Re: [GZG] Monster ships

So much depends on your movement mechanics. Narrower arcs are more
feasible in fast-rotation vector (1 thrust = unlimited rotation).
Conversely, apparently MTMs would be much more dangerous to vector
ships than to thrust 4+ cinematic ones as I understand OA's point that
they can easily dodge the missiles given the limitations of the
missiles.

If you play cinematic vs. vector or FB vs. original FT, you'll see
very different outcomes. If you play household homebrew fleets (esp
with tech mixes) versus standard fleets, you'll see rather different
outcomes. (Note I mean versus here in the 'as opposed to' sense,
rather than saying you have both sorts of fleet on the same table...
thought that would only illustrate the point....)

You'll also find different flavours ensue from allowing main batteries
to fire at fighters, for allowing all PDSes on a ship to engage any
attacking fighter group (makes FB designs do okay even against mass
fighter waves), etc.

So much is dependent on your assumptions about rules in use and
movement system in play before you even get to personal bias as to how
you think the game should play (battleship duel, submarine hunt,
carrier strikes, etc).

Which brings me to my point: Arguments about 'how it should be' or
'how it is' are kind of pointless. Most of the regular FT playing
groups toss out or add in something (house rules) and are thus not
playing rulebook FT. Even that 'rulebook' idea is a bit fuzzy... FT,
FB1, FB2, Cross Dimensions, etc... So arguing about 'how it is' or
'how X works' also requires you to stipulate a lot of your assumptions
and constraints. And you never convince anyone else just because your
group does it one way. Similarly, arguing how it should be has all of
the flaws of arguing about how it is and adds on suppositions about
what might make it better. I say both of these are pointless and can
lead to frustrated people (in some cases).

It's generally better just to say "Our group does X (using rules A, B
and C, movement system M, and house rules R, S, T, and Q) and we have
round (insert conclusions)." People can take from that what they think
is applicable to them. All one can ever do is hopefully provide
something useful for a fellow gamer and that's mostly luck - they have
to be using a fair portion of the same sorts of rules to get much
direct use out of something.

One thing this discussion has done has gotten me interested in running
a minor FT campaign of my own at some point this year, just to try
*my* set of assumptions and biases out all together in one place to
see if the game I like to play is actually good and fun and balanced.

TomB
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l