Prev: RE: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions) Next: Re: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)

Re: Fire Control lock-on

From: Rrok Anroll <coldnovemberrain_2000@y...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fire Control lock-on

Somehow I just can't seem to see this as a problem....

First off I would think that most of the time you'd be playing with the
same folks... unless of course you travel the country doing shows and
tournaments... which means that for the most part, you should have a
rules set that you use on a regular basis... house rules I believe is
the term? ;-) That being said... unless you're group is constantly
changing the rules they use, or are constantly play-testing... this
really shouldn't be a problem....

Additionally, it would seem that if you're building to the rules
system, instead of using the rules to build, then that would seem to me
that you're more concerned with what you can pack into the numbers than
you are with any actual design element... sure, I like to get the most
bang for my buck, but that hasn't stopped me from designing the shotgun
battle fleet (entire group of ships where the only weapons are
submunition packs).

I would also think that it really shouldn't be that big of a deal from
the view point that it would seems to encourage the design of slightly
modular ships... I often design ships that have cargo holds in them...
when I get a better idea of the rules set that I'm going to be using..
or looking at using.. (or if the design program doesn't have the
symbols for the weapons, like the newer beta-test weapons...) I just go
and plug in the weapons systems that I can fit in the space set aside
for the cargo holds... and any left over space becomes armor, or PDS
mounts...

--- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> 
> The problem I see with this approach is that, as with the split
> between
> cinematic and vector movement, there's a need to change designs to
> take
> advantage of the ruleset in use. The more optional rules you have
> (making an exception for weapons that can be defended against by
> "normal" defences, like Grasers), the more you fragment the idea of
> what
> "Full Thrust" actually means; the less useful a shiplist such as the
> one
> at cygnusx1.info, or a Fleet Book, becomes; and so on.
> 
> R
> 

Remember, even light is shaped by the darkness that surrounds it, and
the true crafters are seldom ever seen. Welcome to the shadows kid.

		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

Prev: RE: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions) Next: Re: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)