Re: Dean's comments on FT

Thomas Barclay wrote:
>>> owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU at internet 01/21/00 12:12AM 
>And you're right. And who do I shoot first is a tactical decision. But,
I
>may be alone on this, I don't think that it reflects RL - I don't think
it
>even reflects fiction. I don't think in B5 the ships fired "when they
felt
>like it". It had a lot to do with opportunity. Which is why the card
draws
>are (to my mind) preferable to the simultanous fire option (though it
is 
>the best option for PBeM). 

RL="real logic"?  In FT, the tactical portion of deciding the target and

target priority has been abstracted to the player.  Way too many factors
to 
consider if you wanted to simulate this in some reality.  Considerations

like people involved and how they might arrive at their decision,
technology,
 threat, opportunity, etc.

>Now, if you worry about that robbing FT of tactics, I can think of a 
>number of things to answer that:
>1) Fighters and missiles ( a whole other level of thinking req'd )
>2) Sensor rules - then it becomes important to not only determine where

>you are going, but where you can place yourself to see stuff you or not
>be 
seen
>3) EW rules - EW handled in a less abstract way introduces another
>level 
of complexity (played SFB with ECM/ECCM?)

Good points.

>I think #2 is the big one. If you introduce to the game an aspect where
>people have to make decisions about being active or passive with
>firecontrol, where being seen is significant (without it, you are safe
and
>can sneak up on an enemy) and where seeing the enemy can make the 
>difference between being ambushed and doing the same to him, that's
>enough 
tactical complexity for most of us. Too much for some :) 

Using the FT sensor rules did add some more thinking to tactics, but
it's 
simple and does add fun to the game if you like this.  I have been using
the 
sensor rules in my Battlestar Galactica games to better model the show
and 
it has definitely added value to the game.

>The "shoot when you choose" option is easy to run and from a strictly
>"game-fun" point of view, it works well. From a "simulation" point of
view,
>its kind of weak. 

It still teaches you tactics.  You need to think about your actions as
in 
any simulation.  Not saying FT is a simulation, but good tactics are
still 
important.

Mike

Michael Miserendino
Senior Software Engineer
Lincoln Re
mtmiserendino@lnc.com