Talk:AFOH/@comment-27015223-20151013144344/@comment-14850713-20151015031110

All of the "scientific" explanation is well and good, but carrying it a bit too far takes the fun out. "The fleet warps behind (or in the flank) of the enemy fleet and blasts away" is a common occurrence/scenario/tactic in RP. This implies a precise maneuver (and in a flat plane at that -- that's why we can indicate the position relative to the enemy). Then imagine if we have to debate the nitty-gtitty in order to have a scientifically accurate depiction of a battle using warp.

This is also reminiscent of the debate about Tribal's godzilla-like creature. No one said this is going to be a war-winning, warfare-revolutionizing idea. Even Leader said he expects at least 50% losses (now about that, Leader...), and so...

To Ficus, you don't need detailed plans. Most RP ships have similar lay-outs that may allow a boarder to pinpoint the general area where to board, and if he is willing to accept > 50% loss then that's his problem.

To Tato, I don't think we'll be boarding your ships anytime soon.

To CVN, the purpose of the AFV was to ferry specially-trained troops and have a fire-support platform in big areas like hangars, not corridors. Also, Derp's 60m x 60m requirement means that any craft smaller than Longsword cannot warp (I guess so many battles will have to be redacted then). I personally prefer a boarding craft, but this idea can make battles more than just a warping-behind-the-enemy-fleet-and-blasting-away kind of thing.