Subscatterscenarioharpoongunpointsdefencevalues and stuff
From: db-ft@w... (David Brewer)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:41:53 -0400
Subject: Subscatterscenarioharpoongunpointsdefencevalues and stuff
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970422194837.15592Aemail@example.com> Mikko
> On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> > Well, this all goes to illustrate the difficulties in ascribing
> > points values. No wonder JMT doesn't bother any more.
> It's a pity. Lack of a points system renders otherwise good games
> practically unplayable, IMHO.
Ah, now look what you done. You stirred up all that "points
are good"/"points are bad" stuff...
> Yeah, scenarios, umpires and all that... but in practice most of our
> gaming sessions are rather impromptu "let's play X". Without points
> system the only real choice is two identical forces -- and that gets
> real quick.
I can sympathise with that. No one wants to be an umpire. You
always end up umpiring whatever you want to play. Some people
simply won't play games that aren't straight out of a printed
rulebook. Perhaps if we all stare at JMT for long enough he'll
produce (or sanction) an official "quick scenario" generator.
Given some form of PSB FTL-drive that pulls you out of normal
space there's no sense in a meeting engagement. For two fleets
to meet their has to be something interesting nearby.
> > Presumably one could write a scheme for re-evaluating points values
> > for human ships fighting the Kra'Vak. Screens... -15 points? Waste
> > of mass?
> It's easier to factor their screen-defeating abilities in the costs
> of the KV equipment.
Fair point. It should already be factored into subbies and
PTT's. However it seems normal for a weapon *not* to affect
screens, once you consider all the official suggestions in FT.
I tried to write a mass-free points system a while back, and
if it was un ugly system, the shields were the ugliest part.
And then every bright spark with half-an-idea invents his new
weapon and it isn't ever affected by screens.
> After that is done, *they* become the losers because
> they lack tactical variety and end up wasting points for an ability
> will be useless since a clever opponent won't bother mounting screens.
That doesn't work for me. Humans should run the same ships
against Kra'vak that they run against each other IMHO. The
points value system should just ascribe a newer, lower value
to keep the game square.
> > Well, the points difference between with-AF and without-AF will not
> > nearly be as large as the numbers that we've been talking regarding
> > scatterguns;
> No, ofcourse not. It's the principle again.
In principle, then, yes. What is a C-battery worth anyway?
> > No, but I, personally, imply them. I suppose that they remain beam
> > batteries and bear only through the arcs designated.
> ...which in turn means all fighters with the choice will engage the
> arc, which makes the AF ability for C's pretty worthless.
It makes more sense in terms of MT's fighter sequence. And
they engage missiles.
> > Well, if we're on the topic, I though it was a dreadful game that
> > split hairs in some places while making collosal generalisations in
> > others. I haven't evaluated the new edition, though. Does it still
> > inherit rules from Fred Jane regarding proportional loss in ship
> > capability to hit points of damage inflicted?
> As I said, I'm not really into the genre. But despite its flaws, it's
> best widely available gam... manual simulation on the subject.
I'd rather play Captain's Edition. Different scale, perhaps.
I find it baffling that one man could write one game without
having a clue about abstraction, and then demonstrate himself
to be a master of it. Odd. Unimportant.
> > defences and make sure the game included some definate objective,
> > rather than just beating on an enemy fleet for the sake of it.
> > Launch missiles... run... lose planet... (lose supply of
> > missiles...) lose game.
> What if you're the *attacker*?
Same thing. Launch... run... fail to take objective.