> Depends on how you play cloaking. If you can't detect a cloaked ship
True (in regards to the original post but I was responding to the No Sub.
assertion).
I hear what you're saying and while I agree it isn't the same I think
it's close enough to be a playable simulation as it stands -- especially
when looking at the rest of FT as a baseline.
You could take the SFB approach to cloaks and say "when firing on 'cloaked'
ships simply double the range" but that doesn't bring forth the tension of
slowly being hunted because you can visually inspect the sucka comin' at ya.
Which, to me, is part of the appeal of using cloaks in the 1st place.
Damond
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:23:44 -0400, "Damond Walker"
<dwalker@syncretic.com> wrote:
> I hear what you're saying and while I agree it isn't the same I think
See my reply in the other thread. I remember working out three or four other
ways of handling cloaks that worked better than the More Thrust rules, but I
can't find the file and -- though I thought I posted them to this list,
it was
probably before the archive was set up -- they aren't in the list
archive.
> Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> writes:
> I remember working out three or four other ways of handling
If you happen to find them I'd be interested. I"m being bugged to run STar
Trek FT again:o)
Randy
> Allan Goodall wrote:
<dwalker@syncretic.com>
> wrote:
I'd be interested in those ideas as well. With FTJava implementing a more
general set of fog-of-war rules, I can try different sets of cloaking
ideas. It's not high on my list of priorities, but it would make for some
challenging games.