Re: Reactions...

In a message dated 97-02-24 21:24:56 EST, you write:

> Well, we certainly did open up the proverbial worm can, didn't we? As
I
>  expected, the opinions of everyone out there vary widely, which is
exactly
>  why we can't please all the people all the time... 

Don't worry about "everybody" and make a game that pleases you.  It has
worked fine so far...

>  
>  Just to make a couple of points in answer to specific issues raised
in
some
>  of the replies:
>  Fighter move sequence: the comment was made that the MT sequence
allows
>  ships to avoid/outmaneuver fighters, and comparison was made with
nautical
>  carrier ops, where such an event is obviously ridiculous. However,
the
>  reasoning behind it was that these are SPACECRAFT, not aircraft -
without
>  going deeply into the maths,the basic idea was that the fighters,
carrying
>  little fuel/reaction mass/whatever (and wanting to save most of it
for
>  combat maneuvering anyway) would have to commit to an interception
vector
>  at the start of their move, depending on where their tactical systems
>  predict the target ship is most likely to end up; if the target in
turn
has
>  anticipated this and taken evasive action, the fighters may find
themselves
>  too far away to attack this turn; this (to me, anyway) is all part of
the
>  guess/bluff/doublebluff, which is a major fun element of the game. 
>  One possible idea that has just come to mind - and I throw this in
purely
>  as a random thought - how about letting a player sacrifice one turn's
worth
>  of the fighters' combat endurance in order to get a (short)
additional
move
>  to bring them in range of an evading ship, if they end up more than
the
>  required 6" away? This would represent the fighters carrying out an
>  emergency course-change burn (extravagant on fuel) when they see the
target
>  slipping away from them...
>  

Using the More Thrust sequence, fighters have to end up not just 6"
away, but
also facing in the correct direction.  We played this way for several
games
and fighters all but disappeared.  They simply were unable to do
anything.  A
suggestion might be to allow fighters a larger firing arc if using this
turn
sequence.  I will keep using a fighter-thrust model.  I just like the
way it
makes the fighters move like ships.... 

>  I'll probably be putting some more thoughts out for discussion in due
>  course, but for now it may be a good idea if we get back to the
"normal"
>  day-to-day correspondance on the list - if anyone else has any
comments on
>  the draft stuff it might be best to email me directly rather than
filling
>  the list, especially as one or two people seem to be having problems
with
>  the volume of mail each day.
>

This very sort of topic generally occupied about a third of list traffic
even
before you showed up, Jon, so don't feel that you are burdening anyone
:).
 Thanks for sharing ideas with all of us.

Later

Brian