Re: Unfair Kamikazes?

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Dave Ross wrote:

> If
> I can build a really cheap ship that takes out your dreadnought that's
10x
> the cost, that's a REALLY good tactic!! You're gonna be broke before I
am -
> and that is more a part of war than who has the best equipment. Don't
kid
> yourself either  - there will always be lots of volunteers to save
your
> planet, manning these ships!

The problem with tactics like these is that they really fail the reality

check. They work so well only because FT abstracts away certain things, 
like crew quality. Everyone is assumed to have an unlimited number of 
"average" trained crews -- something which will NOT be the case after 
someone resorts to suicide tactics as a strategic decision.

If you look at the kamikaze, the Japanese really resorted to those 
tactics only after their pilot quality had deteoriated so much they 
didn't have much of a chance to score with a normal bomb run.

To summarize, yes, suicide tactics can work -- but in reality they will 
not work as well as trained crews performing the same tactics. It is
even 
quite probable that they don't work as well as trained crews using 
regular tactics.

So, I'd say you are unfairly exploiting an abstraction in the rules if
you
just build suicide ships to be used with vanilla rules. But if you're
willing to accept lesser crew quality, shoddily built ships etc., and
e.g. 
plot movement two turns in advance, kamikaze defense can be built into a
working, fun game. 

This, incidentally, is partly why I don't like the idea that small ships

are remote-piloted. Accepting remote control would unleash all sorts
of suicide tactics.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |