RE: (OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

Tim spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> >I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who
> >can't do this much probability math, doesn't have someone to do it
for him
> >AND doesn't bother with equivalent amount of playtesting, has no
business
> designing
> >fundamentally mathematical processes, i.e. games.
> 
> I would agree with this statement. Of examples the one that got to
> me was the dreaded DAT (Damage Allocation Table) in SFB. This
> has a probability slant that weapons had a higher probability
> of being initially hit, and provoked a special later sanctioned
> tactic called the Miazia (sp?) effect. This always really annoyed
> me but it was impossible to *fix* the sacred table.

Well, they also had battle damage cards which were a different set of 
probs but WAY faster for resolving damage (of course, after a certain 
point I don't think they worked anymore....but that was SFB...a rule 
a day....). The effect you are referring to was where you knocked 
down an enemies shields and then started firing one or two weapons 
per impulse at the target because you got more A column hits from 
that (which was bad for his weapons).  Better to do that than one big 
nasty salvo which got past the 'black bold underlined' chart entries 
which could only be hit once (and were weapons heavy). That was an 
interesting, if unintentional, mechanic of the game. And I think the 
SFB players did sufficient mathematical analysis to drive anyone 
insane...... 

FT may lack some of the cruiser-duel feel of SFB, but OTOH, I can run 
a full fleet engagement in one night.....

Tom. 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/