Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

-----Original Message----- 
From: Eric Foley 
>But part of the idea is to make a lot of different elements of
min-maxing
> riskier.  Well armored carriers are kind of a bad idea under the
current
> design rules, because lighter ones (whether or not they're also
faster)
> can throw quite a few more fighters for the same ship costs, and it's
a
> scale that gets kind of ugly well before you actually go outright
soapie.
>  Missile ships are usually a little better served taking _some_ hull,
but
> they're still better off shaving off the defense for the offense in
order
> to overwhelm an enemy's point defenses.  The threat of a magazine
explosion
> might discourage both activities, and the threat of a single ship's
> destruction hurting its fellows balances it a little the other way as
well
> by discouraging the piling of your entire fleet in a single area
defense
> sphere, to say nothing of the increased danger of what happens if a
banzai
> jammer suffers a power core explosion when it's hit.	There's a whole
range
> of different tactical behaviors that make the game less interesting
and
> cut off whole avenues of play that this kind of thing would open up,
IMO.

Rephrasing last sentence ... there's a whole range of uninteresting
tactical behaviors that cut off avenues of play that this kind of thing
would _eliminate_ and thus open up a lot of other free-ranging things to
do, IMO.
 
E
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l