Re: A complete turn-around of attitude...(david has nailed the issue)

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Bob Blanchett wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:59:01 GMT, you wrote:
> 
> >> nearly so... the main difference was that it had very complex ship
> >> construction rules. all in all, I think this was a good thing...
> >
> >I disagree completely. A space-ship in FT is a game-token like a
> >piece is in chess. Simple tokens can make for very complex games,
> >and for very enjoyable ones.
> >
> David has hit the issue on the head. The addition of this sort of
> detail in combat resolution or movement won't make the underlying game
> better, it'll *just add more detail*

But neither combat resolution nor movement would be affected by more 
complex design rules! Ship design would, yes, and it'll be a bugger to 
make such a design system balanced (...especially since it will take
some 
time to realize where the balance problems are...), but the play of the
game 
itself won't be affected at all.

I agree with Brian, and disagree with David; FT space ships aren't mere 
chess pieces. I would like to make them even less so, by supplying 
optional design rules - for instance, relating the thrust to some sort
of 
engine mass, or adding launch tubes to hangar bays, or...

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson

"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
 I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari