_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIndy, Indy,
Indy.... <shakes head>.... and Allan.... <shakes head again>
1) Pre-measuring always slows a game down, at least a small amount, and
sometimes a big amount - I've seen it.
2) The game already provides you with far more knowledge than your ship
commander would be blessed with ergo making the game unduly
deterministic -
most of the time SSDs are public, you know the exact class of ships the enemy
brought, you know the point balance of the scenario and therefore that
reinforcements aren't going to happen, and you have *positional certainty*
that the ship is actually where the figure is.
In the 'real' (yah, right) world of space combat like this, you'd have data
that's possibly seconds or minutes old, you'd have no surety that the enemy
wouldn't suddenly get help, you wouldn't know for sure if enemy ships were new
variants or which variant they brought, and your sensors might be
altogether fuzzier in an EW-laden battlespace.
So yes, although measuring makes sense from the perspective of laser range
finders (assuming stealth coating and so on doesn't muck with some
assumptions), it is still a good idea to dispense with it for games. FT has
a limited enough set of tactical choices once the battle is arrived at -
every extra one where you can reintroduce some of the real challenges in
judgement that actual captains would have to put up with is worth having.
Every extra choice or judgment the gamer has to render helps make the game
that little bit less predictable and formulaic.
3) I don't see why the judgement of distance should be any less valid as a
skill than:
- luck/unluck with dice (present already)
- knowledge of the game (can draw SSDs freehand from memory and quote
various rules flavours without a reference) (already present)
- mathematical skills to quickly analyze average damage from and to the
enemy at various ranges depending on weapon and defense (already present)
- player inability to make overall plans (deer-in-the-headlights -
already seen often)
- player inability to be decisive (already seen)
These sorts of things already all exist in the game....and are also outside
the realm of player judgement or tactical choices directly. I'm not sure why
an inability to judge distance is seen as somehow a separate class of
handicap.
To me, measuring *would* be realistic, but so many other unrealistic God's Eye
View facts are available to players, having an uncertainty in measuring only
helps (barely) to compensate for that.
And your argument about munchkinism is silly - munchkins can manifest in
any game in any format. Nothing stops cheese from other players other than
them not being jackasses. Allowing measuring allows just as much (nay, far
more I
say!) cheese - like moving to exactly the precise point to fire at a
given range or to lurk outside of one or measuring to be just a hair out of
arc, etc. Then you get into nit picky arguments anyway.
If you have people that think winning matters and that the game is a
competition instead of a shared entertainment, you'll tend to get that stuff.
Maturity level of the gamers is a factor too. Ultimately, I rarely care if I
win or lose, just that I and others had fun. I find competitive games (and
those that have point systems are among the worst) to often spawn
crappy conduct between players. And allowing pre-measuring won't stop
that either.
I call no pre-measuring 'sensor uncertainty' and I think it serves a
valid role in the game. It's also faster.
And I have all cheesemeister munchkins cannibalized for the good of the gaming
group.
For that matter, Allan mention SG2 target priority - if FT had that,
there'd be some amount less cheese as well.
TomB
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dice rolling isn't a skill, regardless of what some people like to say on game
boards.
> These sorts of things already all exist in the game....and are also
So if you have problems with depth perception, let's add _another_
handicap?
> To me, measuring *would* be realistic, but so many other unrealistic
I'm not arguing that it's realistic or not. I'm arguing that for some
groups pre-measuring is no big deal. If you don't allow pre-measuring,
that's fine. But why is it there such a bias in miniature rules
against pre-measuring if the group is cool with the slowdown it
causes? There are lots of rules that codify "do not pre-measure" but
there are none, to my knowledge, that say, "you must pre-measure".
It smacks of game designers building their own particular group play
style bias into their rules, and those that allow pre-measuring should
be stamped down as having badwrongfun.
> And your argument about munchkinism is silly - munchkins can manifest
Which was exactly my point. Not allowing pre-measuring is often touted
as avoiding munchkinism. But you can't wipe out munckinism.
> If you have people that think winning matters and that the game is a
Bingo!
Just for clarification, while Allan is correct that I'd defend to the virtual
death my right to play at home with premeasuring allowed, I do not demand
anyone NOT use as, a rigidly enforced house rule, guesstimation only, even at
me. It's just my decision if I'll play, and I will. I love an extra excuse for
getting creamed other than I'm just dumb.
However, do expect me to yell if someone takes time minutely measuring every
possible step every turn. 'Waving the tape' actually works well and quickly,
and I can only imagine simply painted sticks could even be quicker.
I was just suggesting that, for a cinematic learning turn or three, me
plotting my move first, then putting out markers for the boundaries of my
final positions and directions,
Here is where I'd be if I used NO thrust, Here is where I'd be if I used full
thrust forward and pointed straight ahead, Here is where I'd be if I used full
thrust reversed and still pointed straight ahead, Here is where I'd be if I
used half thrust, rounding down, in a port turn, the rest for the turn, and
pointed to the left, Here is where I'd be if I used half thrust, rounding
down, in a starboard turn, the rest for the turn, and end up 'mirrored' to the
last option, etc.
giving the extremes to show those boundaries, and allowing the learner to plot
his options based on the outline of my possibilities staring him in the face.
The first turn is excruciating long (I drew up but never used a template with
'canned' starting speed), but gets the basics down pat, and even gives
experience for doing the eyeballing.
I will say the testimony of several folk that they prefer Vector because they
find it easier to play well, and not merely they are above mortals such as
myself, which they are, will cause me to give it another go. Individually,
because I still can't work up a play time to save what I'd laughingly call a
soul...
The_Beast
Would a circular template with a radius equal to the ship's thrust in MU be
sufficient? You put that in the "drift" location and you'll see
the entire set of possible end-points.
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> I was just suggesting that, for a cinematic learning turn or three, me
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:18:04PM -0400, Robert Mayberry wrote:
Not quite - the thrust cost for rotation means you can go slightly
further on your current facing than in any other direction. But it's a decent
approximation.
R
Whoa, I'll have to find my demo's initial velocity and thrust, but I could
have sworn it was more like an emaciated mushroom.
The_Beast
Robert Mayberry wrote on 05/07/2009 11:18:04 AM:
> Would a circular template with a radius equal to the ship's thrust in
> At 11:04 AM -0500 5/7/09, Doug Evans wrote:
I would argue that premeasuring movements is NOT allowed. You can take bearing
measurements from a given position account for crews taking a range to X kind
of measurement with a laser range finder (or cooincidence range finder if
basic fire cons are used).
For targeting purposes, taking range measurements of targets as they approach
or on given terrain features makes perfect allowable sense.
As to in space..hmm....