RE: [GZG] Re: Points systems

I do read the posts, and your first paragraph is exactly why people
taking an extreme example and using it as a general criticism doesn't
really work.

a) You said that you played with what some people might consider
excessive fighter masses.  Does that mean that fighters shouldn't be
allowed because some players take the rule to the extreme and it's no
fun to play against a player who takes huge masses of fighters?

b) Unless you write a really restrictive ruling about something,
min/maxers and rules lawyers will always find a loophole/breakpoint to
exploit.  This doesn't stop the majority of gamers from not exploiting
the loophole/breakpoint and enjoying the rules.

By your reasoning, people should not be allowed scatterguns, missiles,
bubble carriers, fighters, ships of thrust greater than 8, use floating
boards, build mega-ships or any of the dozen other FT things that when
taken to an extreme, unbalance the game.

c) FT by it's nature does not impose it's rules on anyone - you can pick
and choose what you want to play - FB only, no missiles, no fighters,
2000 point fleets, etc. etc. etc. Simply because a rule appears in a FT
rulebook doesn't mean it has to be enforced (unlike other game systems).

I'm not likely to continue to play against an opponent who constantly
brings his whole point total in bubble carriers, nor one who loads up
solely on SM frigates, or scattergun boats, but that doesn't preclude
other players from doing so.  Most people will choose a happy medium and
gain enjoyment from it. By constantly focusing on an extreme case (i.e.
90% of your VP in a single ship) and extrapolating forward to say the
whole system sucks isn't useful.  Taking the same relationship, just
because fighters don't work as well with large numbers, then the entire
concept of FT fighters is unworkable and fighters should be banned.

In addition, your example of a Death Star + frigate; sounds like a
Min/Max strategy for ship selection in the first place, so why wouldn't
they continue that to VP?  The problem is not with the VP rules
specifically, but the how the player implements the rules. Assuming the
other side has equal points, they are just as free to make a fleet of
100 thrust 12 scattergun boats and sending a couple of them to hunt down
the frigate.  Comparing an extreme strategy vs. a reasonable one and
coming to the conclusion that something is off and further concluding
that the rules must be totally worthless misses the point.  What this
really shows is that any rules taken to an extreme is senseless and what
you should really be looking at is a range where the rules work well.

Just because FT is too bulky for battles with 100 ships per side doesn't
make FT a poor game - you need to look at FT in the context where it is
best - small battles with 5-20 ships per side- and see how it rates
there. The VP system should also be seen through the whole range of
possibilities, and if necessary some arbitrary or optional limits can be
placed to try reduce the extreme effects of the rule, just like
fighters.

Define military goals - there are tactical as well as strategic goals.
You are focused on the tactical goals - how to kill the enemy ships on
the board, but strategic goals may be very different. As in previous
posts I have mentioned strategic, logistical, political or other reasons
that may over-ride some tactical considerations - such as a follow up
battle where certain resources (missiles or fighters) are required to
succeed may mean you don't expend them all in this battle,
personalities, equipment or war material that is essential to the
overall war effort that has no direct bearing on the combat
effectiveness of the ships involved in the combat, or national morale
effects from having a symbol of pride destroyed.  These should have a
bearing on how closely you press an attack or defend certain ships or
expend ordinance in a tactical game, but a regular one-off FT game
doesn't model any of these factors at all in any way.

--Binhan 

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces+lin=rxkinetix.com@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On
Behalf Of Eric Foley
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:57 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Re: Points systems

Old time list person who hasn't played in a while but still carries
enough 
interest to stay subscribed for some reason.  People will likely
remember me 
as being a rather crazed fighter masser whose usual answer to people's 
complaints about too many fighters was "then bring more scatterguns!"
:P

However, I have to say that I don't think you're listening a whole lot
to 
what people are saying.  They're not complaining about the basic idea
that 
victory points may vary depending on a scenario.  They're complaining
that 
VPs, under your suggestion, may be very arbitrarily assigned in ways
that 
may well bear very little upon any real military goal.	For instance, if
I 
were running a scenario like this, I might bring the Death Star together

with an itty bitty, highly mobile frigate with thrust 10.  I have 20 VPs
to 
assign... and just to be a snot, I'll assign 2 points to the Death Star
and 
18 points to the frigate.  Just for giggles, I'll throw in some PSB
about 
how Darth Vader's love child (conceived artificially) is aboard the
frigate 
for some unfathomable reason, and then I'll spend the entire battle
having 
the Death Star slog its way through your fleet while the frigate runs
for 
the outer solar system with enough speed that nothing has a prayer of 
catching it.  No matter what you do, I'm probably going to "win" even if
the 
Death Star gets owned for fun.

Regardless of whether you, as my opponent, know that you're supposed to 
chase down the frigate and not the Death Star, this scenario is
LUDICROUS. 
And yet it's perfectly reasonable under your system.  It's an extreme 
example, yes, but it's still one that you seem to almost encourage with
your 
suggestion that someone assign scads of points to a destroyer when
there's a 
SDN sitting around worth only one point.  I don't care what storyline or

simulation you're trying to run, that's just silly.

E

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l