Re: [FT] Operational game

--- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> However, if you've decimated your opponent's navy,
> controlling his
> planets becomes fairly simple.  Or should we
> conclude that the fleet
> is there to protect trade, and planets can look
> after themselves?
> That would imply that most warships have little or
> no orbital
> bombardment capability, or else that even a frontier
> planet can afford
> anti-ship weapons

You could take several different approaches at once:
1.  Placing limitations on what ships designed for
space-to-space combat can do in a planetary
bombardment senario definitely means that driving the
defending fleet off is just the first stage.  It also
gives the game a feel reminiscent of certain
historical periods, which is either positive or
negative, depending on player taste.

2.  If the defending fleet is outgunned, for instance
if it's spread out defending several worlds, it might
choose not to let itself be decimated, but rather
withdraw, and hit later after the attacking fleet has
moved on.  Alternately, if both sides are both
potential attackers AND defenders, there's always a
chance that if you commit too much to the attack, you
leave your own worldso pen to attack.  So setting up a
game where one side must attack and the other defend,
rather than one where both can do either, would not be
the best way to make things interesting.

3. given how powerful fighters are, I have a feeling
most planets will be issued squadrons even if the
fleet isn't ported there.

Speaking of that, has anyone come up with a way to
balance fighters?  I remember the issue was bandied
about for a while.  

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canis meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com