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

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

From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@y...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

Solving the overwhelming fighters or overwhelming missiles win problem
should be 
first off.  After that small issues that can be exploited will not have
the same 

Main ordinance firing at fighters and missiles seems to be the best
route to 
solving this problem.

As far as ships blowing up causing problems for other ships, that is
fantasy at the scale that FT is played and should not be a factor.  Yes
it is a 
game, but we have to give credence to the distances involved and the
tiny size 
of the ships on the gigantic game table scale.

Bob Makowsky

----- Original Message ----
From: Ground Zero Games <>
Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 6:23:22 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

>On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05:10AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>There are a number of possible solutions to this that immediately
>>spring to mind - the most obvious ones being a mission-based scenario
>>system of some kind (so that you have to bring a reasonably balanced
>>fleet to the table, or risk getting a mission that cannot be achieved
>>with the over-specialised force you have chosen), or a victory points
>>mechanic structured so that a player cannot claim a "win" through a
>>Pyrrhic victory.
>It's a bit dependent on the culture, but as a rule of thumb from the
>modern era I would expect substantially more weight to be put on
>preserving one's own force than on destroying the enemy's (even if
>overall numbers and technological capabilities are about equal). Of
>course, we only want to game the times when there's actually a fight.
>I was thinking earlier about a force generation system that took into
>account logistics states: the usual approach to FT has two shiny new
>fleets going at each other, but particularly in a long war it seems
>likely that ships would be damaged, low on ammunition, and so on even
>before the fight begins. The point value system can accommodate this,
>course: the damaged systems simply count as non-combat tonnage for CPV
>purposes, since in game terms they aren't there.
>Looking forward from there, I'm wondering about a random force
>generation system: give it a navy list and some standard formations,
>it spits out a group of ships and their supply/damage states. I realise
>this takes away the pleasure of the fleet-building phase, but as an
>optional rule it could add a substantial feeling of realism. ("These
>were the guys who happened to be on station on the day when it all blew
>Combine that with a victory point system that rewards force
>at least equally with campaign objectives, and you could get some very
>interesting small-fleet engagements...

Some very interesting ideas, Roger.....

There is a fundamental decision to be made here before going too far 
down such routes, though - and that is, do we go all-out to make the 
game as "munchkin-proof" as possible, or do we accept that there will 
always be a certain percentage of players for whom the fleet design 
stage IS the game, and their enjoyment comes from bringing their 
perfectly min-maxed fleet to the table and beating the cr*p out of 
their opponent?

We may not agree with their gaming style and mindset (I sure as hell 
don't), but does that mean we should just ignore them as a valid part 
of the fanbase and try to legislate them out of the game?

I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just playing Devil's 
Advocate and getting the discussion rolling to see what comes out.... 

Jon (GZG)

>Gzg-l mailing list

Gzg-l mailing list

Gzg-l mailing list

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