Re: SV: What makes a Capital ship Capital?

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Actually, I mostly agree with you. I think it's very nice
to see that the rules are being thoroughly analyzed instead
of the all too common "let's throw in a dozen new cool gadgets and see 
what the players think."

Just some points I'd like to make.

> It should be, yes. In FTII, at least for smaller battles (up to a few
> thousand points or so) this isn't necessarily true - it depends a bit
on
> board size (and thus the speeds involved).

Board size does NOT determine what speeds can be used. It does determine
what speeds can be used *conveniently* but if you are concerned about 
winning only (as in a tournament you should be), convenience is not a
factor.

Unless you were planning to insert some silly "what happens when you
fall 
off the edge of space" rule?

I would really like to see the design team play out some battles
with three-digit speeds, post a blow-by-blow account and say with a 
straight face: "Yes, the game works with unlimited speeds."

> For this it is pretty OK in a campaign game. Note, however, that if
you're
> using the FT/MT scanner rules it needs to close to 36 mu or less of
the
> enemy - at which range capitals, at least,  will be able to destroy it
> pretty easily - so you need more than one of them. 

Agreed, but scanning rules are optional anyway. I personally stopped 
using them because they simply slowed the game down too much.

In general, I don't think one should take such a dim view of 
"design-optimizers". Heck, the entire modern battleship concept was born

when someone decided to optimize the 19th century battlewagon designs.
And it died when later "optimization" of fleet design made it obsolete.

There is over-optimization born of game abstractions and rule flaws I do
not 
like. But logical optimizations should not looked down upon.

E.g. giving all ships odd thrusts, or giving all K'V ships Level 2 armor

are IMHO bad optimizations born of bad rules. The first exploits a 
abstracted rounding point, the second the rule flaw that armor does not 
have mass (and that bigger ships really have less surface area to
armor).

OTOH, mounting only A-batteries for beams is a valid optimization. It's
very boring, true, but valid because a viable alternative does not exist
-- which may very well be true even if it is boring. Would you call 
someone an optimizer in a modern skirmish game if he gave all his troops

assault rifles instead of bolt-action ones?

It is a fault of the rules not to offer viable alternatives, not a fault

of the player not to use the non-viable ones, IMHO.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |