Re: Just wondering.....

 M. K. At 12:11 04/07/97 +0300, you wrote:

>
>This leads me to the general subject of "arms race" in game design.
>We all know it's there, some publishers have honed it to nigh
perfection
>but very few avoid it completely (apart from those that never manage to

>publish supplements).
>
>Think about it. Have you *ever* seen a supplement that had a
>race/ship/equipment clearly and intentionally inferior to the ones
>previously published *and* meant to be used with those (e.g. Car Wars
>Chassis&Crossbow doesn't count -- it's not intended to mix with the
>"modern" tech)? The wave gun in MT doesn't count either -- it's a less 
>powerful version of the Nova gun, not an inferior copy since it also 
>costs/masses less etc. If KV had been in FT and humans in MT, that
would 
>count.
>
Ah, but its not the KV that are so powerful its the low cost in points!
I luv them but always have them played with massive 'disadvantages' ie.
a
1/3 the points of human ships (They might be better at war but their
economy
is poor and they can't build as many ships, or any other plausable
reason) 

The SV are different, not better, not worse but probably longer lasting
and
this is to Jons credit, (until points are out!!) As gamers we will
always
try to play with the best; the only way to overcome the arms race is
senarios with vp's (any player will always lose with x fleet but only a
good
one can achieve the vp's to make that loss a win!) Any player/publisher
will
tell you writing rules is easier than clever balanced senarios !!

I await the the tecnically different (possibly slighty weaker) robotic
race
that has a np order card (ie a die rolled program !) Any chance Jon?

Jon(t.c.)
>Publishers obviously publish things they think will sell, so are we as 
>the gamers really to blame? Are we really subconsciously looking for a 
>bigger gun when we shop for supplements?

Sprayforming Developments Ltd.	      [production tools]
					   made in
				      [prototype  times]
  'The future is now'