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

Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>David Rodemaker wrote:
>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...
>>In other words, you don't find fighters terribly effective because you

don't use the standard points system - instead you've added extra costs 
(ie., the costs of training fighter pilots and transporting replacement 
fighters+pilots to the front lines) to keep the fighter usage in
check.<<

Exactly! Or rather, I find that within the constraints of the system
that
they are basically balanced. They are still very, very effective and
pack a
huge punch for little combat "cost". E.g. I'd still rather lose a
fighter
and pilot than a cruiser or frigate. 

As a combatant I have to balance the benefit of using and losing them
vs.
the cost of replacing them. In a game where people can build whatever
they
like and have no fear of loss I think that they are inordinately
powerful
because the "inherent" limitations on their use (like we have in the
"real
world"). As a defender the goal is to make their use as costly or
difficult
as possible.

As a player, I just sort of demand (in a non-campaign game) that people
"play fair" - no soap-bubble carriers unless I know beforehand and am
exploring tactics for example. In general the people I play with all
agree
and want to play a game that makes some sort of tactical sense beyond a
min-maxed "who can build the deadliest, most whacked, fleet"

We all know that we can build nasty ships (or tanks), that's not where
the
fun of a military game is for us.

>>As a contrast, I've heard of quite a few campaigns that broke down
because

they *didn't* consider logistics at all - which made massed fighters 
extremely lethal to mobile forces, and massed missile boats extremely 
lethal to stationary targets :-/<<

Yup, and that's why people bases tend to be guarded by monitors and
SDB's
and a whole ton of fighters.

We all learned that sort of thing years ago in F&E or TCS, or just
because
we're all military buffs (or vets) and can't even think about a "head"
without the "tail." In fact, we've had to strike a balance in the level
of
detail. After we've played campaigns for awhile everyone starts to want
to
know how to start disrupting commerce, strike at shipyards, bomb the
heck
out of military academies, and someone always ends up wanting to start
terror tactics after awhile as well.

Fleet actions are checkers, campaigns are the real chess game... ;-)

David Rodemaker

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