FW: Capital Ships in Campeign Games

Jon,

I don't think you need to add this kind of stuff into the rules. I DO
think (as you have certainly noticed
 by my recent posts) that the Cap ships need to be tweaked down just a
bit. I also think, after getting 
comments from folks, that a good campaign system might address the
problem "naturally." With a few
 variations to the campaign system, folks could play different war
scenarios. The possibilities are vast
and would be a lot of fun exploring. In campaign A are "big guns" better
or something else. In 
campaign B is it better to be more aggressive or more defensive? A good
campaign system could 
really stretch FT into another dimension (pardon the pun).

If such a system where translated to the computer some really fun
Mega-campaigns could open up
 where a few folks playing the campaign by email over the computer could
hook up with a few gaming
groups playing FT on the table. The table folks would play out the FT
battles and report the results
 back to the campaign folks.

Paul

----------
From:  Ground Zero Games [SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com]
Sent:  Thursday, March 27, 1997 4:59 AM
To:  FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:  RE: Capital Ships in Campeign Games

I couldn't agree more - some very well-expressed sentiments. The
question is, how do we persuade all the powergamers/munchkins/anoraks*
that this is the way to go? Does anyone feel we should actually
legislate on things like this in future rules (maybe on the lines of the
previously-suggested "maximum % of certain ship types in fleet"), or do
we continue as before and leave it up to the players to be "reasonable"
about this....:) ?
Awaiting deluge of replies with interest!!
Jon (GZG).
*To quote Flanders & Swann's wonderfully politically-incorrect little
ditty "A Song of Patriotic Predjudice": "... they argue with umpires,
they cheer when they've won - and they practice beforehand, which ruins
the fun..."