re: Card Draws

comments inserted.

> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:49:45 -0500
> From: kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca
> Subject: Card Draws
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:18:36 -0500
> From: "David Reeves" <davidar@nortelnetworks.com>
> Subject: re: Card Draws and Fleet Admirals
> 
> thomas,
> 
> the only idea we have at the moment is to separate the cards (both
> sides
> combined) into piles according to crew quality.
> 
> ** I suspect I dislike this option. Though it is interesting. It might
> be worth toying with.

actually, i rather like brian's reply better as well -- one deck
with multiple cards for better crew quality.

 
> this seems to meet the design goal of better quality ships react
> faster, but
> the admiral also may influence the course of events when he feels the
> situation
> is critical.	since this idea is fairly new to us, we have not
> playtested it
> too much (2 times).
> 
> ** How much of reaction in FT is crew? I think a lot is computer.
> Humans decide strategy, set up contingency responses, computers
> implement them. That's just my opinion. I don't forsee gunners firing
> class-3s over open sights at ships thousands of kms away. Hence I'm
> not sure this isn't an overkill effect.

i am really not referring to that type of manual labor/intervention,
but more of interacting with the ship electronic systems to react
to the changing battlefield environment.

actually, we are in overall agreement even tho my explanation is not
explicit enough.  my thinking is kinda like the HH universe in the
sense that computers are preprogrammed with the contingency responses
that you suggest.  however, human intervention is required when 
the computer encounters unknown or partially known situations or
attack/defense patterns.  couple this with a high level of computer/
human interface usability and the crew quality does count for more
IMO.  again, this is all a function of how one views their FT universe
background, tech capability, etc.  so this works for my universe.  YMMV
for others.

> i would like to hear your ideas on solving the crew quality part of
> this
> equation.  maybe you already have a better solution.
> 
> ** I have my own theories on crew quality which will be webified and
> list published soon.
> Where I think crew's factor in is:
> 1) Gunnery - they have better engagement and anti-evasion progs
> developed. I assume these need constant retailoring and that the crew
> quality has something to do here. Defensively, the opposite factor may
> play in - good crew have better evasion routines.
> 2) Damage Control - fixing and rerouting is a manual task and knowing
> what shortcuts work is experience.
> 3) Being able to overthrust without damage - pushing the limits of the
> ship.
> 4) Communications.
> 5) EW and Sensors.
> 6) Morale... very important.
> 
> That's my guess for now. I will put out my actual suggestions sometime
> in the next week or two.

we have these as well, but i think i forgot about the damage control
roll.  i'll need to add that one to our list as well.

 
> ======================
> Brian's (I think) post
> ======================
> 
> Limited Use:
> I would suggest providing a limited number of Admiral's Priviledge to
> the
> game. Perhaps give each Admiral a set number of tokens for Admiral's
> Priviledge (sorting through the deck to find a particular ship and
> fire it).
> Once the number of tokens is used up, the ships must be fired in the
> order
> drawn. You can also provide for the quality of the Admirals by giving
> a
> better Admiral more Admiral's Priviledge tokens.
> 
> ** My idea was opposing admirals had a rating (1-5) and that was how
> many times a turn. Opposing admirals could either both draw (at the
> players discretion) or cancel and let the greater admiral take his
> normal number of exchanges modified down by the opposing admirals
> rating. This is the simplest.

i see one major disadvantage for my FT universe with this one, tho.
since our fleet admirals may influence several differing types of
things, this opposed modifier
idea would mutually negate any advantages for an admiral someone
probably paid extra points for (e.g. sit idle).  additionally, this
negation effect is a general one.  i would rather increase the command
decisions of the admiral by letting them keep their full number of
"interventions".  if opposing admirals wanted to negate each others
effects, then they could explicitly do so, but they could also use them
differently.  this allows players to choose where their admiral spends 
their focus, rather than a negating effect leaving them relatively idle.
so we are trading a little more complexity/time for choice and 
command decision.

i think both viewpoints are good here, since i believe the preferences
of the gaming group determines what they consider fun.	for us, the
command decision part of the game is the most savored/talked about.

[snip]

this is a productive discussion.  any more thoughts out there?

dave