Topic: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement  (Read 4737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« on: July 08, 2005, 11:14:52 am »
What size should we use?

The PBR League standard is medium.

The SFB source is that it's supposed to be floating, and in order to disengage, you would have to disengage by means other than leaving the map (acceleration, sublight evation, distance...).  We cannot do those in SFC.  We have to leave the map.

I am inclined to say a Large Map should be used.  That's as close as we can get to floating.  It also puts more space between the combatants, allowing them to arm up prior to closing, which would help to emulate 'Weapon Status III' (everything armed and ready, including muliti turn arming weapons).

This does have some associated impact on disengagment:

* Is a 2 minute wait to disengage appropriate?  Should it be longer?  In SFB terms, 2 turns and starting at WSIII means about 2 straight turns of combat, and with single internals, a ship could be crippled in those 2 turns, and then just starting to effect disengagement.
  In SFC, after 2 minutes on a large map (or a medium for that matter) we might be just getting ready to engage for the first time, and the two sides MIGHT score some internals on each other.
  I am thinking the disengagement clock should be pushed out to 4 minutes, and you would still need to either score some internals or have a ship crippled before you can cross the border.

Thoughts?

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2005, 11:47:16 am »
The SFB source makes no sense then. Battles are supposed to be fought around specific objectives (bases and planets), not just for the sake of fighting battles. Flying around in open space does nothing to further the war effort.

My vote is Small.

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2005, 12:20:36 pm »
Wow...not the response I expected.  ;)

Space is vast, and the majority of all scenarios take place in open space. 

Matter of fact (the fact being SFB references) the idea whole idea is to engage the enemy AWAY from valuable points, like bases and planets, whether it be to close with for decisive combat, or to pin enemy forces and prevent them advancing towards specific objectives.

Obviously, Bases (to destroy) and planets (to capture) are the ultimate goals, but most battles take place outside of these as each side tries to gain an advantage over the other.

Small is too small  - teams should have the option to maneuver, room to get some distance and fight at range if they like.  They shouldn't be forced to knife fight (which some races are not equipped for) or disengage. 

Continuing with Medium as the standard should work - it's worked so far.  Perhaps when the scenarios are played out and the different victory conditions are factored in, it will suggest whether a change from status quo in required  - in either direction

What about the the disengagement time limits?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 12:37:35 pm by Jakle »

Offline KHH Jakle

  • Moderator
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 602
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2005, 12:24:19 pm »
Based off of Bear's input in the 'Crap' thread, it would seem the sector assault 'Large' map is ridiculously too big. 

Maybe that would make for a good 'floating' map...but I suspect that Large would have to be off limits due to this. (remember - we have to use Sector Assault for all matches, in order to get the post game report)

Offline Dfly

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1735
  • Lyran Alliance Lives
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2005, 12:49:29 pm »
I agree that nearly all battles do take place away from planets bases etc..  The space out there is very vast, however, a large map IMO would be a tad big, doable but big.  I see no reason a small map should be used at all. 

Possible idea, make it that no one can fire for the first 2 minutes, allowing time for formations and loadup of multi-turn weapons.  This would also give time for any bugs to be reported such as lack of control of a ship or screen or any other rare problems, as well as in the case of considerable lag showing up early.  I realise this does not happen often, but it would be best to get them out of the way if you can.

Second suggestion, 4 minutes to disengagement.  this would allow 2 minutes for shooting chasing whatever before you can run off the map.  I see this as a bit of time for the actual battle.  Why?  Because in battles where you meet out in space, if you are going to get close enough to see the enemy within range,  it would take at least 2 minutes for your team(if running) to be able to outdistance or outrun the enemy, who is doing all they can to get close enough for at least 1 shot. 

There are other reasons for and against these ideas, but I think the aforementioned can work.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9433
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2005, 05:04:08 pm »
The SFB source makes no sense then. Battles are supposed to be fought around specific objectives (bases and planets), not just for the sake of fighting battles. Flying around in open space does nothing to further the war effort.

My vote is Small.

You sure all your Hornets will fit on a small map?   :P
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


762_XC

  • Guest
Re: Campaign Map Size and Disengagement
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2005, 05:50:55 pm »
Pffft, like we would ever stoop to using fighters.