thinking. I generally have the fighters do a 15/14/15 thing, and I generally go 14-26, with a side slip right. My plan is to have the fighters a hex or two in front of my ship as I approach. Pretty boring and all, but whatever works and all that.
Ok, as for the Klink SP.
If the Klink puts out the SP early, and gets behind the drones, I'll recover the fighters immediately, and weasel those puppies turn 2. Maybe 4/14...maybe park...whatever. I am not wading through 9 drones to do battle, forget that noise.
If the Klink put out the pack early, and is in front of the drones, I'll plan on running the Klink over first chance I get.
Now, maybe it is just me, but I have only played one Klingon I can remember that even launched the SP, because I think everyone realizes I am instantly weaseling anything I see. (And, the guy who did launch it, luanched it in such a way I could close and blow it up turn1 anyway)
The Klingon with those drones is a handful. The Klingon without them is not.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit Peter. The Kzinti is a FAR tougher matchup for the Hydran. It takes damage much better, both vs mizia and deep hits and it is one thing to run through 9 drones (one of which is a type VI); it is another to run through 14 (of which 8 can be fast and 3 can be type IV). The Klingon's launch capability is just under the threshhold of "too much for the Hydran to run through" and it combines it with a far more fragile hull.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:51 am: Edit Andy Palmer wrote:
Quote:
a) I've never seen this. Recovering the shuttle at the cost of speed 24 on turn two doesn't seem like a smart play against the TLM. Why not? Turn 2 the Hydran must deal with your SP drones. It seems to me that plotting a high speed in the Klink on turn 2 against the Hydran means you burn a lot of power and risk separating yourself from your drones. At lower speeds, you have power for overloads and tractors. The risk is that if the Hydran wants to charge and overrun, he will catch you, but I think he will lose if he does. The Hydran can handle drones, but he can't handle 9 drones and two seeking shuttles in a turn and still do significant damage.
Tim, I like to launch the fighters early against most opponents, too. I find if nothing else, having the fighters out is distracting to opponents, and encourages them to make maneuver mistakes.
Weaseling the SP? Brilliant! But where are you on the map when you do that? If you are too far away, you are stuck under weasel restrictions for a long time. If you are close, the Klink can maneuver for a good shot and leave before you get moving.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 12:12 pm: Edit Andy wrote: >>The Kzinti is a FAR tougher matchup for the Hydran. It takes damage much better, both vs mizia and deep hits and it is one thing to run through 9 drones (one of which is a type VI); it is another to run through 14 (of which 8 can be fast and 3 can be type IV).>>
Oh, I totally agree--I think the Kzinti is probably 6/4 over the Hydran and the Klingon is 5/5 if not 4/6 ('cause the Klingon suffers from a suceptibility to being overrun by anyone who is good at overruning you, and the Hydran is as good as anyone). Yet still, I'm coming from the point of view that I can't imagine the Klingon firing at 8 vs the Hydran (as that'll probably just get it killed, as you aren't doing significant internals, your phaser caps are empty, and the Hydran *is* going to catch you on T2), where if it plans on firing at R4 with drones in the way and whatever, it has a chance.
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit Andy V wrote: >>Weaseling the SP? Brilliant! But where are you on the map when you do that? If you are too far away, you are stuck under weasel restrictions for a long time. If you are close, the Klink can maneuver for a good shot and leave before you get moving. >>
In his high school yearbook, Tim was voted "Most Likely To Weasel and Park". The photo is charming.
Yeah, Tim is gonna weasel. And then he'll probably win, too. As that is what he does. It is kind of a magical thing about him :-)
-Peter
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 02:57 pm: Edit Andy Vancil. The Hydran can indeed run through 9 drones (one of which is type VI) and ONE Suicide Shuttle (SP is the other special shuttle, though I guess you could try to count 2 dummy suicides from the single bay, but that is pushing it) and kill the Klingon. As I said, I was doing just that against Vince Weibert, until I goofed and forget to tractor at range 2 (with allocated power), the type IV that I had identified. Before that, I was down my #2 and a handful of internals.
As for low speed, you don't want to be going slow against the charging Hydran as he'll control the movement (which shields, range, 5-3 4-2 jumps, etc.)
Plus, you're talking to the guy who, until the "advent" of the OL PPD opening, used to run through the ISC wad and chew them up on turn 2 The Klingon, like the ISC (w/o the OL PPD) lacks either the firepower or seeking weapons to stop a charging Hydran and the Hydran is uniquely capable of causing either multiple mizia hits or a deep strike at close range.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 03:17 pm: Edit I don't know. I am having a hard time envisioning a scenario where the Klingon comes off poorly if the opposing Hydran captain tries to engage through 9 drones. (Suicides nonwithstanding)
I mean, if it can do just that, the Hydran would be advantaged 10-0, since what the heck else is it going to do?!?
Now, as for the Hydran just blowing through the Kitchen sink against the ISC, while that may or may not be possible, what does a OL PPD have to do with anything? I mean, point yourself at an ISC, go speed whatever turn 1, blow through everything like you say you did, see how many pulses the ISC gets off.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 03:42 pm: Edit My usual anti-Hydran opening in the Klingon was to plot 4 for housekeeping, 8 for standards, 24 for movement (doing a 16/26 plot), 1 for holding a wild weasel, and 2 points starting the other two as suicide shuttless.
Until you uncork the disruptors, it looks like you're doing a medium overload plot of some sort. My aim is to get range 9 from the fighters (to get rid of small target mods), scrape them off with phasers and disruptors, and turn out behind a late launched SP.
Next turn, if the fighters aren't dead, I run, and finish them off. Usually I can count on the fighters being crippled from this.
Now the Hydran is going through 5 drones from the SP, at least one drone from my rack on turn 1, and they're between me and him.
I generally plot a 4/14 plot - yes, I'm telegraphing the weasel - but I've got full overloads and a refilled phaser capacitor, he's got the onus of getting closer to me on him, and the later in turn 2 the overrun goes, the more I'll know about his EA. Plus, he's wading upstream through those drones.
Turn 2 plot is usually 4 for HK, 1 for WW, 3 for phasers, 16 for OLs, roughly 8 for movement, 2 for the little suicide shuttles, and 5 for tractor, just for spite.
If push comes to shove, I pull the trigger at range 4 or 3, and WW at range 2. If I have reason to believe that he's burned batteries, I'll attempt to anchor at range 2, especially if I can do so on a hex spine.
I'll look for impulses where I can do the Mizia, but that's pretty standard.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 04:09 pm: Edit Tim. The OL PPD opening is nasty and yes, they can get all 6 pulses on you (unless you want to eat G/F torps on your nose). Back in the Norm vs Hydrans ISC-TLM challenge, we had a tough fought T2, but I didn't have enough left after zigging and zagging for 8 impulses.
As for the Klingon battle - it's no slam dunk, I'd put it 6-4 as dice DO matter (i.e., the R8 shot does 6 wpn hits for example), but it's definately an uphill fight for the Klink.
Ken. If you turn out after shooting, how are you getting your disruptors in arc with a 4-14 split? You won't get range 9 before about 1.30 so you won't have a chance for 2 turns and the Hydran will turn in behind you.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 07:55 pm: Edit Tim - Please be aware that the Master Rule Book has taken away the (15/14/15=16 hexes) for fighters (and 6/5/6=7 hexes for shuttles as well).
I would voice my frustation over the creation of _more_ rules to close this minor loophole, but this is probably not the appropriate topic.
-DC By Chad Carew (Blackhawkckc) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 08:45 pm: Edit Uhm, it did? Where? I just read C12.341 (MRB) and it looks like that is still perfectly legal. Am i missing something new someplace?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 10:51 pm: Edit (J1.211) confirms that shuttles can use speed changes to sneak in an extra hex of movement.
By David Cheng (Davec) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:03 pm: Edit Hmmm......
Yes, I now see that C12.341 very clearly says this _is_ allowed...... Thank you for providing that citation.
This must be yet another example of my encroaching senility.
But it can't be that bad... I am ABSOLUTELY SURE that someone, I think at Council back in 2005, told us that the loophole was closed. We looked up the rule and I saw it in print.
Evans, was that you? Do you remember any of this?
Maybe it's the SFB Gremlins, changing the pages in my rulebook when I sleep... It can't be me...
-DC
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 07:55 am: Edit It wasn't me, but I was there when you made the revelation. I don't remember who showed it to you though.
Brian
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 09:55 am: Edit Yeah, I remember that discussion, but I don't remember what happened to it. Or if it was resolved. Kooky.
-Peter
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit Andy said... //The OL PPD opening is nasty and yes, they can get all 6 pulses on you (unless you want to eat G/F torps on your nose). Back in the Norm vs Hydrans ISC-TLM challenge, we had a tough fought T2, but I didn't have enough left after zigging and zagging for 8 impulses//
I can foresee no way in the world you could be eating a F torp on the nose of all things if you are... 1) Eating PPD pulses 2) While charging him These two things seem to be mutually exclusive to me.
Now, the F torp non-withstanding. I don't see any way in the world any ISC is getting more than 5 pulses, presuming the Hydran is just moving speed 24, and the ISC is going like 16. (And, this completely ignores you doing a speed change to only take 4, but maybe you want the bats for tracs or something) What I am kind of getting the feeling, though, is that you want to eat the PPD on your #2 or #6, so you want to slide your ship over there until the PPD is close to done firing.
By Andrew J. Koch (Andyk) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 10:37 am: Edit I had thought as well that the 6/5/6 shuttle speed change was against the rules. I'll compare the old rulebook to Master Rulebook to see if the wording has been changed for C12.341 and J1.211, because reading them now in the Master Edition, it's pretty clear that it is indeed allowed.
Andy
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 11:34 am: Edit I'm not sure if it was explicitly allowed in the 1990 Doomsday rules, but it became explicitly allowed well before the advent of the MRB.
I don't think it should be allowed for shuttles to exceed their maximum speed that way, but it is, and for me, it is standard operating procedure. You just have to remember with admin shuttles, you have to have a speed plot. Also, only manned shuttles can make speed changes. So, if you launch a manned shuttle but don't want to reveal it as such (at least until it fires its p3), hold off on the speed change.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 11:56 am: Edit Tim, the way I usually did the OL PPD opening was to launch an EPT-G and an F torp in the same hex, slip behind them, and wait for the target to turn off. That being said, I usually only did the 5 pulse PPD.
I did something similar to this with the Sniper Pig WAX, only it was a 5 drone stack with the promise of 5 more drones launched after the turn break, to make someone stay in OL PPD range. The Sniper Pig has the advantage of being a medium-low power package on turn 1, and generally had 37-4-6-16=11 points free for wild and crazy things like reinforcement on turn 1.
It was far and away from being the "best" WAX package. It was, however, less suckful than it should've been once you figured out the OL PPD angle.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 01:20 pm: Edit Well, the only way to launch the dang F is to be at oblique or worse. (And, they have to be launched then out of the rears) So, either the ISC isn't PPDing anything at all after launching, or he is dead turning into you (which would be . It seems like it would be trivial to avoid taking the plasma's on the nose as well, since you have all the time necessary to arrange a slip to take them on your #2/#6. (And, even better, it will be on the 'other' side of the needed front shields as you approach the enemy)
Again, I am not arguing one way or the other that a Hydran could/should run through the sink to get to the ISC, just that if you are, it seems the prospect of an OL PPD with, maybe, 5 pulses shouldn't do anything to dissuade you.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 01:53 pm: Edit Tim - launch F torp on an impulse where you don't move next impulse.
Next impulse, have F torp HET. Launch EPT G torp.
Impulse after that, torps move forward, you slip out.
Alternately, you launch EPT and F torp on same impulse through the #3 or #5 shield, have them move forward, and turn together while you slip the other way. Generally, EPT+F launch happens at range 12-13. If you're doing the OL PPD schtick, you're slowing down somewhere around when you want your approach run to happen, so that the torps are ahead of you and the the PPD has its maximum opportunities for 6 pulses if the target keeps closing. (Most ships turn off from 60 points of plasma, even if it'll usually be 55 minus phasers when it smacks 'em.)
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 02:05 pm: Edit Perhaps I am not understanding some magic that is occuring. If someone launches two torps at range 12-13, the opponent has basically two options, and neither of them lend themselves whatsoever to the ISC getting alot of pulses of PPDing...
1) Run them out. Surely the ISC isn't going to miracle itself into range 8, especially since the ISC admittedly is now going slow in an effort to get the torps in front. Since not range 8, I am missing the OL PDD coming into play. Seems like you'd want to launch the torps at range 8, actually. (And, again, the F had to be launched from oblique, at best) 2) Just blow through them. (Which was the strategy put forth). If the opponent just keeps coming, or turns in, the ISC, if he wants to fire the PPD at all, will have to turn in. (And actually, he will have to turn in sight unseen, since the opponent will apparently be going quicker anyway). Two ships headed dead at each other, and the non Hydran ship not turn eligible, sounds like a pretty groovy situation to me. Heck, the Hydran seems like he'd be praying for an OL PPD, to nuke the batteries so the ISC can't Het away.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 02:35 pm: Edit Tim, in the context of this strategy, "slow" is generally right around speed 15-17 (usually 17).
The ISC plot is usually something like 24-17-26 for the last 5 impulses, with enough flexibility in the 17 portion that the mid turn speed change can be done with reserve power to either delay the slow down, or move the speed up earlier; the usual assumption is 5 pulses on the PPD and 3 hexes of flexible movement. The goal is to get close to the middle of the map by mid-turn.
Most people facing the ISC put a brick on the #6 whield to absorb the PPD, and plot a high-ish speed. Hydrans may corner dive to arm fusions on turn 1, which delays the OL PPD to turn 2.
If you turn off from the torps (and you're right, it's range 8-11 for torp launch as I shove counters on the map), I get a standard PPD shot at your rears, which probably aren't reinforced. I may, if the geometry works right, get the OL shot on the rears, which is the usual corse.)
The ISC strategy with the OL PPD is relying on someone being deterred by the mess of seeking weapons out in front of it, deterred enough to make them turn off, at which point hex grid geometry makes it all but assured that 6 pulses will land.
Contrast this with the usual ISC strategy of PPD at range 15 and a plasma launch and trying to turn away, and you'll see the difference in philosophy - the "standard opening" ISC strategy is one of "don't hurt me!" This strategy is one of "Lose 30-50 shield boxes to avoid two pulses of a PPD, or turn away and let me PPD and phaser your rear shields." It does require an aggressive mindset.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 02:58 pm: Edit I wouldn't evem bother with a long range EPT G torp launch against a Hydran. He can run it out to 11 and gat it to kingdom come safely with fighters in tow unless you launch that puppy at range 8. And if you do it at range 8, see Tim's post above.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 02:59 pm: Edit Ken: That's great an all, but remember, the context here was that the Hydran used to just charge the ISC, run through the sink, and hammer the ISC. Now, one person think that because of the fear of an OL PPD, you can't do it.
All you are doing is saying how a ISC ships launches a torp, has the opponent turn off, and the ISC then gets a OL shot on the rears. By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 03:19 pm: Edit Tim: No, turning off is one option (and frequently a good one for the Hydran). If the Hydran charges through one F and four G-torps (2 real, 2 fake, strung out), along with the PPD and P1s at 4-5 (4-5, followed by a HET, speed increase, then the remainder on the down shield), then he's taken a bunch of internals in several volleys and is now (probably) in very poor shape weapon-wise.
By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 03:57 pm: Edit It is becoming clear to me that no matter what I say, people will respond with something that 'debates' some point I never made anyway.
Frank: I agree, turning off from alot of plasma and coming back later is a good idea. However, it doesn't do alot to address the 'problem' of facing a OL PPD when attempting to run through the sink....In fact...it makes it outright impossible to run through the sink when you turn off to avoid the sink.
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 04:39 pm: Edit I understand your point, Tim. One extra PPD pulse shouldn't make the difference as to whether you decide to run through the kitchen sink.
I think what Andy P was getting at is that the fundamental shift in philosophy that OL PPD tactics have caused, changes several things in the ISC's approach, and those things together make running through everything less viable.
The traditional ISC approach was to fire the PPD at 15 and then launch torps and turn off to keep your opponent from getting close. The newer approaches involve launching the torps first, and following them in to optimum OL PPD range, so that if he turns off or slips out, you get lots of pulses. If he charges through the torps, well, he eats a lot of damage and you can shred him with your phasers. (Of course, the Hydran is one of those ships that can still win that exchange...)
The difference between the two approaches is not just a PPD pulse, but a PPD pulse, plus a better range bracket, plus (most importantly) an ISC who is ready to go toe-to-toe as opposed to one who has allocated to keep the range open.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 07:44 pm: Edit Andy Vancil covered most of the points. There is also the advantage the ISC gets by facing the Hydran during the approach, able to fire phas-1s into down/weak shields. The approach also allows for good use of PPTs, as you generally don't launch EPT-Gs with this approach. As the Hydran is approaching, trying to run through/around the torps, trying to avoid damage on the #1, the PPTs make this more complicated.
What allowed Norm to get 6 pulses as well was a very well timed speed change that gave him 2 consecutive impulses of no movement. Most people could probabably only get 5, but the top tier will be able to get 6 pretty regularly, methinks.
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 10:37 am: Edit Andy Palmer - Yes, launching of an EPT in this approach is a no-no IMO. If you're OLing the PPD and paying for the fatty, there will be precious little power left to HET out of trouble unless you're not moving much (like 20ish hexes) and your board position may not be optimal.
By Dave Steele (Blackknight) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit Question for those of you who have done face to face tournaments recently; what are currently the most popular option-mount choices for the Pig (Wyn tournament AuxBC)?
By Marcus J. Giegerich (Marcusg) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:38 am: Edit Hi Dave! How have you been? I recall we had a few good PBEM games back in the day ;)
I've seen all kinds of stuff lately, but the LOng Island Iced Tea (i.e. little bit of everything) Aux seems to be a constant. It involves a hellbore, disruptor, drone rack and gat in the options. I think various players arrange it to taste. I've seen some really warped packages in tourney play the last year or two like the octopig (8 drone racks!!!) and the all phaser pig (sometimes with a gat) is still a popular pick. Squire_Bnues has been playing the waleyed pig (LF/L photon, RF/R photon, drone racks in center mounts) alot on SFBOL and he's been enjoying some success in it. Personally, I've been really turned on to the FFD1 package lately as it's got tons of extra power and it can maintain steady damage output even when rearming the F torps.
By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:40 am: Edit People experiment with lots of stuff (FF11, (PPD)BB, etc.), but most of what I see are one of these three:
1g1g HDBg DHDg (which I see quite often as it's my primary choice)
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit 1g1g is now illegal. I like the 11g1. I also have won a lot with the LIIT, H,B,G,D. I sometimes play around with a 2 plf and 2 disr package, f,D,f,D or f,f,D,D.
Stephen
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:27 am: Edit My last Ace was with a HHDD package. Potentially power hungry, but you don't have to arm the disruptors. I tended to OL the disruptor on the side facing the opponent, and mostly use standard HBs.
By Benoit Rheaume (Bneus) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 01:24 pm: Edit Yep Gotta love the walleye..but if phots miss with 1-5 to hits...im kinda screwed. A good One is 2 HB center 6 drone racks...keeps the opponent at bay with drones and mizia him with the 2 hellbores.
I've tried the 1PL S center and 6 drone racks...its a totally seeking ship, but the S has lots of ways to fire EPT,Fake,Shotgun,Quick load! 2 F's do more dmg but are too long to reload..and cant quick load or EPT, a longer game helps the Single S. And this layout burns up WW faster than any other ship. If he runs out he's dead. A good thing to do is too unload 1 Option rack at start and keep it low , so if a drone is destroyed you can repair it and keep the S and some drones safe.
The biggest prob with the Wyn is the lack of "Safe" HET and the after WW no ACC combo.
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit I've used PDB with some success - you need the seeking weapon channel for the PPD (AKA the Sniper Pig or Peeper Pig).
Peeper Pig relies on using the OL PPD over a turn break, with 5 drones in front of you, and 5 more (and a suicide) ready to launch if someone is daft enough to try and run through them. The PPD is also good for detecting if someone is anchor bait on turn two.
Most of its advantage is that nobody sees it
I've also had fun with HF11 (Hydroflouric Pig).
F torp gets an FH launch arc, holds for free (maximizing one advantage of the Pig). Hellbore causes people to do crazy things to stay out of your FA, and your primary armament is having 5 phaser 1s that bear anywhere, backed up with 4 drone racks.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 09:44 am: Edit I always liked the "Pure Drone Theory" WYN when it was legal (Huggy-Bear?) with Drn, Drn, Gat, Gat. It was totally hosed against BP, but in most other matchups, it was quite entertaining.
I'm trying to figure out what would make a viable substitute for the second gat:
-Hellbore: Probably the best option as it provides some mid range threat, but cuts down on the huge powr advantage. -Photon: Same as HB, but less effective. But also less power hungry (i.e. takes 2 power on an attack run instead of 6). -P1: Not bad, but lacks the punch of either of the above or the Gatling.
-Peter
By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:18 pm: Edit Peter: Why no use a 7th drone rack? While you don't have the control channel for it, someone WILL be clearing them for you with phasers eventually...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 01:27 pm: Edit I've considered that, really, but I think in the long run, *something* has to be better than the 7th drone rack, as 6 is usually sufficient for anything you need it to be. I kinda like the Photon for when someone runs away (an OL photon and 4xP1 on a flank at R4 is likely to do internlas), but the HB is probably just better.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 01:40 pm: Edit how about bbfg? the F is Bolt or the 7th Drone
By Dave Steele (Blackknight) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 01:41 pm: Edit Interesting. Yes, over the years the Pig (also know locally sometimes as the Battledog) has in general been the bane of my existence, regardless of what ship I was flying. So... I'm devoting a lot of thought to it, and how best to beat it.
What causes the most headaches for Pig captains? How do you best go about beating it?
If I can ever get this $%^&()#@()!!! router to play nice with SFBOL, I may get the chance for more play against some of these.
Thanks guys! Hi Marcus, how's it going?
Dave/Blackknight
By Benoit Rheaume (Bneus) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 02:40 pm: Edit Well first thing is never stop and keep turning...Worst thing about a piggy is its maneuverability.
If ya stop. you do save yourselves from a big seeking attack, but youi will probably not survive the next one And it gives the WYN a good chance to get into any of your downed sheild.And use 2SS r0.
Whatever option it takes it will never have a great DF avg dmg r5+. So take the 1st shot and start a mid range knife fight...If he cant reach you, he cant anchor. drone waves are slow spd 20 so you can outrun them. And his launchers will run out!
If you make him WW you got him...he will be slow for a long time.Pick him appart.
By Benoit Rheaume (Bneus) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 03:08 pm: Edit What is the ruling on using Ion Cannons on WYN or Orion ships in Tourney?
Can they be used? If so, Do the LS/RS side mounts of the Wyn become LF-L/RF-R, like photons or fusions?
(just thinking of a walley IC WYN...ohh the drool)
By Andrew J. Koch (Andyk) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 03:21 pm: Edit This is kind of related to the recent discussion in the Proposed Ship Changes thread: I'm brainstorming the Fed Vs Bp (but particularly the Rom) matchup, does anybody think it's viable to fire only two photons and some of your phasers at range eight in lieu of the traditional alpha strike? You would definitely have more options on turns two and three.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 04:49 pm: Edit Depends totaly on the situation. I one had a Fed fire two proxies at me after I had lobbed my second Ept his way. The result was I attacked him with Fs only (I lost my batteries on the way in) but destroyed enough weapons he could not break shield any longer. BUT I have considered firing like one photon and phaser whiel the Rom is cloaked in order to drop a rear shield on the ROm. This would be a weakness to exploit later on.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 07:26 pm: Edit Andrew wrote: >>This is kind of related to the recent discussion in the Proposed Ship Changes thread: I'm brainstorming the Fed Vs Bp (but particularly the Rom) matchup, does anybody think it's viable to fire only two photons and some of your phasers at range eight in lieu of the traditional alpha strike? You would definitely have more options on turns two and three.>>
As noted, it certainly depends on the situation, but I'd think that most of the time, if you get R8 on the Romulan, it will be in a situation where you'll have a lot of room to run on the next turn--assuming a standard EPT/EPT/Cloak game, if you hit R8, it is likely 'cause you caught him against a map edge. If you blast at 8 with everything and hope to do average, you'll probably have all of next turn to run away across the map. If you do, fire everything and then arm 4 standards and run the next turn. If you don't have the whole map to run in, firing 2 and hoping to get lucky might be a good plan, as then if you get cornered the next turn, you still can blast him up some at close range.
-Peter
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 07:53 pm: Edit If I get ra 8 (in a Fed) vs a BP, and I have any kind of an escape vector, I let them all go.
Averages 8 or so inside + the down shield to take random phaser shots through.
Don't get me wrong, Ra 4 imp 32 is the ideal shot. But Ra 8 imp 24+ is not to bad.
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:05 pm: Edit I'd take r8 on a Rom every time if I had room to run. The Gorn would depend on his plasma cycle. If he's low, I'd probably push for a closer shot if I had him semi cornered.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:17 am: Edit The problem is, a competent Rom isn't going to let the Fed have r8 without eating an EPT. Which is why everybody rightly gives the advantage to the Rom. The problem isn't how much to fire when you get to r8, it's how to get that r8 shot in the first place!
By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:57 am: Edit I always thought the rom cycle can be quickened by forcing earlier launches and judiciously taking your medicine. ie start with OK spd and run first enveloper low coming back to pull second. Run through second at R11+ after throwing in 4 p3s(offside p1's as 3's) and then driving to get the r8 or better shot. Course the F(possibly 2) will make this difficult as well but they should not deny a R8 shot.
By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:28 am: Edit "I always thought the rom cycle can be quickened by forcing earlier launches." I agree here Kerry.
However, eating the 2nd EPT doesn't necessarily guarantee r8. In that situation the Rom can pop a weasel and cloak on turn 3 if he chooses to (if the Rom does it right, you won't be getting that r8 shot on turn 2). Eating a bunch of plasma for a shot at a cloaked vessel = usually a losing proposition for the Fed.
Not saying it's hopeless for the Fed - I actually enjoy this matchup alot, and I think it's more interesting to play the Fed than the Rom in this matchup. I'm just saying that a skilled BP player will make the r8 shot challenging to get. Conversely, a skilled Fed will know how to use speed and maneuver to combat the ballet. It becomes a game of maneuver and board position, which some find boring (but I personally think is interesting).
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 03:50 pm: Edit Ken wrote: >>The problem isn't how much to fire when you get to r8, it's how to get that r8 shot in the first place!>>
This is completely true, but I think it was kind of implicitly acknowledged in Andrew's original post--as the Fed vs the Romulan, getting to R8 to shoot anything is the tough part. I think he was wondering if you do get R8, should you fire everything or just try a 2 photon shot, saving another couple for next turn.
I suspect that most of the situations where you *do* get R8 ('cause the Romulan screwed up this turn, or a few turns ago and now it is catching up to him), you probably have the whole map to run on for the next turn, so I'd still probably go with a full blast. But there might be some situations where the Fed gets an accidental R8 shot in the middle of the map on a flank Romulan shield, in which case, firing 2 and hoping to get lucky might be worth trying, just to avoid getting run down and mugged on the next turn.
-Peter
By Andrew J. Koch (Andyk) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:11 pm: Edit "...Conversely, a skilled Fed will know how to use speed and maneuver to combat the ballet. It becomes a game of maneuver and board position, which some find boring (but I personally think is interesting)."
Interesting to say the least! I was just thinking when I posted earlier, that when you play aginst the Rom in a Fed, R8 is about all you can hope for (initially), but a Fed who fires Alpha strikes from R8 does not usually fare well. Once you fire those overloads, it's very difficult to escape, reinforce, hold weasels, and rearm photons. So I would rather fire two and hit with one than fire four and hit with two, especially if this shot occurs towards the end of turn one.
By Andrew J. Koch (Andyk) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:26 pm: Edit Peter makes a good point. And even if the Fed gets range eight, it wont be without eating plasma, and by the time you get that shot, you'll probably feel like you "need" to fire all four overloads to even things up. Just not a very pleasant prospect (unless you're a Rom...)
By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:08 pm: Edit And as a Fed I use this a lot. On the reload turn charging only 3 photons can be benifitial. Of course if you make the great escape then 2 batts starts the fourth otherwise any damage can be taken on the empty tube. By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 12:51 am: Edit re Peter "But there might be some situations where the Fed gets an accidental R8 shot in the middle of the map on a flank Romulan shield, in which case, firing 2 and hoping to get lucky might be worth trying, just to avoid getting run down and mugged on the next turn. "
I would only fire two phots to try to force a HET by the Rom. Firing 2 phots + 4 phasers on one imp, when at ra 8 and the Rom is not turn viable; that I would do.
If any Rom is afraid of a Fed with 2 hot Tubes he should already have issues.
Fed issues. ace players tend to wean away from it. (it is simplistic and "dicy")
"I haven't played in a while so I'll fly a Fed." How many have heard (or said) this?
I think it is under rated. Have you ever Hack & Slashed in a Fed? It doesn't leave much behind. Don't get me wrong it can take 18+ turns to beat a BP, and Heavy drone ships are no Joke.
Since the tournament is heavy on drones and plasma (neither are simplistic or dicy), well the feds weaknesses are exagerated by its opposition.
The Fed is the real reason I would like a workable ANDY back. RPS. Andy Eats BP, BP Eats Fed, Fed Eats Andy.
So the fix to the Fed might just be a workable andy.
By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Thereplicant) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:36 am: Edit That kind of RPS thinking killed magic the gatherings type 1 format:P RPS are to be eliminated, not played with so to speak.
By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:39 am: Edit Carl-Magnus Carlsson,
But in a game as complex as SFB, with different races using very different technologies, not just in weapons but with things like web and cloak and engine doubling and PA panels, you're never going to get rid of RPS effects. Inevitably, some of those technologies will be more effective against some competing technologies than against others. It would be nice if every tournament ship was 5-5 against every other ship. But it won't happen. And RPS is at least better than one ship being advantaged (or disadvantaged) against everybody.
By Andrew J. Koch (Andyk) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:34 am: Edit Bret said >>"I haven't played in a while so I'll fly a Fed." >>
Just so. The Fed is the prime candidate if you've been away for an extended period of time. Although very challenging to win touraments with, it is simple to fly. The Lyran also fits into this category to some extent.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 12:01 pm: Edit Lyran!?!? I'd say GBS would be the choice after Fed - basic drones, standard disruptors, well-rounded ship. ESG timing, when to use the UIM, ech!
By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 04:22 pm: Edit While I don't think a workable Andy will fix all of the Fed's issues, it could help a little. Of course , that will probably just mean more drones to deal with. So maybe a G-rack and a workable Andy .
By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 04:55 pm: Edit Hey, I'm workable, and I don't have a problem with either Feds or BP! :-)
By Randy O. Green (Hollywood750) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:49 pm: Edit I like Brett's solution. Sweet and simple.