A complete turn-around of attitude...(david has nailed the issue)

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:59:01 GMT, you wrote:

> nearly so... the main difference was that it had very complex ship
David has hit the issue on the head. The addition of this sort of detail in
combat resolution or movement won't make the underlying game better, it'll
*just add more detail*

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Bob Blanchett wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:59:01 GMT, you wrote:

But neither combat resolution nor movement would be affected by more complex
design rules! Ship design would, yes, and it'll be a bugger to make such a
design system balanced (...especially since it will take some time to realize
where the balance problems are...), but the play of the game itself won't be
affected at all.

I agree with Brian, and disagree with David; FT space ships aren't mere chess
pieces. I would like to make them even less so, by supplying
optional design rules - for instance, relating the thrust to some sort
of engine mass, or adding launch tubes to hangar bays, or...

Regards,

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Bob Blanchett wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:59:01 GMT, you wrote:

but making the token too simple can limit the variety of things you can
represent with those tokens (frex, a chess pawn can only be used to
represent a spear-wielding soldier with a tower shield)

> >

the amount of change I'm talking about wouldn't necessarily add to the
complexity of combat (even though I do like the idea of FMA full thrust, I'm
more in favor of modifying the construction rules. the combat determination
would not become more complex at all.

as an example,

at present you buy fighters for 6 mass a squad and can launch 2 a turn.

in my system, you'd buy fighter squads for (lets say) 5 mass each, and
launch facilities sufficent to launch one squad/turn for 4 mass each.
that way, you still know how many fighters you carry, you still know how many
you can launch, you just had more control over that while designing the
ship...

anyway, I don't think my changes would make the system harder to play, just a
little more detailed.

I'll hack out a quick-and-dirty version of my FMA-construction rules
over the next couple of days for use with the current system of combat. maybe
you'll like it!

> --

In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.961212121655.28988A-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> Oerjan
> Ohlson writes:

If having more complex design rules doesn't affect anything... then, clearly,
there would not be any point having them.

But in my experience with games like Car Wars, complex design rules totally
dominate the game... they are usually riddled with exploitable flaws and
encourage people to add huge lists of extra
gee-gaws and "cool ideas". FT is bad enough in these areas already.

> I agree with Brian, and disagree with David; FT space ships aren't

That's exactly what they are. They fulfill the same roll as do pieces in
chess, or platoons in Dirtside, as the game's tokens. Play with the tokens to
exert their resources. The more complicated the resources held by each token,
the slower and messier the game. IMHO that's a bad, bad thing.

Like Adam, most of the widgets in More Thrust appeal to me little. The only
real area of interest there is the sparse EW rules, which could probably be
beefed up profitably. This, at least, adds a new dimension to the game, rather
than streching existing ones to little benefit.

As regards fighters, I'm quite happy to have all fighters launch in one turn.
I see no need to distinguish carriers from other ships.