Re: Re: [FT] Simultaneous Fire

> At 02:10  15/05/01 -0700, David Griffin wrote:
> 
>  >I prefer to lose because my tactics are bad rather
>  >than merely because my opponent won initiative.
>  >Yes, the die rolls for fire make luck a persistent
>  >factor in FT, but that one roll (initiative) has
>  >a MUCH larger effect (or can) than those individual
>  >die rolls for weapons fire which tend to even out.

Derek Fulton wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately luck and also the ability to take advantage of a
situation 
> once presented with it makes up a large part of winning battles (ie: 
> games). That's probably why we read and hear phrases like 'no plan
survives 
> contact with the enemy', 'the winner is the one who makes the least 
> mistakes and capitalizes on those of his enemy'. After all people also

> refer to war as a 'Art' :)

War games, as opposed to some other type of games, are simulations of
"reality".  Of course in the case of Full Thrust this reality is one
that is a guess on things might be in space.  Many things can occur
in real life battles, e.g. a gust of wind blows arrows off target, or
a glitch in a bombadiers targetting equipment occurs.  It is the random
elements in games that simulate these things.  For initiative one can
imagine that smoke from some console on the flag ship delays the admiral
from seeing an important change in enemy position.  The 'Art' in game
design is to include these random elements without making the outcome 
of the game based only on rolls of a die.

I played Silent Death a couple of time and did not like the extent to
which the outcome depended on the initiative rolls.  Full Thrust is
much better.

For games without random elements there is always Go, Chess, Checkers,
etc.
Personally I think that Go is the best game ever.  But I enjoy Full
Thrust
also, and think it is the best spaceship combat game available.

Enjoy,