Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

Jon (GZG) wrote on 07/31/2008 09:08:31 AM:

> Thomas Pope:
>
> >  > > 2) The pulse combat model.  FT models WWI
> >>  > dreadnought battles decently well. ...
> >>
> >>  I am not entirely sure that FT models WWI naval
> >>  battles very well.  The dreadnought era has too many
> >>  really big guns with huge arcs and FT lacks a
> >>  mechanism for modelling plunging fire.
> >
> >I suppose I should have said: "FT models WWI naval combat a lot
better
> >than it models modern naval combat."
> >
> >I've never tried to directly model WWI in FT, but I know I'd have
gotten
> >a lot farther than I did with moderns.
> >
> >Tom

No problem, Tom. I got the message, and compared with moderns, your
points
were a good ones. Consider us just honing the fine points. ;->=

Remember, I'm the one that tried to further complicated the
pre-dreadnought
variant.

> If you want a simple, quick and most of all fun game of Cold-War era
> naval combat (OK, not really "moderns" now, I know...) then you could
> do a lot worse than pick up an old copy of Seastrike.....  ;-)

I was about to mention this, though it can be a bit hard to find.

Of course, we've at least two things as FT players to thank from
Seastrike
(I know Ariel made one version). Jon generously acknowledged it for
inspiration for the icons on the SSD's, and a list member (old man's
brain
fart as to who) made a scenario generator influenced by Trav: TNE's
Brilliant Lances, which in turn acknowledged Seastrike.

I have cards made of the FT scenario generator should anyone complain
again
about the staleness of pure meeting engagements.

The_Beast

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l