Re: [VV] Gate Defense

John Atkinson said:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:12:28 -0000 (GMT), Samuel Penn
> <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually, no. If the wormhole isn't worth defending, then it's
>> not worth defending. Since there is a discussion about how to
>> defend it, it is assumed that it is worth defending.
>
> You're still putting the cart before the horse.  If the wormhole can
> be bypassed, then it isn't worth defending.  If it can't be bypassed,
> then get into the minutia.

No, the discussion assumes that it can't be bypassed. If it
can be bypassed, then you are right, there's far less reason
to defend it (there may still be a reason if only some people
can bypass it).

At least, I'm assuming that it can't be bypassed. I'm also
assuming that a fixed base can keep station with it and that
it's relatively small. Change any of those, and it becomes
indefensible with fixed defences.

>> ...any game system is going to be (vaguely) balanced. An asteroid
>> with a base built into the middle of it is going to be relatively
>> cheap from a physics standpoint, but will have thousands of points
>> of armour/hull (possibly millions). A game system which costs
>> according to hull strength (as FT does) is going to break as soon
>> as you bring in fixed defences like this.
>
> Actually, what burns you on points is weapons.

Depends. A 1,000,000 mass asteroid with 4 fighter squadrons and
a couple of PDS costs a *lot*. You're not paying for the weapons.
Realistically, it's 'real' cost may only be that of a light cruiser.

That's what I mean when I say the physics is irrelevent - the
actual game system is far more important because it takes into
account things like 'play balance'.

> Obviously, if you purchase ships in a campaign system according the
> point value as given in FTFB, you have declared that the point system
> DOES reflect economic reality

Well, I'd modify that to say that you've declared to balance forces
according to this point system. I've never viewed it as economic
reality. If I did, then the FTFB point system would go out the window.

> and that static defenses are a huge
> flaming waste of money because mobile starships are actually cheaper
> than the same mass in asteroid bases.

Agreed with you here fully, but I'd say that the point system
isn't geared to represent reality but to represent play balance.
I haven't been arguing from the point of view of balanced points
(though I'm aware some people have been).

>> Irrelevent. Those places aren't this place. Different rules
>> and different physics.
>
> Not irrelevant.  Have you read them?	How many of the issues people
> are bickering about in minute detail are addressed at great length in
> those novels?  90%+.

No I haven't. And if 90%+ of people here haven't read them either,
then they're irrelevent until someone provides the info.

As you are. However, saying "it's been argued elsewhere, shutup"
isn't useful.

-- 
Be seeing you,			    --------------------------
Sam.				    http://www.glendale.org.uk