[GZG] Cruisers ... in the FT world [and] John's Shipbuilding/Campaign Rules-VC

BB wrote on 01/17/2006 09:30:40 AM:

> The reason this doesn't necessarily transfer well to FT is simple:
> Space isn't full of water.  From what I remember, the ability of
> larger ships to fo faster than smaller ships, at least in the Age of
> Sail, had to do with drag and the dynamics of the hull interacting
> with the water.

On the other, other hand...

There is cinematic/literary space travel that works just like this; may
have to allow as part of 'cinematic', at least optionally.

On one side,  you can have tactical versus operational or interstellar
warp, the former being a sort of stutter warp? Also, if I recall
correctly,
David Gerrold's voyages of the Star Wolf(?) had a back ground where the
larger the hull, the larger the warp bubble, though it was used for
sensing, still in the If-I-recall-correctly mode.

However, it could as easily be for warp TRAVEL as well.

On the whole issue of insane commanders...

Allan Goodall wrote on 01/17/2006 08:53:52 AM:

> That can still end up with "gamey" results. The player figures out
> he's lost the scenario on points. He knows there is a
> small, but real
> chance that keeping his SDN on the table could destroy the
> other guy's
> ships (for instance, he rolls a bunch of 6s on his last
> beam attack).
> So, the player keeps the ship on the table. He would lose if he
> removed it, just not as badly. Since it's a one-shot game,he's still
> going to do a "death ride" because of the small possible chance of
> winning from good dice rolling.

I have to admit I'm a bit twitchy on this; someone earlier mentioned
surrender, and I realized that in the iron/steel error, surrender was
DAMN
seldom, accept by sailors in the water. Even evasion after major damage
could be iffy; plenty of examples of ships closing and firing just
before
exploding or as they were going under.

The above example could prove even more disasterous, where they roll
one's
instead, and they lose the ship instead of half the points, but even
real
commanders have 'rolled those dice' hoping to snatch victory.

I think there was a German ship at Heigoland or Dogger Bank that had
only
one functional gun, and Brits closed, assuming it was surrendering, when
it
fired just to let everyone know it wasn't giving up.

Craddock claimed he had little chance against Spee's squadron, but
challenged, and lost, anyway.

Heck, don't you love it when, in Hunt For Red October, Ramius tell's
Ryan
something like "your conclusions were all wrong; Halsey acted stupidly"?

Tom McCarthy wrote on 01/18/2006 07:40:20 AM:

> Games Workshop's narrative campaign packs typically are well liked,
> though they are seen by some to have an uncritical audience.
>
> On the other hand, I think VBAM suffers a bit for trying
> to make each
> book a separate campaign universe.  Having digested a
> couple of their
> settings, I find myself losing interest in digesting too many more.

In the end, I would see a set campaign structure being good for fleet
books, i.e., Tuffleyverse-tied. However, for the actual rule-set, I
would
see simple, short examples, such as the operational 'campaign' from the
FTII main book to be more appropriate for the generic tenor we
appreciate.

Not to mention suggestions of adapting many board games as campaign
settings. Vague tying of NPV/CPV to various rules without mentioning
specific rules by name. I'd be delighted to see short adaptations of
J.U.M.P., Federation and Empire, Imperium(s), etc.

The_Beast

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l