Prev: Re: "Custom" fleets Next: RE: "Custom" fleets

Re: "Custom" fleets

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:41:06 +0200
Subject: Re: "Custom" fleets

stiltman@teleport.com wrote, in reply to Laserlight:

>>>On the other hand, I've seen both Oerjan and Noam suggest with a
>>>straight face that someone make a strategy out of using a
>>>long-range beam and abuse the floating edge to ping away at
>>>people.
> 
>>On the other hand, I've seen you suggest with a straight face
>>that "space has an edge".
> 
>Hey, dude, watch your tone here.

Laserlight only used the tone that you had already established, by
recycling the very phrase you had just used about us. If you don't like
this tone directed at you, why use it on others?

FWIW, the only reason your dreadstar is vulnerable to a long-range beam
sniper is that it has so weak engines. If you put some engines on it,
or escort it with a bunch of faster ships (like those thrust-8 needle
cruisers of yours), Noam's snipers are a marginal threat at best - even
on an infinitely large table.

>You don't have to like it.  It's prohibitively unlikely that you'll
ever have
>to play under it.  But it's the way we play, and _we_ like it.  The
>game does not exactly discourage modifying the rules in-house if we
>don't like something; I refer you to page 40 in FT:  "Please treat the
>background just like any of the Advanced rules; if you like it, by all
>means use it - if you don't, then write your own, and ignore any
>****** who tries to say you're doing it 'wrong'..!"

Fine with me. You consider our style of playing FT abusive; we find
your gaming style (or at least the parts of it you described early in
the discussion) similarly abusive. We'll simply have to agree to
disagree.

Let me point out two final things, though: 

First, your critiques of FB2, in some places phrased in a tone which
suggested "what idiots wrote this - it's completely out of joint" (not
quite that sharp, but approaching it at times), were based on your own
house rules which no-one else here knew anything about (since you
hadn't told us about them by then). Since some of those house rules
have a quite significant effect on the game balance, many of your
comments simply didn't make sense to those who didn't know exactly
which rules you were actually using. During the about three years of FT
playtesting I've done, one of the most important things I've learned is
to always make sure your readers/listeners know which rules you use as
a basis for evaluation of new systems or rules, in order to avoid this
type of misunderstandings.

Second, during the debate you have successively changed your
descriptions of the tactics and design styles you and your gaming group
use. One example: One of your first claims in this discussion was that
you were "infamous" for using massed fighters, and that your opponents
usually didn't bring enough point defences to survive them for fear of
your other design styles. Interestingly enough however, later on you
claim just the opposite by stating that fleets regularly carry some
100+ PDS.

>Consider yourself ignored.

I'll try to return the favour in the future :-)

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

Prev: Re: "Custom" fleets Next: RE: "Custom" fleets