RE: the great SM debate

-----Original Message-----
From: Aron_Clark@digidesign.com [mailto:Aron_Clark@digidesign.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:08 PM
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: the great SM debate

>Many of the FT games I've played, or seen played, have very limited
objectives.

>One reason could be that by our lack of true human experience in armed
"stellar combat"

Here's some thoughts from someone that has never played FT & or any
other
stellar/air/naval games.  Most of the land-based scenarios have
something to
do with terrain: defend the pass, take a hill, seige a town.  In sea or
air/space based games there is little to no terrain to base a scenario
around (again, I've never played any of these games, so I may be
completely
blowing chaff).  It would seem that the only objective of straight
air-to-air combat is to destroy the other side.  There's nothing up
there to
take, hold or defend.  So, one way to get less head-to-head FT scenarios
might be to find a way to incorporate more terrain like features
(planets,
asteroid belts, jump gates, ???).  Unfortunately, the 3-dimentionality
of
this type of combat makes it extremely difficult to restrict lines of
access
& concentrate forces.

Another group of scenario is the "moving something from point A to point
B"
type, whether that be a supply convoy or a covering force for a retreat.
 A
suggestion might be to have a fleet perform a holding action for a
specified
number of turns while the planet-side infantry transports get away, or
to
cover a convoy while it slowly makes it way across the board.  Or how
about
an overwatch force for aero-space bombers making a run at a planet-side
target.

Also, since the closet thing we have to stellar combat might be air
combat,
try basing some scenarios on air-to-air battles.

Just a few thoughts from a FT virgin,
Nils