Re: Retrograde gimmickry

on 6/10/00 13:58, stiltman@teleport.com at stiltman@teleport.com wrote:

> IMHO, show me a game where keepaway tactics are considered sound, and
I'll
> show you a game that has just flat out lost sight of what an
interstellar
> war is _really_ about.  And if you need to remind a player who abuses
them,
> give him a few more stationary scenarios where he has to protect
something
> that isn't as mobile as his ships are.  That's what any competent
enemy is
> going to do to a fleet relying on skirmishers anyway, and if your
games
> aren't reflecting that, you need to change the nature of the game to
do so.
> Sure, the skirmisher's going to probably not agree to play in that
scenario.
> And in doing so, they're pretty bluntly admitting that no interstellar
nation
> in their right mind would fight a war like that, either... which says
to me
> that the retrograde keepaway tactics simply have no sound place in the
game.
> If it wouldn't be useful in a real situation, it shouldn't be useful
in the
> game.  (To be fair to Jon, though:  In this case, "the game" refers to
the
> way a given scenario is set up rather than any inherent flaw in the
actual
> Full Thrust rules design.)

I'm not sure your assumption that all battles will take place near
enough to
a vital, static concern is appropriate in many circumstances/campaigns
(of
course yours may be one though).  The critical thing is the background
in
these cases - since up till this point nothing has been indicated one
way or
another about this issue.

As others have mentioned the settings under which the battle take place
are
going to be crucial to balance.  For instance - There may be a need to
FTL
in to a system at some distance away from the intended planetary target
for
safety reasons.  If this is the case nothing prevents the fast fleet
from
engaging the enemy force, especially when engaging a slow one, a ways
out
from the static resource.  This presents a situation when the retrograde
maneuvering is valid.  Another one is if the dreadstar needs to defend
such
a static point as well as the skirmisher can dart in and out to pick
away at
the slow behemoth until it leaves or commits to a vector for attacking
back.

However if the attacking force can FTL right next to the planet and blow
it
away then there's very little that can be done to defend it against any
attacker that isn't grossly out sized.

Another issue with the dreadstar is the inability to be in more than one
place at a time.  True, the same can be said about a large fleet of
equivalent "size" but then again that fleet can be easily dispersed as
needs
for it change.	This alone makes dreadstar issues very limited if one
thinks
about them from the perspective you're speaking of, one of the limits
and
considerations that a star faring race might have.

All that said, I do enjoy playing the occasional game of having one or
more
super ships.

Unless I'm way off base here part of your consensus has been that your
dreadstar idea is unbalanced, favoring it's design in battle.  If this
is
the case and IF the point system in FT is skewed (an issue I'm forgoing
for
the time being for the sake of argument) there's always the issue of not
using ships over a certain size.

Please realize I'm not telling you how to play your games or what should
be
a better way to have fun (each of us has our own).  I've found all sizes
of
battle to be interesting, however battles involving smaller ships and
smaller numbers of ships I've found to have more emphasis on subtly,
tactics
and maneuvering, involving less the pre-game purchase of forces.

Of course this is only my two cents/pence/francs worth.  Your mileage
may
vary.

Kevin Walker
sage5@home.com