> Not that this is directed at anyone in particular, but have you noticed
Frankly, no. Just last Friday I lost the game because I couldn't eyeball the
length of the gaming table. And it's my own bloody table to boot! I've had it
for 15 years! And I couldn't remember how long it was. Because I don't like to
base my tactics on gamesmanship like that.
I also happen to play with a professional carpenter, and he's very much
pro-pre-measure (and likes to win).
What I did notice, once, was when we were using a BattleMaster map as the
background in a pinch. I didn't pay any attention to the hexes printed on it,
because I was mentally adjusted to playing a miniatures game.
However, all the PRO-pre-measurement guys were mentally counting the
hexes for a rather good approximation of distances... I lost.
I can even take off my glasses if it makes someone feel more secure.
Hey, let's take this one step further: Would it be entirely unreasonable to
assume that FT warships carry battlecomputers that can calculate the possible
locations of enemy ships for a few turns in advance?
Would you like me to do it in a game?
I can.
It would even be trivial for me write a computer program for it and bring a
laptop to the game.
But I *choose* not to. I wouldn't even "gaze into the crystal ball" in a PBeM
game, should I actually play one.
For me, the visual spectacle and simple seat'o'pants playing, a friendly,
relaxed game are the thing. I don't particularly care for winning or losing,
as long as the game is interesting.
However, I'm not naive enough to assume this is the case for everyone involved
(i.e. I don't believe in enforcing honor. Honor is
self-imposed, rules and laws are enforced). Since it's my table, my
rulebooks and my minis, I get to decide minor details.
Quite simply I've found that banning pre-measurement makes the game flow
faster. It forces the "gamesmen" to commit to moves instead of wasting
everyone's limited free time by measuring every possible variation,
contemplating and procrastinating 'till no end.
For tournaments, cutthroat win-at-any-cost environments, I'd actually
recommend time limits instead. "No pre-measure" is too easy to cheat
against -- the old checkered shirt trick for instance.
As for realism, well, just knowing the distance doesn't cut the mustard in
real life.
E.g. assault rifles have effective range of 300 yards. Hands up, who'd stand
301 yards away and let me shoot at him? One might be ballsy enough to stand
400 yards away, but that's already a clearly visible difference
-- not the hair's breadth pre-measuring and rigid rules would allow.
E.g. I might know that the forward bunker is exactly 48 yards from my
starting position and 53 from the opposing team's -- but I don't know
for sure I'll be there first, even on a level Sup'Air field much less in the
woods. Even with the rather unrealistic referee-given start signal.
You *could* give exact measurements of static distances and then add small
random variations to all dynamic or "action" distances (movement, weapon
ranges etc.), but IMHO not knowing the exact measure in the first place is a
good enough approximation of the truth.
[quoted original message omitted]
All
It seems to me that this thread is highlighting there are two types of people,
those who play to enjoy, after all lets not forget its a game and its supposed
to be fun, and those who only like to win.
People who play a game to enjoy, as i do, don't really mind if they win or
loose just as long as the game is enjoyable.
Where those "gamesmen" who bicker about the semantics of rules and try
anything to win will ultimately get fed up and stop playing, because they
won't enjoy the game when they start to loose.
I must admit that i find playing such games against "rule mongers" to be quite
tedious, especially when they get a rule wrong and are willing to argue
themselves into a stroke because nobody remembered a rule book, and they
detract from the enjoyment of the game, ultimately they will pay the price and
people will stop wanting to play against them.
Personally, i don't think pre measuring things should be allowed, your either
in range or not when it comes time to fire, messing up your moves
spectacularly is all part of the fun for me.
Un-named Kra'Vak PLayer "Got you now, damn 31 inches bugger!"
Nick
[quoted original message omitted]
On 31-May-00 at 09:05, NGarbett@STSSystems.com (NGarbett@STSSystems.com)
wrote:
> It seems to me that this thread is highlighting
No, it is highlighting that there are those who grew up on ancients and those
who grew up on
sci-fi.
That's a rather big generalization and the implied
"those who like to pre-measure are those who only
play to win." We pre-measure, it is no big deal
if I lose (well, in a one-off, I grouse about losing
in a campaign but that just makes my opponents amused).
<big snip about rules-lawyers>
> Personally, i don't think pre measuring things should be
I can just see the Honor Harrington book now,
"Launch all missiles."
"Sorry captain, no hits, your calibrated eyeball wasn't good enough, our
missiles all went ballistic before they reached the enemy. Maybe next time you
should look at the sensor information skipper."
> Un-named Kra'Vak PLayer "Got you now, damn 31 inches bugger!"
Of course you can also see the other side in the Honor Harrington book now
"Ok give me ranges"
"48 light seconds (ls) to Peeb 1, 48.3 ls to Peeb 2, 48.7 ls to Peeb 3, 52.1
ls to Peeb 4, 43 ls to Peeb 5, 55 ls to Peeb 6 relative to this ship. 48.2
light seconds (ls) to Peeb 1, 48.5 ls to Peeb 2, 48.9 ls to Peeb 3, 52.3 ls to
Peeb 4, 43.2 ls to Peeb 5, 55.2 ls to Peeb 6 relative to HMS Sideboard. 48.4
light seconds (ls) to Peeb 1, 48.9 ls to Peeb 2, 49.3 ls to Peeb 3, 52.7 ls to
Peeb 4, 43.6 ls to Peeb 5, 55.8 ls to Peeb 6 relative to HMS Toady. 48.3 light
seconds (ls) to Peeb 1, 48.8 ls to Peeb 2, 49.2 ls to Peeb 3, 52.6 ls to Peeb
4, 43.5 ls to Peeb 5, 55.7 ls to Peeb 6 relative to HMS Alsoran. 47.3 light
seconds (ls) to Peeb 1, 47.8 ls to Peeb 2, 47.2 ls to Peeb
3..."
[Interrupted by sounds of explosions]
"We've been hit by 7 Grazers from Peeb 5! Damage to..."
8-)
Just keep the game fun. If someone wants to pre-measure that's fine.
If they drag the game out, politely ask them to stop stalling 'cause others
are falling asleep. A quick measure shouldn't take long tho.
We've never had a problem with people in our games. If I notice my opponent is
in a pickle, I'll let him take a little longer to plan out his move out of
courtesy.
Full Thrust is a wonderful game... one that's best enjoyed(IMHO)with beer. As
long as the game moves along and everyone is having fun, that's all that
really matters.
</soapbox mode>
I had a much more elegant message drafted up and was about to send when my
mailer died. <sigh> This is a poor substitute due to time (or lack thereof).
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I've
> had it for 15 years! And I couldn't remember how long it was. Because
It seems to me that you are unnecessarily handicapping yourself in this
particular matter.
I have to ask, if you could not remember the size of your table and someone
came to play who didn't pre-measure but could judge the length/breadth
of your table, and you lost the game, would you blame it on their ability to
measure over yours? Would you consider this ungamesmanlike conduct on their
part, being able to Mk I eyeball judge better than you?
> I also happen to play with a professional carpenter, and he's very
I don't understand. What is it you are trying to imply with this statement
about his being a carpenter? That he can Mk I eyeball judge things to a fair
degree of accuracy? Has he explained why he likes to premeasure?
Everyone likes to win. I do, although I've lost more games than I can count,
definitely more than I've won. And while I like to win, what's more important
was how the game was played, not that I won.
> What I did notice, once, was when we were using a BattleMaster map as
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but....there had to be more going on
than simply not pre-measuring to be the reason for the loss of the games
above. I really don't think you can make broad, sweeping statements that
you lost solely because your opponents pre-measured or had better
approximation of distances involved and you were not able to judge the same
distances as well.
If the pre-measuring guys were counting hexes, they were only getting,
as you noted, a "good approximation" of the distances involved. That's not as
accurate as actually taking a measuring tool and getting an exact reading. You
were not using the hexes to judge distance. What were you using? Or were you
using anything at all? Even your mind's eye? (which I would find very
difficult to believe if you weren't)
When you judge distances and do NOT pre-measure, how do you do it? In
ship lengths? Such as, oh, taking a NAC battleship and seeing in your mind's
eye how many NAC battleship lengths it is to the target? And judge based on
that which target is closer and in which range band? Or do you just randomly
assign targets without having ANY idea what range band those targets are in?
> For me, the visual spectacle and simple seat'o'pants playing, a
Well, as I said above, I like to win, but it's not the end-all be-all of
gaming. If the game is fun and interesting, I don't mind losing, either. If
the game is dull and boring, there is no victory in winning for me.
> As for realism, well, just knowing the distance doesn't cut the
You said *effective* range is 300 yards. Max range is a bit further than that,
no? Only a fool would stand at 301 yards and think they wouldn't be hit. A hit
would not be guaranteed, but there is still the very real possibility of it
happening.
> E.g. I might know that the forward bunker is exactly 48 yards from my
No, you don't know you'll be there first. There are far, far too many other
variables to take into consideration. The other team may move faster. The
terrain between you and them. Someone tripping and falling, causing them to
'waste time' getting back up again.
Most of the people who game and/or are on this list are not professional
soldiers. Instead they are arm-chair warriors (if I may use the term).
They aren't trained to judge distances to such a high degree of accuracy (I
am,
of course, presuming your average soldier is trained to know and/or
judge distances fairly well; otherwise if you know the range of an enemy's
weapon
to be X and you think you're at X+1 but mis-judge and are at X-1, you're
not going to get many future opportunities to judge distances correctly).
Gaming is both part entertainment, part simulation, part mental exercise.
One way I see premeasuring is that it allows the untrained arm-chair
person
the ability to simulate distances between objectives/targets/whatnot. It
isn't going to make their units move faster, but it will play a role in how
they deal with their tactics. They can simulate that their units can judge the
distances more accurately this way.
Another thing I think about pre-measuring is that it makes everything
equal for all involved. People who don't like to premeasure can take on that
handicap if they want. Or not. If it doesn't noticeably slow the game down
(and my experience, as noted in another msg, it hasn't really), then not a
big deal. If you have two people who do not pre-measure, and one wins
over the other, are you going to say that it was because the victor was able
to judge distances better, that that was the sole reason for the victory? Not
everyone can Mk I eyeball judge distances to the same degree of accuracy, even
if all parties involved are not for premeasuring. Premeasuring, on the
otherhand, puts everything even, even between people who are not as accurate
as some others.
Well, another two cents worth. I'm up to four cents today. Better stop before
I go broke!
Mk
> >Frankly, no. Just last Friday I lost the game because I
PSB-wise, it's easy to justify forbidding pre-measurement. I assume
that each and every ship is employing several forms of ECM, launching decoys
of various sorts, and doing everything possible to "blur" their actual
position.
I have to admit that I don't quite grasp the idea that people who are better
at estimating ranges have some kind of unfair advantage. I game with people
who have absolutely NO grasp of strategy and/or tactics, and have shown
no signs of developing such skills over the years that I have been gaming with
them. They don't consider it to be "unfair" when they are pitted against
someone much more tactically skilled than themselves. More challenging,
certainly, but not unfair. It helps that our best tacticians are terrible dice
rollers, though. I think of range estimation as being a very similar thing.
We don't allow pre-measurement in any of our games, and never have. We
don't like the time that it takes, and we all have bad memories of some of
the pre-measurers that we used to game with...
(forty-five bloody minutes to move ONE 10 MAN UNIT so that they occupied
that precise half inch where HIS troops were firing at close range but the
ENEMIES' were firing at medium range...repeat this process three or four
times in a single night, eating up almost half of our total gaming time, and
you will get some sense of our frustration)
But when you get right down to it, it's a personal preference and nothing
more. My group shares this common trauma, but most people (fortunately) are
free of it.
That's how we prefer it. I'm a terrible estimator, but I muddle through. We
all do. Plus, along with our terrible dice rolling, it gives us something else
to blame if we should happen to lose. If we have someone who is literally
unable to see the board, we'll cheerfully make an exception...but that hasn't
become relevant yet. At the rate some of us are aging, though, that could
change at any moment. Check back in a month or two.
(This is all particularly relevant to me right now. I hope to run a fleet game
in another week or two, with forty or fifty ships on each side. It
will be an all-day affair, but we're going to need things to move as
quickly as possible if we want any hope of finishing.)
> > >Frankly, no. Just last Friday I lost the game because I
> >So, your ships don't have radar?
> PSB-wise, it's easy to justify forbidding pre-measurement. I assume
I agree.
> We don't allow pre-measurement in any of our games, and never have.
We
> don't like the time that it takes, and we all have bad memories of
Oh, I believe it fully. The issue of pre-measurement actually hasn't
even come up in our games. (We only play Full Thrust where we don't have a
terrible use for it anyway, but...)
However, I have a famous intolerance in my gaming circles for
rule-lawyers
and just about any other form of "work the details and the system to our
advantage, even if it takes an hour" sort of gibberish. This is one large
reason I found Full Thrust so appealing to begin with: you can crank off a
large scale fleet action in a couple of hours.... IF you don't succumb to such
things.
> (This is all particularly relevant to me right now. I hope to run a
It
> will be an all-day affair, but we're going to need things to move as
That's kind of interesting. Will you be using custom ships, at all?
(One of my strong reasons for seeking out Full Thrust resources on line is
morbid curiosity as to what custom design routes other people take.:)
> Of course you can also see the other side in the Honor Harrington book
I know that the PRH are getting desperate, but throwing COWS at
starships....?
Now how can I get that into FB3....? ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> 8-)
Hi all, I'll just unlurk from the depths of space in which I've been hiding to
give
my take on the pre-measuring issue...
Okay, so hi-tech ships would have advanced tactical/plotting systems,
but they'd also have some pretty serious EW if they expected not be venting
atmosphere in short order, so not measuring/plotting predicted moves is
how
I personally like it. And my MK I's aren't too hot - I definitely don't
have a sniper's eye:) I always thought that the players' brains were where all
the high tech battle computer, intership net, sensors, rangefinding gizmos,
battle plot etc resided, and the rules just made it fun to play out our
fantasies of
starship command. Not that I'm against pre-measuring on principle, I
just don't think that the tech argument for it holds water.
Some quick remarks about measuring:
1. Measurement before or after declaring of firing is a matter of choice. I
prefer "before", but only bother in cases where the (artificial) range
boundaries are borderline. It's necessary for playability that a Class 1 beam
has full effect at 11.99 MU and zero effect at 12.01 MU, so I don't see
anything wrong with measuring before firing, as you're going to have to
measure afterwards anyway.
2. Measuring when deciding what to do next is also OK by me. It's really
important if using fighters, missiles, KraVak, or fighting against them.
3. The basic meta-rule is not to take too long about any measurement. A
swift
whip-out tape measure, point in about the right direction, read off
range, retract tape, should take no more than 10 seconds. You might want to
fan it a bit to get approximate ranges to other enemy ships. And no more than
1 or 2 measurements should be necessary even with a large fleet.
4. I tend to follow "statements of intent". If my opponent says during fighter
reaction movement "I want to place this fighter group to be just in 6MU of
this ship, and just out of 6 MU of that one", then as long as the Fighter
Group is placed in about the right position, exact distances don't matter.
Similarly,
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Indy <kochte@stsci.edu> writes:
I guess we'll never agree, but I'll at least try to explain my point.
> I have to ask, if you could not remember the size of your table and
No. Not at all. Just like I wouldn't bitch about losing to superior tactics or
better luck with dice.
And yes, I *am* handicapping myself. It's called a rule, and I expect everyone
else I play with to follow the same rules.
> I don't understand. What is it you are trying to imply with this
Pro-pre-measurement people often gripe about carpenters, because
their job teaches rather well the ability to eyeball typical gaming distances.
But he doesn't care about knowing it's "roughly six inches", he'd like to know
it's exactly 6.00000000000000000000000000001 inches so I'd be out of range.
> If the pre-measuring guys were counting hexes, they were only getting,
No, and it was close. But hex-counting game them a definite edge.
> When you judge distances and do NOT pre-measure, how do you do it? In
Sit down first. The answer is basically: Gut Feeling. Gut feeling and prior,
proven knowledge (such as "I shot at them last turn and neither has moved,
so...") Actually, I've been thinking about making range rulers with only the
range bands marked, so you'd know he's in medium range but not exactly by how
much.
E.g. given a choice of two targets, I would do what I would do in "real
life" -- choose the closer one barring tactical considerations of much
greater importance. Maybe they're actually in the same range band and I would
have been better off shooting at the farther one... maybe I get lucky and the
closer one is actually closer in game terms. But in either case I feel I made
the right, logical decision.
> If the game is dull and boring, there is no victory in winning for me.
Ach, some agreement found!
> You said *effective* range is 300 yards.
300 is just a number. Don't get stuck on it. I welcome you to the following
test:
We establish range X at which I am able to hit a man-sized target with
one of my rifles of your choosing. You can choose any X you like but first we
must validate it with a paper target.
Then, you volunteer to stand X+1 yards away while I shoot at you.
Oh, and since it's impossible to hit anything at X+1 yards, I get as
many shots as I like.
History is littered with dead guys who thought the other guys couldn't hit
an elephant at X+1...
There is no X in real life. There's only clearly in range, clearly out of and
the fuzzy gray area in between. If the game is supposed to be some sort of
simulation, the game should also have the gray area.
> No, you don't know you'll be there first. There are far, far too many
Then why do you allow it in a game?
> If it doesn't noticeably slow the game down
Well, I and others on the list have different experiences.
> Premeasuring, on
It's not unequal vs. equal, it's a different TYPE of unequal footing. The
footing is *always* unequal in the sense that some people are better at some
things than others. The only truly equal game would be a totally random one
(unless you believe luck is an innate ability), but that wouldn't pose much of
a challange. To me at least.
To return to the beginning: YES, I AM KNOWINGLY HANDICAPPING MYSELF --
but
it's not a one-sided handicap. The rule is the same to all players, I
just
lose more than others for it. Not pre-measuring while others do would
effectively be different rules for different folks.
I have better than average skills and formal education in math, probability,
logic, game theory, statistics etc. Given enough hard data, I could leave my
carpenter friend dead in water in the prediction and analysis department.
I could play like a real asshole. If I had money riding on it, I probably
would. I am a reformed Car Wars player after all ;-)
But besides taking too much time, it wouldn't be much fun either. I choose not
to. I'm just not being naive in that choice, I want others who play with me to
make the same choice.
Because I have a dream. I dream of a game. A game where you could concentrate
on playing the game, not the rules. A game you could play well without
actually knowing the rules, only the principles behind them.
Personally, I allow premeasuring..why? Because with the amnt of GFCS on FT
Ships, you should be able to get a fairly good range on a target ship.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
If you don't find a way, I'm sure us playtesters can for you...
;-)
Mk
> >"We've been hit by 7 Grazers from Peeb 5! Damage to ..."
That's a FSE weapon. "Fetchez le vache!" (for historical documentation, see
Monty Python & the Holy Grail)
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
No, I don't think we'll ever fully agree, but that's okay. I only responded
yesterday to get clarification on some of your statements, and explain that
not everyone has the same bad experiences (I often get the impressiong from
your posts that things are very polarized to an extreme with you, that things
are pretty much only black and white, and I just wanted to present a different
facet on things)
> > I have to ask, if you could not remember the size of your table and
I don't think handicapping oneself is called a rule. I believe that is
considered a choice. Expecting others to use the same handicaps is a bit
sublime. That's like saying "I will not be using trees for cover, therefore
you are not permitted to, either".
> > I don't understand. What is it you are trying to imply with this
Hmmmm. Now granted I've never played with a carpenter, but I've never really
heard anyone gripe about *anyone's* innate ability to eyeball distances better
than others. But then again, as has been established,
we do allow pre-measurement. Just so everyone has an idea of the
distances between things (one other thing about the people I've played
with or refereed games for, not each and every person pre-measures;
ofttimes one person will do all the measuring for everybody involved, no
matter what side someone is on).
> But he doesn't care about knowing it's "roughly six inches", he'd like
I guess I should consider it fortunate that I like fair play and whenever
there is a question about whether or not something is in range I put on my
referee hat and make a judgement call. This has worked 'against' me as often
as it has worked 'for' me when I've played. When I'm simply reffing, I'm just
doing my job.
> > If the pre-measuring guys were counting hexes, they were only
That's
> > not as accurate as actually taking a measuring tool and getting an
Gave them a bit of an edge maybe, but I can't see it giving them a definite
edge. A definite edge would allow precision flying (or moving, depending on
the game you were playing) to the fraction of a fractional inch (or whatever
measuring unit you happen to be using). And it wasn't like you didn't have the
same option; you just chose not
to utilize it. A self-handicap.
> > When you judge distances and do NOT pre-measure, how do you do it?
In
> > ship lengths? Such as, oh, taking a NAC battleship and seeing in
The range ruler thing is something I've been wanting to do, too. Ofttimes
when we are pre-measuring we aren't worried about whether or not the
potential targets are 23 or 22 inches away. We usually want to know if they
are within range band X or not. Since we don't premeasure down to the
fractional inch, and are just checking range bands, this may contribute
to the fact that pre-measuring doesn't slow our games down appreciably.
The only times we worry about a more exact measure is if whether or not a
target has landed or ended up at the edge of a range band. Then a more precise
measurement may (or may not) be taken, depending on the situation.
On a side bar I am thinking that perhaps range rulers would be a viable
thing for competitions. Just whip out the yardstick-long dowel rod and
quickly one can know if one's fleet or part of one's fleet is in a particular
range band of something else.
> E.g. given a choice of two targets, I would do what I would do in
On an individual level, yeah. But if you're in a fleet or something and
have been directed/ordered to target something (while in the same range
band) that is further away, it is probable (and the military guys can correct
me freely with their experiences:) that you'll fire at the designated target
over the closer threat.
> > If the game is dull and boring, there is no victory in winning for
Thought we'd disagree on EVERYthing, did you?? :-)
> > You said *effective* range is 300 yards.
I assume it as already being abstracted into the game system. These are,
after all, abstract simulations. :-)
> > No, you don't know you'll be there first. There are far, far too
Allow what in the game? Premeasuring? Just because you know distances doesn't
mean you'll get there first. I believe SGII takes this a bit into
consideration with the 'combat moves'. Sometimes you run lots. Sometimes you
trip over every little stone (as happened to a squad
of PA troops I had in the last game I played :-/ )
> > If it doesn't noticeably slow the game down
Likewise others besides me have had little experience with games
slowing down from pre-measuring.
I'm not saying or trying to say that pre-measuring DOESN'T slow
games down, or couldn't potentially do so; it can. Just that the games *we*
have played, the games *I* have run, have, for the
most part, been unaffected by pre-measuring (unaffected = the
games didn't slow down appreciably). I can totally see where someone would or
could dick around with measuring every little nuance 5 times over for some
nefarious reason, thus slowing things down. I've seen and experienced delay
tactics and other time wasters in other games over the years. I'm just saying
that my experiences with FT (and DSII and SGII) gaming this has not been an
issue with the people I've played with (and I've played with a lot of people
across this country; not a few of which are on or used to be on this list).
> > Premeasuring, on
Considering mine and Beth's abilities to roll '1' at critical times
(me moreso with p-torps :) and Aaron's little Teske Field, I'm almost
inclined to say luck is an inate ability. ;-)
> To return to the beginning: YES, I AM KNOWINGLY HANDICAPPING MYSELF --
If you are knowingly handicapping yourself you probably should expect to lose
more than others for not. That's like being involved in a boxing match but
tying one arm behind your back and expecting your opponent to do the
same....and if they don't, odds are they'll likely win (unless you're real
REAL good!). I don't see handicaps as a rule; I see 'em as a choice.
> Not pre-measuring while others do would
It's a tough road you've chosen to follow. I hope you can find
some people who want to play with self-handicaps.
> Because I have a dream.
To me, FT's come the closest to this. But that's my experience. YMMV,
and probably does. :-/
Mk
The way I tend to do it is pretty loose. We allow brief measurements as we're
thinking things over, but we generally expect the game to progress quickly
regardless of whether you're measuring or not, so we just don't have the
problem of pre-measuring stalling up the game. We're good at eyeballing
and generally only tend to measure if we've got a borderline situation or to
get an initial measurement for purposes of gauging how far we want to go in
some direction when we cloak.
I guess I _do_ fall along the "pre-measurement" side of things more than
I'd thought, but I only do so because the people I play with aren't going to
get into abusive delays of the game by measuring. On the other hand, when I go
to conventions and run into folks that have to measure _everything_ I've
been known to crack off the occasional remark to the effect of, "Oh, come on,
you
actually need to _measure_ that?!" when they're getting out the ruler to
see if something's in weapons range when it OBVIOUSLY isn't.
I guess my take is, just keep the game moving. If you're spending fourty
minutes a turn because you have to measure something, I'm probably going to
ask you get on with it, because I'm not liable to take more than thirty
seconds to decide where I'm going each turn and what I want to shoot at if
it's within reach. If you're that big a perfectionist that you just
_have_
to get into the perfect position when it's based on guesswork anyhow, I'd
probably bug you about it (although I'd do it good-naturedly). We don't
even write move orders for ships unless it becomes pretty critical (firing
salvoes at ships moving at high speeds, for instance).