Re: Beta Fighter game report

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:27:47PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson distributed
foul capitalist propaganda: 

[...]
> >>And if we don't come up with a fool-proof PSB for defending against
> >>extreme-range hyper-velocity missile strikes against planets and
> >>other fixed locations, I don't think that any official Full Thrust
> >>rules ever will. If fighters can build up velocity from turn to
turn,
> >>so can missiles  - and if hypervelocity attacks on fixed locations
> >>are possible in the game, it pretty much turns any space war into
> >>mutually-assured destruction...
> >
> >That is BS.
> 
> Nope. It is a very real problem which has already wrecked several Full

> Thrust campaigns.

It's a problem of vector movement, because if you have vector
movement, you can always use hypervelocity scout ships for MAD
strikes. Either say they're unmanned or join the Islamic Federation
and train suicide pilots ;->

This problem is unsolvable by game rules, because it's a problem of
physics - if you have vector movement, you can acumulate speed. 
Having game rules that artificially prohibit it is akin to having
a game of global diplomacy and warfare in 21st century that has no
nukes whatsoever. 

[...]
> Yes, it is. The problem is not that the hypervelocity makes the
*missiles* 
> difficult to intercept, but that it makes the *launching ships* 
> invulnerable to the fixed target's return fire by allowing them to
launch 
> 1030 mu away from the target instead of 30 mu away.

If I use a small suicide scout ship to ram a large immobile fixed
installation, and it has a speed of 100 mu, it will also be
invulnerable to fixed target's fire. Artifact of game mechanics. 

[...]
> >So, if the IJN or IFN can find self-sacrificing pilots to fly cutters
> >in hypervelocity strikes against planetary targets, then the "build V
> >from turn to turn" rule is "seriously bad for the game"?
> 
> It is, yes. I know several FT campaigns which has ended in almost
exactly 
> that way, the only difference being the size of the ships used.

So, it only proves that it's not a problem of vector fighter
movement. I fail to see how eliminating the 'hyper-vector strike'
capability for fighters while _still leaving it_ for ships that are
slightly larger (scout ships, frex) is good for the game. 

It isn't. Vector movement leads itself to hyperkinetic strikes. People
who do not want hyperkinetic strikes should not play with vector
movement, QED. 

But people who want to play with vector movement should have the
option to treat their fighters in the same way they treat their ships,
instead of having the fighter craft mysteriously stick to the
space-time continuum (unless they manage to grab a piece of a
space-time continuum of a passing larger ship, "escorting" it and
being suddenly yanked into the realm of vector hyper-speeds). 

[...]
> IOW, all of your players are too reasonable to use this potentially 
> war-winning tactic. You're very fortunate compared to many other
players.

This argument has no relevance whatsoever to the problem of non-vector
fighters in a vector-ships universe. 

Yes, vector movement is a problem. Removing vector movement capability
from figthers when other spaceships have it is not a solution to this
problem in any way. 

[...]
> Oerjan
Leslie
-- 
Sol-Earthsa Leszek Leslie Karlik dam Posen;	 leslie @ ideefixe . pl 
	      Drone, Offensive; Special Circumstances, Contact Section.
GH/L/S/O d- s+:- a26 C++ UL+ P L++ E W-() N+++* K w(---) M- PS+(+++) PE 
Y+ PGP++ !t---(++) 5++ X- R+++*>$ !tv b++++ DI+ D--- G-- e>+ h- r% y+*