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

Re: [GZG] Balanced Fleet Design

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:36:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Balanced Fleet Design

>>From: Ground Zero Games <>
>>>On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:20:42PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>>>If folks bring ordnance-heavy ships and want them at fully supplied
>>>>at the start of the game, make them pay for suitable fleet munitions
>>>>tenders as part of their force; if they choose NOT to do this, then
>>>>all ordnance-carrying ships have only a random % of their standard
>>>>loadouts to represent ordnance already expended in earlier
>>>Fixed 50% rather than random? Otherwise the game could be won or lost
>>>that one die roll. :-)
>>I was thinking of a separate roll per ship, which should even out
>>(though you could be lucky or unlucky when you roll for that FSE SDN,
>>I agree....). But yes, a fixed % could work too.
>>I'm looking at ways of encouraging balanced fleet design without
>>actually enforcing it.
>>Jon (GZG)
>Heheh. I personally don't want balanced fleets (anymore) unless we 
>have more tactical maneuver choice or vested interest in ship 
>survival (e.g. victory conditions). I've gotten to the point where 
>reducing two 3000 point fleets to an empty missile frigate vs. a 
>crippled cruiser and calling it a victory is unsatisfying. Maybe it 
>took years to do it, but there I am.

Wholeheartedly agree, Noam, but I think you slightly misunderstood 
what I wrote there - when I said balanced fleets, I didn't mean 
balanced forces on both sides - what I was referring to was the 
question of players designing a versatile multi-mission force rather 
than one that is just optimised to beat a particular type of opponent 
and would be useless for any other function or mission.

Jon (GZG)

>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