Re: Re: [FT] Simultaneous Fire

--- awg@sympatico.ca wrote:
... Making the right
> decision is very important. It's also a small part
> of the time spent playing the game.
> 

Predicting your opponent's move is what gets you
out of his fire arcs and him into yours. I've seen
it make or break a game a number of times. I always
try to start writing my orders for next turn as soon
as possible, in any break in the game (laughing,
joking, bathroom breaks, etc.) so I don't hold up
the game, but if I didn't, it would consume a LOT
more of the game than it does. I don't know if other
people take a lot of thought over their maneuvering
or if it's just me.

...
> Ummm... you're talking reality with regard to a
> spaceship combat game? Played in two dimensions?
> Often without a campaign component? Often without
> using vector movement? With artificial limitations
> to the vector movement (when used) to keep the game
> playable?
> 

I think I said something like reality (whatever
that is) indicating I realize that it's a slippery
concept. However, I do believe it's possible for
one rule to seem more plausible than another.

If the rules indicated players should do a little
dance and depending on the rating (1-10) given 
by their fellow players, he earned a plus to his
initiative, that would definitely fall under the
implausible category. 

In the case of simulaneous fire, both rules are
abstractions and both have their advocates. I'm
not implying that either is less realistic. I 
am saying that I find simultaneous fire more
plausible.

...
> <<snippage>> I like the system as it is.
> 

Yes and you're not alone. My group is VERY VERY
conservative with relation to the rules. I'm
frankly pretty discouraged since I prefer the
variant.

...
> 
> Having played simultaneously (in an e-mail game) I
> have to sort of agree with your friend. No, it' snot
> a WHOLE new game as most of it is the same. But it
> does transform it quite a bit. ...

I don't know how your email game worked, so I can't
comment. To me it's pretty broken for someone to
be able to wait to see if his battleship destroys
the enemy cruiser before he decides whether to fire
any of his other ships at it. Part of the fun is
not allocating enough to destroy that cruiser or
inadvertantly allocating massive overkill.

> 
> Simultaneous fire has been called "more realistic"
> but there is so much that is UNREALISTIC in FT that
> it's like claiming chess would be more realistic if
> you had to worry about feeding the knight's horse.
> 

Pretty good, but as I said, just because reality
is a slippery concept in space combat games doesn't
mean that some rules don't "feel" more right or more
likely. This is of course a highly subjective
concept. Most space games I've played have 
simultaneous fire (tank games too) and I guess I've
gotten used to it. This sudden asynchronous fire
feels very wrong to me.

> > FT is a great system, but no
> > system is ever exactly like you think it should
> be.
> 
> Ah, and here we totally agree. One of the great
> benefits of FT is how easily it lends itself to
> house rules. Simultaneous Fire is a good house rule.
> I personally wouldn't use it, but it's a good house
> rule.
> 

Ft's greatest strength it seems to me is simplicity.
Simplicity requires sacrifices in terms of "reality"
(again whatever that is). The interesting thing about
simultaneous fire is that it makes things MORE simple
and faster (unless you have so many ships that 
allocating fire requires you buy 10 extra dice
packs!).

FT's second greatest strength is adaptability I think.
Unfortunately I have yet to experience that since my
group is, as I said, quite conservative about the
rules. No-one has introduced a new weapon or new
defense. I have suggested a few, but I get accused
of trying to change the game (our group's greatest
cardinal sin). Oh well, it's still a great game. I
don't mean to imply it's a bad game without 
simultaneous fire.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices