Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:46:38AM -0700, Robert Makowsky wrote:
>Solving the overwhelming fighters or overwhelming missiles win problem
should be 
>first off.  After that small issues that can be exploited will not have
the same 
>effect.

Yes, I agree here. I'm not proposing the "fake campaign" idea as a way
of making up for rule problems elsewhere. Well, mostly...

...because there's a fundamental unrealism about the FT universe, and
that's that there are multiple weapon technologies which overall are
about as good as each other. There's never really happened in naval
warfare in the real world; we didn't see one side using cannon while the
other side had something else. The historical approach is much closer to
"holy crap, this has just made an entire class of expensive ships
obsolete". (But - all together now - "that's not fun to game".)

So if missiles are balanced for fully-loaded undamaged ships in tactical
play (leaving aside the extreme difficulty of doing that), they _won't_
be balanced in a campaign game where each missile ship needs a
logistical tail that simply isn't present for beam ships.

In fact one might suggest a separate point system - in a campaign game,
a missile ship should be substantially cheaper than in a tactical
game...

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