Prev: Re: FB2, ubership with needle beams Next: Re: FB2... hmmmm...

Re: The dreaded parity thing (again)

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:36:57 +0200
Subject: Re: The dreaded parity thing (again)

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

>OPIONION ALERT: If you can't agree to disagree on matters of >opinion,
please don't read this.
>>On a floating-edge table, any ship with a single Class-4 or bigger
>>beam and a thrust rating of 2 or more will eventually pick the
>>dreadplanet apart once your fighters have been swatted - unless it
>>hypers out first of course, but in that case it has conceded defeat
>Erm. How many ships in FB1 carry class-4's? Off the top of my head, >I
recall ONE. Bigger ones? None, was it?


Since I was talking about ways to defeat the dreadstar, including
homegrown designs, I completely fail to see your point. FWIW, most of
my own fleets have at least some designs with B4s.

>Remember my point about two different kinds of point systems? Well, I
>have a similar one about design systems:
>There's countermove balancing. This is saying A is balanced because
>there exists some B that counters it (which is countered by C which
>This can get very GW-esque very quickly.

Exactly. The problem is that the fighter morale rules are part of the
zero-balance complex for the fighters; remove it, and you're down to
countermove balancing - unless you change the fighter points costs
rather drastically, of course.

>(Car Wars used to have this problem. You just couldn't compete with a
>sheet car. I could also mention a previous edition of a certain space
>combat game, but shall leave it unnamed...)

You mean the game I and a bunch of others has spent some five years
working on a better balanced version of? <g>


Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

Prev: Re: FB2, ubership with needle beams Next: Re: FB2... hmmmm...