[GZG] Re: Simplicity and tech levels

I've changed the subject since this is way off the original...

> "Mike Hillsgrove" <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> I'm also of the opinion that in a fleet game, simplicity is the key.
Rather
> than complicateing the matter with many multiple systems, dozens of

Full Thrust is beautifully simple. Have you ever tried playing Babylon 5 Wars?
And I'm sure other people on this list will mention Star Fleet Battles
unfavourably.

> I would also like to see more "technology" in terms of teck levels.
The
> better the Teck Level, the smaller and more powerful the systems

If you want a simple game, you don't want tech levels! And historically, low
tech opponents cannot defeat high tech except by swamping them with sheer
numbers, which doesn't make for an interesting game. I believe John Atkinson
has some forcibly expressed opinions on this subject with regard
to StarGrunt/DirtSide.

cheers,

> Hugh Fisher wrote:

> "Mike Hillsgrove" <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> I would also like to see more "technology" in terms of teck levels.
The
> better the Teck Level, the smaller and more powerful the systems

Zoe's Simple Tech Level System:

High tech units get more effective mass than the model would indicate. Low
tech units get less.

So a "normal tech" heavy cruiser would be about mass 80. The same size model
but "low tech" would be designed as if it had mass 40 The same size model but
"high tech" would be designed as if it had mass 120

All would be heavy cruisers - but the "high tech" one (actual mass 80,
effective mass 120) would be able to fight a "low-tech" superdreadnaught

(actual mass 240, effective mass 120) on equal terms.

PSB: Older drives etc cost less to move a given mass, because they don't have
to be insulated against the bopamagilvie effect of modern