[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One-liner emails? Of course if you take single sentences out of context they tend to transmit a vastly different meaning than they had originally... I was not exaggerating anywhere.

I meant one-liner Posts. And looking back, I see only one of them was literally a one-liner post. These were the assertions I was referring to originally, and these were the points I was trying to stick to in each part of the discussion.

At first I thought you meant to exaggerate, but now it sounds like you maintain them to be true, within your doctrine, where you assume certain situations and game style choices are the way to go. Apparently this includes expressions like "extremely inefficient" to mean "have disadvantages that make me usually not want to use them, because I don't expect their strengths to come into play". Any misunderstandings others might have about this, they have to pry out of you with lengthy arguments.

I don't know of a way to link to a specific post, but below is the text of the email which I thought defined the topic.

I wrote:

Sorry Wardad. I was just exaggerating and teasing Fryon about his exaggerated teases. Staying on topic, I'd say Fryon was either wrong or exaggerating or incomplete about such things as:

"... Baseships, which are extremely innefficient..."
- Baseships have some inefficiencies, and some efficiencies. Their strengths can be played so as to make them undeserving of the label "extremely inefficient".


"That [Taera: "PvK said you need to ditch the APM or your ships will stick around and get out gunned."] only works if the enemy is using small fleet sizes Taera. Otherwise, it makes no difference (except to make some ships unable to fire) because the ships will be blown up in a single round anyways."
- These are exaggerations. Max range with ships that need to reload will tend to improve their effect and survivability, unless there are so many ships that they can't actually move backwards. Also, even in huge/dense ship battles, there are still a significant number of ships which don't get blown up in a single turn.

In reply to Ed Kolis:
"Hmmm... so if I get what you're saying, weapons with a low rate of fire and long range (like missiles and advanced torpedoes) are really sort of like a damper field that blocks half, two thirds, or three quarters (depending on if you're using fire rate 2, 3, or 4 weapons) of damage, because you only get shot at by the rate-1 weapons when you move into range...

Of course that wouldn't work when the enemy has faster engines, but then for assaults against satellites, bases, and planets... "

Fryon quipped:
"It also does not work very well when the enemy goes the same speed as you either."
- Depends on your definition of "very well". It does often have a good effect, even if the enemy has the same speed, because in most cases the resulting range and concentration of enemy ships is reduced during turns where the friendly ships in question are reloading.

Now, I'm not asserting that such tactics are enough to tip the scales set by the rather lame torp stats versus the rather good APB XII stats in the unmodded game, but they do have positive effects in many situations.

It was clear to me from Fryon's winking smilies (" ") that he was teasing and exaggerating, but I thought maybe some newer players might get the wrong idea.

PvK

Looking back at that, I think it still summarizes my position on each point. All your (Fryon's) statements which I quoted are based on valid observations, but are over-statements of them, or at least represent a specific doctrine rather than being valid general statements.

PvK