Ironduke

Use this thread to comment on or discuss events in the "Destroyer Battle" scenario. If you want to suggest rule changes, please open a separate thread for the sake of clarity. (Especially if it has the potential of being a controversial rule change or if it's very complex. )

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Ironduke

(I moved the "Gilgamesh vs. Ralatha" posts into a separate thread.)

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Avacar

I'm throwing this in here, since it is interface related and not in-character.

Ironduke, I noticed that your new implementation has lost the 'movement orders' table. Any chance we can have that put back in some form, so that we can see what the other team actually commanded (since it doesn't always work out?) It certainly looks like they all commanded a straight-forward move... but did they? Are there hidden barrel rolls we can't see? etc.


edit: Hey nifty! They have a 'last manoeuvre performed' field on the pop-up. I take back the previous comment, although some sort of table for the 'historical moves' wouldn't hurt.

__________________
Ship Quals: Rapier II
Confirmed Kills: 0 | Assists: 1
Succeeded Missions: 1 | Deaths: 0

Ironduke

I see you figured it out for yourself. If possible, I'd like to remove the "Movement Chart" as it was. The last maneuvers stay online in the Flash turns, and we'll have the separate turn phases online in the future. (So instead of "Next Turn" you'll have a "Next Turn" AND a "Next Phase" available where applicable.)
That way I'm saving some time when generating new turns. If you all want the "Movement Chart" back, though, I shall bow to your will.

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Pip

Just watching this whole setup, I can't shake the idea of a game of tag forming...

floundericiousMI

don't worry, Pip..we'll 'tag' you soon enough...do you prefer flak, antimatter cannon, or neutron guns

__________________
"Jesus asked me to post about this." - LOAF

"It's Roquero, from the Celeste system. It's bright, it heats your blood, it makes you want to live a long life!" - Vaquero, WCIII

Ironduke

Just reminding you that we're in the Combat Phase right now - fire some flak, lock a target or whatever else. Some of you have already sent movement orders early - I'll use those in the next Movement Phase, so don't wonder if your name still appears red under the "Submitted Turns" section.

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Pip

Sorry, Zeta 2, about that. Thought we could beat the odds on that flak fly-through...

Mekt-Hakkikt

Well, it looks like my stay with Zeta 2 will be rather short.

But it's ok, a wingman should take the Flak for his wingleader .

[Still, I stand by my post in the volunteers thread: Flak is too powerful now.)

__________________
"Khasra! I have heard enough of Khasra!"

For the Glory of Sivar!

Avacar

(Open Channel)
Pack leader, the monkeys are falling for our trap. Skabak 3 is doing a good job, pretending to be a poor pilot and letting himself be hit by their weak weapons fire! Our plan is working perfectly, and soon they shall enter our ambush zone, and we shall pounce with all ferocity! For the Glory of Sivar!

__________________
Ship Quals: Rapier II
Confirmed Kills: 0 | Assists: 1
Succeeded Missions: 1 | Deaths: 0

Avacar

I like the new missile popups. Very informative!

That said, Garga 1 and 2's targetting info is weird. Neither one actually shows that we have 1/2 IR lock on Bravo 1. Also there's some mention of Garga 2 targetting an incoming HS? Did I miss something?

__________________
Ship Quals: Rapier II
Confirmed Kills: 0 | Assists: 1
Succeeded Missions: 1 | Deaths: 0

Ironduke

Ah, I mixed up "Targeting" and "Incoming" for Garga 2. He has a Javelin HS on his tail, that's all. And now that we're at it, I don't even know what "Targeting" was meant for. Hm...
IR (and other missile/torpedo) locks appear on the Turn Summary only. Although I could now use the empty "Targeting" info to implement something like "IR (1/2)".

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Mekt-Hakkikt

Ok, knocking on wood: Zeta 2 has more luck than I thought. Though, now that I said it...

Oh yes, I wouldn't have noticed if you didn't say it. That's a real step forward.

Though I have some (maybe unfouded) gripes with the other popups, I'll make a new thread for it.

__________________
"Khasra! I have heard enough of Khasra!"

For the Glory of Sivar!

floundericiousMI

Skabak 2 here...apparently using the force worked...almost a 100% hit on Bravo 1...come on dumbfire!

__________________
"Jesus asked me to post about this." - LOAF

"It's Roquero, from the Celeste system. It's bright, it heats your blood, it makes you want to live a long life!" - Vaquero, WCIII

Avacar

Why was Bravo 1 allowed to take a non-afterburner evasive action? Does this mean Garga 1 could simply have moved and turned to avoid the DF missile too? This essentially will mean that any DF shot can simply be "dodged" if you can use regular movement to 'side step' them, at the usual evasive action penalty of no movement next turn.

By the time you know a missile is coming, you barely have time to either launch a chaff pod, or hit the afterburners; you shouldn't have time to REDUCE SPEED and calmly turn out of the way... the missile is coming in at a speed of 12!

__________________
Ship Quals: Rapier II
Confirmed Kills: 0 | Assists: 1
Succeeded Missions: 1 | Deaths: 0

Humungus

On another note, when the DF missile from Skabak 2 missed Bravo 1, shouldn't it continue it's route towards Bravo 2?
(quote from the manual: If a DF missile misses its original target, all other units in its line of fire are endangered (up to the missile’s maximum range of 10 hexes).)

Also, go Kats, go!

Guilherme

It continued... and hit me

Humungus

Ah, sorry, you're right. Took me some time to notice

Mekt-Hakkikt

Yeah, I am unsure about Bravo 1's evasive action as well.

And Guilherme, I'm sorry for that DF: you didn't deserve it.

__________________
"Khasra! I have heard enough of Khasra!"

For the Glory of Sivar!

Guilherme

The manual says a ship must have a afterburner to make an evasive action, but it don't says the ship must activate it. (of course, the last word about it will come from Ironduke...)

And about the DF, well, shit happens

floundericiousMI

Depends on who you ask

__________________
"Jesus asked me to post about this." - LOAF

"It's Roquero, from the Celeste system. It's bright, it heats your blood, it makes you want to live a long life!" - Vaquero, WCIII

Ironduke

I was pretty sure this would stir up some controversy... And I totally understand Avacar's point - it's the main reason why I allowed only straight "panicky" afterburner maneuvers in the first version of the evasive action rules after all. So let's talk this over! I'll start with a quote from the manual:

I read that passage a few times before deciding whether Sylvester's move was legitimate or not. First, there's the note that evasive action can only be taken by ships "with afterburners" - but I noticed (as did Guilherme) that the manual doesn't state they have to be engaged. So that's definitely a glitch in the manual. The next sentence makes things worse by explaining that any maneuver is allowed...
I already fixed this for v0.15, but in v0.14 it's definitely there. I don't like it either, though, so I can see two options right now:

1) We live with it in this scenario, but upcoming games will employ the updated rule (no evasive action without afterburners).
2) We go back one step and Sylvester agrees to engage afterburners instead. (Which won't take him off the map, but a little further away from the action.)

Your two cents?

__________________
Wing Commander: Tactical Operations

Guilherme

Let's allow non-afterburner evasive actions this game and keep playing.


And i already have a justificative to allow this: We (confed pilots) are amazing pilots, so we can do such kind of risky manuever (like dodge a missile *cof* *cof*) with excelence

Panda

We may as well allow it for this game, but in the future I think one should be required to use afterburners. However, I do think a shelton-slide dodge should be OK.

Sylvester

I think that the manual was written with the spirit of forcing players to use afterburners to take evasive actions from missiles. Now why I may argue that because the DF is unguided, its much easier to avoid being hit, in the spirit of the game, I say to go back and change my manuever so that I used my afterburners.

__________________
Admiral Joshua Dworkin, Wing Commander: Against All Odds
Lead Writer/Storyline Developer, Wing Commander Pioneer

Mekt-Hakkikt

I too am in favour of restricting it to AB manoeuvers in this current game as well.

First, I've always read the rules as limiting it to AB manoeuvers, else it wouldn't have made sense to put the AB requirement in, more a minimum turn rate.

Second, if we allow it, we also have to allow Garga 1 and even Guilherme to chose again if they want to evade and that would put a halt to the game for longer than just changing Sylvester's move.

(I also have several reasons why I think that evading missiles should be limited to AB manoeuvers generally but as I understand it, we all agree that this will be the case with the new rules, so no need to argue there).

Edit: I just saw that the TacOps already has changed Sylvester's move so I guess it's all ok now.

__________________
"Khasra! I have heard enough of Khasra!"

For the Glory of Sivar!

Avacar

edit: also posted before realizing it had already changed.

__________________
Ship Quals: Rapier II
Confirmed Kills: 0 | Assists: 1
Succeeded Missions: 1 | Deaths: 0