RE: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

Oerjan Ariander wrote:
<Much snippage>
>>Unfortunately many game designers confuse the game-balancing points
cost 
system with the "in-background" *economic* costs required to build and 
operate these highl-tech units, and that inevitably leads to disaster 
(since the entire "in-background" purpose with tech development is to
allow 
the design of units which give *more* bang per (economic) buck than the
old 
technologies did, whereas the entire purpose of a game-balancing points 
system is to give the *same* bang per buck regardless of tech
level)...<<

That's a point that I think I was on my way to making - but never really
got
there. It's the similar reason why so many custom built fleets look so
wonky
- nobody is constrained in having to build ships that had to do anything
but
conduct war (let alone anything like a political limitation on what or
how
to build things). Related is the idea that fleets have to do more than
just
fight war - they have to show the flag, escort shipping, etc. etc. etc.

Sort of the reason why I don't mind fighters being so damn effective -
we
play campaigns and as valuable as the fighters are - the pilots are much
more so... Losing fighters is a huge pain in the ass, loosing the pilot
can
be crippling. At the end of a long campaign (ours) carriers are always
understrengthed, some of them massively so. The concept of "throwing"
your
fighters at the enemy the way I see some people do it in pick-up games
quickly goes by the wayside after a couple of nasty fights. It instead
becomes a tactic of desperation.

Same thing with ships. Nobody wants a ship to get crippled - and the
decision to scuttle one becomes painful when it's the first capitol ship
to
get hammered so bad behind enemy lines that it can't get home...

David Rodemaker

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