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

<grin> We have to allow the damage to one ship effecting another. Did
you 
not see the documentary "Starship Troopers"? </grin>

Michael Brown
mwsaber6@msn.com

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Makowsky" <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:46 AM
To: <gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
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
> effect.
>
> 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
pure
> 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 <jon@gzg.com>
> To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> 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,
of
>>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,
and
>>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
>>up.")
>>
>>Combine that with a victory point system that rewards force
preservation
>>at least equally with campaign objectives, and you could get some very
>>interesting small-fleet engagements...
>>
>>R
>
>
> 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@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
>>http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l