Re: Fw: Weapons for Newtonian based FTIII

In message <3370C956.5EC3@misnet.com> Gary Ballard writes:
[...]
> This is a game, not a
> math excercise, or an excercise in who's got the biggest .....
whatever
> you measure your machismo with. This discussion began with a simple
> suggestion about a new defense, i.e. the sandcaster(least I think it
> did, there have been so many messages, I'm no longer sure). Whether or
> not something is REALISTIC is irrelevant, because this is a game of
> hypothetical technology which requires you to suspend disbelief.

I'd just like to step in here to defend Mikko, because I think
you've really missed his point in this thread, by a long, long
way. A seriously long way.

The maths exercises are necessary, now, during the *design* stage 
of a game, to prevent the maths exercises *later*, during force
design, which is when they can be detrimental to fun, and break 
the game.

The physics exercises are necessary too, because glaring 
inconsistencies are detrimental to the suspension of disbeleif.

This thread has not been about realism, but about drawing out the
ramifications of new rules and equipment to see if they are worth
slotting into the game. The ramifications of sandcasters, as Mikko
has adroitly pointed out, is that as suggested they turn any sort
of base-defence scenario into a tedious and foregone conclusion. 
This is ungood.

Rules cascades, where each rule fixes the last one, are doubleplus
ungood.

I'm sure we can all agree that a simple, internally consistant, 
evocative game with a fair points system and which does not slide 
into lame cheesy tactics is a good thing (or, taken clause-by-
clause, is not in any way an ungood thing worth complaining 
about).

I, personally, think that the whole meteor thread is a bit of a
storm in a teacup. I haven't the rulebook to hand this minute but
we already have rules for ramming, and for colliding with 
asteroids. We even have rail-guns for shooting bases with ultra-
high-velocity projectiles, and sometimes they miss. 

> Let's move on to a more interesting topic. PLEASE.

If you want a more interesting thread... start one.

-- 
David Brewer