Re: Dynamic Duos 6 |
Sun, 09 March 2014 16:30 |
|
|
Exactly the explanation I was asking for. Thanks, Neil.
Now, I have one issue with that. This basically forces the players to make sure their chaff is way down on the design list, and if it isn't, no designs further down the list should be on the same fleet with chaff (lest they trigger the mine hit, and dodge the resulting damage because the chaff is higher than them). Unintentional (i.e. without the purpose of pure minesweeping) occurences might cause some players to cry foul, and waving red flags might sour the atmosphere around the game (something I want to avoid at all costs, in the light of my past experiences with some games).
Why not just allow both? It makes things easier for the host (no additional policing), reduces the MM on the players' side (no need to track down design list sequence/tailor fleets to avoid MDD), and helps keep the atmosphere clear and suspicion-free. What do you say?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Dynamic Duos 6 |
Thu, 13 March 2014 23:57 |
|
|
skoormit wrote on Mon, 10 March 2014 04:01
The best way to take advantage of this is to place your chaff design in slot 1 of your design list, and to send one chaff with every fleet that will be traveling through minefields.
I do vaguely remember that with 3 ship designs in a fleet, the damage distribution isn't 75% to the 1st design and 25% spread over the remaining ships... so you might want to confirm the practical numbers for that.
I would simplify and say that it works ideally with a fleet of 2 ship designs. I remember that it was affected by the number of engines in the remaining ship designs in the fleet, but the basic explanation of 75/25 damage distribution holds true in a 2 ship design fleet with the chaff on top.
(I got lazy when I was checking this a year ago and I didn't grapple with all the other fleet arrangements after testing it a bit.)
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Dynamic Duos 6 |
Fri, 14 March 2014 09:07 |
|
Asmodai | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 214
Registered: February 2012 | |
|
Con expensive can be fun. Vanilla or con expensive is ok.
Con expensive can slow down AR. Do we want this?
[Updated on: Fri, 14 March 2014 09:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Dynamic Duos 6 |
Fri, 14 March 2014 15:42 |
|
|
Gents, if some of you fancy the idea of playing a somewhat different game, then why not agree on expensive Con just this one time?
Maybe we see somewhat different set of PRTs across the teams, other than the strong-by-default JoAT/IS combo. IMHO we have also seen enough AR races in DD games already. Why not give other PRTs their fair chance?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Dynamic Duos 6 |
Sun, 16 March 2014 13:09 |
|
craebild | | Lieutenant | Messages: 568
Registered: December 2003 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark | |
|
jscoble wrote on Sun, 16 March 2014 15:27So is it expensive Con? Any other race design exceptions?
No CA, IT, NAS JoAT or -f HE.
Beyond that?
Current vote is 5 for Vanilla (i.e. nothing forced to be expensive), 1 for Con expensive, none for Weap expensive. If we end up being 6 teams of two, then there are 12 who can vote, 6 of which have voted.
So Con or Weap expensive are both possible, but pretty unlikely.
Other than that there is the cheats/exploits listing in the initial posting and the clarification about mine damage dodge / mine damage allocation in this thread.
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Christian Ræbild / Christian Raebild
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|