TCS, and other stuff...

Mark Urbin:

>   Let me try this picture instead.  Zhodani probably aren't going to
>bother with the Darrians or the Sword Worlds.  Small empires don't
>bother the Zhodani.  The Sword Worlds can raid in toward the old
>Imperium and trade their blunder to the Darrians, who will probably
>maintain a slightly higher tech level.

The Sword Worlds trading with the Darrians?!?  What a concept!  I would
expect the Sword Worlds to attempt to conquer the Darrians, as soon as
Imperial interference disappeared.  As if they could...


>  The old Imperium there will have their hands full between:
>rebuilding; the Aslan expansion; the Solmani Empire; Sword Worlders ;
>something else I'm sure.
>  New data from Hard Times show lots of `Wild' and `Outland' areas for
>Sworld World Vikings to raid.  Some of it may be what Piper called
>`Chicken Stealing', but there are sections are are going to be unknown.

Why should the Solomani matter to Norris?  They're two or three years
travel away.  For that matter, why should the Sword Worlds matter?  He
can swat them like flies whenever he decides to.  I suspect that fear of
Zhodani retaliation is the only thing that has kept him from securing
that particular section of his borders...


>  This helps a bit, but is still kind of icky from my point of view.
>I' m still kind of bummed over a character with autoweapons-5 have no
>better chance of hitting his target with an autorifle than a new
>recruit who has just finished basic training using a standard semi-auto
>rifle.

Just finished basic with a standard semi-auto rifle???  When did we
switch to a semi-auto rifle for basic training?  I thought we were still
using the M-16, and full auto is part of training with the M-16...


Jim Baranski:

>""Exterior demountable tanks and drop tanks simultaneously increase
>fuel capacity and ship tonnage;  drop tanks, however, MAY (emphasis
>mine) be detached just prior to jump to reduce ship tonnage in order to
>achieve greater performance.""

>I see...  I would think that drop tanks would not have jump grids.  How
>would you play unarmored tanks different then unarmored tanks?

They probably don't.  But if they sit within a meter of the hull, they
don't need jump-grids.  And why would I WANT to play unarmoured tanks
different than unarmoured tanks?  They seem pretty much the same to
me...


>NOTE: right after the start of the TCS game I lost reliable network
>access, so I don't know how much of my original intentions were carried
>out by my successor.

Very little, really.  He developed his own doctrine for use, adapting
what he wanted out of your doctrine, I presume.


>"The lack of J-drives ensured that they didn't escape."

>That was my point.  That they were outnumbered explains thier loss of
>the battle.  They were designed to be used in situations where *they*
>had numerical superiority.

Well, assuming that you will always have numerical superiority is not
really a safe way to bet.  Especially if the other guy jumps YOU.
Because then he will ensure that HE has numerical superiority before
ever he starts.

TCS Guideline:  You can guarantee local superiority when YOU attack.  If
you can't, don't attack.  It is impossible to get superior numbers into
a defensive operation, unless your opponent doesn't know what he is
doing.

Which is to say, Jim, that your basic operational assumption was always
that you would be on the offensive.  Nothing wrong with the assumption,
assuming you start offending right away, and never let the other guy get
the initiative.  But sitting back till you are attacked will trash that
whole doctrine right away.


>>"Jim, when your 1G riders tried to run, they were followed by 6G
>>fighters and riders.  When your 1G carriers tried to rendezvous with
>>your riders, those 6G riders and fighters shot your carriers to
>>pieces, thus putting even more of New Colchis' ships in the bag.
>>Whenever your riders tried to get to a carrier to jump away, the
>>effect was to put the carrier out of action too."

>Poor tactics for the riders to lead overwhelming enemies to the
>roundevous point, when they couldn't shake them...

Of course it was.  But your "rendezvous point" assumed that your ships
would be able to get there without interference from the enemy.  NEVER
assume that the enemy won't interfere with your plans if he can.


>All in all, it would have been better if they all had Jump drives.

It certainly would have :-)


>BTW, can you put me on the TCS 'listeners' list?  and fill me in on
>what's gone on?

There really isn't a TCS "listeners list" as such.  Occasionally, when I
get ambitious, I post an update to the TML.  I will always answer
questions privately (when I have time).  If there is any interest in a
"listener's list", let me know, and I'll start posting generally
available information to it every turn or two.


And since the last time I posted to the TML, nothing much has happened.
Serendip Belt has had a revolution (the new ruler is a complete loon).
The "Serendipity" (the Belt's big battleship) has just invaded Zuflucht,
thus bringing all the worlds of the Islands (except Topas) under the
control of one or another of the major powers.  The Topas
government-in-exile seems to be returning to Topas.  And diverse great
powers are sitting around talking, getting paranoid, and trying to
prepare for the "next war".

And all you people who asked for the unedited copy of Jane's should be
getting it this weekend.  Possibly even with commentary added...

---Steve