Re: GenCon Review with a GZG Emphasis (part 3 of 4)

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Sure. Use vector movement and do a Galilean transformation of the
speeds
> instead - assuming that both fleets have matched vectors  reasonably.
> I've reached speeds of 200+ in this way <shrug>

When I speak of FT without mentioning otherwise, I speak of vanilla FT
as
written, which means cinematic movement among other things (and no fuel
limits). Vector movement does change things a bit, and the discussion
should then be about relative speeds. 
  
> If your maximum ship-based sensor range is a puny 54 mu, it will be
> rather difficult (not to say bloody impossible)  to pull this one off,
> unless you manage to keep a scout ship close to (within sensor range
of)
> the enemies to guide the strike in... without having it destroyed. 

Actually, it'll probably happen just the other way -- heavy sluggers
remain in close-ish contact while small, fast strike ships loop for
high-speed attack passes (which is one of the few ways to survive a FT
battle in small ships).

It's also relatively easy to predict the location of relatively slow
opponents -- and as I said, just *trying* to pull it off destroys much
of
the fun value in the game. 

> No, it doesn't make a very fun game - but I don't find it "cheesy". 

I guess this is the heart of the argument: Is it more important to have
a
fun game or a realistic simulation/high-strung competition?

> Ask
> your enemy to explain how he could determine the position of your
fleet
> with enough accuracy to do a high-speed run <g>

Actually, if you include strategic movement, absurdly high velocities
are
more likely to become a *deterrant* to attack, especially with vector
movement. It easily becomes impossible to match vector in open space,
meaning that the only actual battles are high-speed attack passes
against
space stations and such. It could soon become like playing Global
Thermonuclear War: "You shoot your ballistic missiles against which I
can
do preciously little, roll damage. Then my missiles hit your cities, I
roll damage. We both die, end of game."

> But Mikko, why do you think John does mark the destination points of
the
> enemy heavies? This is basically what any ship's tactical computers do
> anyway... so why shouldn't the admiral have the same advantage?

My desktop computer could easily pre-calculate all the possible
positions
of all the ships half a dozen "turns" in advance. Presumably the
tactical
computers of 22nd century are somewhat more advanced -- if that's your
reason for allowing pre-plotting, it is not a reason to stop at just a
few
ships or just one turn ahead.

I don't think that John (over)does that -- I am concerned what he tells
to
the player he might meet some day who wants to do that. How does he
explain that one is allowed to pre-calculate N ships M turns in advance
but not N+1 ships or M+1 turns in advance? Does he even have set limits
for M and N? 

(A chess clock is one answer, but penalizes players who are simply
clumsy/slow/careful moving their ships)

-- 
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 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |