Prev: Re: Capital vs. others Debate Next: RE: What is FT? (was:Big vs Small ships...)

Re: What is FT? (was:Big vs Small ships...)

From: jon@g... (Ground Zero Games)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:37:45 -0500
Subject: Re: What is FT? (was:Big vs Small ships...)

>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>> I vill only say zis vunce......
>> FT is not modern naval warfare.
>> FT is not WWII naval warfare.
>> FT is not even pre-Dreadnought Ironclad warfare (though bits of it
>> probably closer to this that anything else...)
>> FT is SCIENCE FICTION space warfare.
>Well, yes it is. But as FT lacks anything resembling a campaign
>system (I'm not saying this is a serious shortcoming), some people,
>Pournelle most notably, started using historical data to back their
>arguments in the recent debate. 
>When faced with such arguments, there are two approaches to replies:
>1) To discredit the entire line of thinking. Yours.
>2) To question a particular argument and present more historical data
>the subject. Mine.
>As long as FT lacks the economic system, it *might* be based on some 
>semi-relevant historical example. Thus I consider this discussion
> (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)	  

Mikko -
Sorry if you took my comment a bit personally (I DID put the "very big
grin" bit at the end for a good reason...); I wasn't commenting solely
the thread going between you and Phil, but on a not-uncommon tendency
just on email, but in snailmail I get too) to go down the course that
something in FT is "wrong" becuase it doesn't fit some kind of
counterpart - typically, the "historical DDs could/couldn't take out a
Battleship" argument.

The point I was trying to make (maybe a bit flippantly, but hey, I've
that sort of sense of humour...) was that although we call one FT ship a
"destroyer" and another a "Battleship", these are nothing but convenient
labels; some players seem to read into this that the relationship
the two types should therefore be the same as that in
WWII/Moderns/whatever, just because we've used the same names. I even
one person write me a long (and almost angry!) letter demanding to know
the relative sizes of ships in FT weren't the same as those in modern
navies! (He was a Harpoon player).

Sure, bits of FT are taken from almost every historical model you could
list, and from probably every space opera SF source I've ever read or
as well, but they are then all liberally mixed around. 
I just consider the "if this works in Moderns, why doesn't it work in
argument is a bit spurious. But please don't take ANY of this too
seriously!! :)

Jon (GZG)

Prev: Re: Capital vs. others Debate Next: RE: What is FT? (was:Big vs Small ships...)