Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

At 04:40 PM 2/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Ludo Toen writes:
>
>@:) Like you say, the fighter's trying to dodge the AA, an undefended
>@:) ship would be hard to miss unless it was something like a
>@:) torpedoboat or something like that.
>
>  Well, not to belabor a point or anything but actually ships like
>carriers and superheavy battleships were more what I was thinking of
>than torpedo boats.  There are some fantastic aerial photos of
>(several) bomb splashes to either side of a completely unscathed
>warship.  I'm pretty sure one of the photos I've seen was the Bismark
>(obviously you can't dodge forever) and the rest were pacific
>battleships and carriers.  You really can evade air attack, or you
>used to be able to anyway.  Ships aren't as big as you think when
>you're moving in at four hundred miles an hour with no aiming
>equipment but the nose of your aircraft.
>
>  Whether these conditions should be simulated in FT is another matter
>but I think that the basic FT theory fits quite well to a space-going
>WWII navy kind of concept.
>
>-joachim
>
	Since I was responsible for the initial WWII comparison, I think
I
ought to clarify my thinking behind the statement.  I ment that very
rarely
did the fighters, even the ones undersiege from AA guns, accidentally
misjudge the location of the ships to the extents possible if you adapt
the
proposed rules into the game.  Sure, fighters can get to the target ship
and
then just miss; that posiblity is already modeled into the rules as they
are
now (that's why you roll to hit, after all).  Yes, it would be possible
for
fighters in the game to miss their targets to the extent as the ones in
your
photos, but to be so off the mark as to miss the target ship by SEVERAL
TIMES the range of your weapons??  Come on, guys.
	I can buy Jon's rationalization of interception vectors and so
forth; I don't particularly like them, but I can understand where he's
coming from.  For my games, however, I prefer a little more "space
opera"
feel.  While I think that Jon's concept of fighter movement is closer to
"reality", I do feel that making the fighters similar to MV 12 ships
more
accurately simulates a "cinematic" style game.	
	I guess it just boils down to "You say tomato, I say tomato"
(come
to think of it, that doesn't really translate into text very well, but
you
know what I mean).  That's what house rules are for, and if (God forbid)
some fool goes off and has the wherewithall to create the PERFECT game,
what
the heck are the rest of us supposed to do?

Take care,

Tre