RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

["David Rodemaker" <dar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>David Rodemaker wrote:
>Sort of the reason why I don't mind fighters being so damn effective - we
>play campaigns and as valuable as the fighters are - the pilots are much
>more so...
>>In other words, you don't find fighters terribly effective because you 
don't use the standard points system - instead you've added extra costs 
(ie., the costs of training fighter pilots and transporting replacement 
fighters+pilots to the front lines) to keep the fighter usage in check.<<

Exactly! Or rather, I find that within the constraints of the system that
they are basically balanced. They are still very, very effective and pack a
huge punch for little combat "cost". E.g. I'd still rather lose a fighter
and pilot than a cruiser or frigate. 

As a combatant I have to balance the benefit of using and losing them vs.
the cost of replacing them. In a game where people can build whatever they
like and have no fear of loss I think that they are inordinately powerful
because the "inherent" limitations on their use (like we have in the "real
world"). As a defender the goal is to make their use as costly or difficult
as possible.

As a player, I just sort of demand (in a non-campaign game) that people
"play fair" - no soap-bubble carriers unless I know beforehand and am
exploring tactics for example. In general the people I play with all agree
and want to play a game that makes some sort of tactical sense beyond a
min-maxed "who can build the deadliest, most whacked, fleet"

We all know that we can build nasty ships (or tanks), that's not where the
fun of a military game is for us.

>>As a contrast, I've heard of quite a few campaigns that broke down because

they *didn't* consider logistics at all - which made massed fighters 
extremely lethal to mobile forces, and massed missile boats extremely 
lethal to stationary targets :-/<<

Yup, and that's why people bases tend to be guarded by monitors and SDB's
and a whole ton of fighters.

We all learned that sort of thing years ago in F&E or TCS, or just because
we're all military buffs (or vets) and can't even think about a "head"
without the "tail." In fact, we've had to strike a balance in the level of
detail. After we've played campaigns for awhile everyone starts to want to
know how to start disrupting commerce, strike at shipyards, bomb the heck
out of military academies, and someone always ends up wanting to start
terror tactics after awhile as well.

Fleet actions are checkers, campaigns are the real chess game... ;-)

David Rodemaker


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l