There are several obvious assumptions that have to be made for a space combat
game to work, these have already been made in the Tuffleyverse (did I spell
the correctly?).
1. Space travel is relatively inexpensive. 2. Colonies have been put in place.
3. Shipping goods is a winning proposition.
Jump up and down about how realistic or unrealistic assumption X is, it
doesn't matter. If we don't have these 3 things (and probably others I didn't
think of) we don't have a game.
If you want to play a starship combat game in a universe that can't support
starships because you don't have one of the three feel free. Leave me out. If
you want to play DSII or SG strictly on earth that works and is fine. Most of
us like to play on alien planets and environments (my biggest
complaint is no null-g rules) so we have to assume that there
is a reason to fight. You don't fight over things you don't want. Whatever
your personal opinion is on there being colonies, it doesn't matter in this
context.
> From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
I for one never said that these assumpttions were unrealistic. Our discussion
was about just how and why these 3 things took place, not whether or not they
WILL.
> If you want to play a starship combat game in a universe that
This is all very well and good, but I think you've missed the point of the
discussion. If YOU just want to play out set piece battles between space
fleets, go right ahead. But some of us, myself included, find it interesting
to develop story lines behind the colonies and stellar powers. This helps to
develop a history for the colony, as well as a set of cultural values, goals,
and attitudes that will explain WHY they're fighting this or that battle. This
is particularly entertaining for those of us who like to put some imagination
into our power's background.
> On 16-May-00 at 15:58, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >There are several obvious assumptions that have to be made
Did I mention you anywhere in the post? I would have needed to go back through
and found out who it was that has violently been arguing that space
colonization costs too much, provides no return on investment, and
is unrealistic. Thus, no game.
> This is all very well and good, but I think you've missed the point of
I don't do "set piece battles" very often. We almost always play campaign. Of
course we play small campaigns, everyone has 4 or 5 third rate worlds (around
100 production each) and we are out to enlarge our empire, or head off the
expansionist empire before it takes us out, depending on your way of looking
at it.
> From: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
> Did I mention you anywhere in the post? I would have needed to go back
IIRC, noone has been doing that. I HAVE been arguing that space colonization
will be so expensive at first that it will take more than just the desire of
individuals to get away from an overcrowded planet for it to happen. It will
require quite a few different factors, all of which have been discussed QUITE
indepth at this point.
If you were not referring to this discussion, I apologize for my response. If
you were, I invite you to reread the thread as far as possible to understand
just what the jist of the discussion was.