the great SM debate

Stepping up to the soap box...

I have an opinion as to some of the reasons "why" this thread has created such
a lively debate. Many of the FT games I've played, or seen played, have very
limited objectives. Typically boiling down to "destroy the other fleet". By
this I mean the tactile objectives are very narrow, and creates attitudes or
designs which are designed to accomplish this goal quickly and effectively
with the use of damage intensive systems (Salvo Missiles, Wave Guns, etc).

Please don't understand, I'm not criticizing this style of play. Heck it is
the
prime requisites of any battle; ancient, modern, or sci-fi, to eliminate
the enemy before they can eliminate you. However, I do feel that by playing
these sorts of "straight up fight" games rapidly devolve into "power gaming"
strategies.

Define Power Gaming - Seeking the perfect attack and defense, coupled
with the ultimate loophole, which makes a side devastating or unbeatable.

In most wargames I've played (particularly over a long period of time) power
gaming seems to be expressed at some level. In fact this has been my biggest
hang-up with wargaming lately.  "Ha Ha . . . I've just launched 56 MT
missiles at your Carrier" or "My uber monster squishes your pitiful knights"
or "My Heavy Grav tanks Armor 6, MDC 5 supported by 10 off board tubes will
sweep the field in say 2 turns" or "insert your favorite here". I'm sure we've
all been on the receiving end of something like this, and I'd be willing to
bet you didn't have a lot of fun.

The games I've truly enjoyed are those which I've faced a challenge, never
knowing from one turn to the next if I was winning or losing, struggling for
objectives, not simply trouncing my opponent I find too that these types of
challenges can be found in games designed as scenarios with specific
objectives, not just the straight up fight.

Why is this perhaps more difficult in FT? To move away from the straight up
fight to a scenario with specific objectives. One reason could be that by our
lack of true human experience in armed "stellar combat" does not allow us to
readily recognize the potential for such engagements.

I find myself struggling to come up with interesting scenarios with
challenging objectives for FT games that aren't simply "you guys over there,
them over there, no one gets out of here alive". Although I've come up with
one or two, and mulling over some others. I'd be happy to share these with
anyone... and better yet discuss and brain storm over others.

Stepping off the soap box... and looking froward to the Scenario Book release

[quoted original message omitted]

> Aron_Clark@digidesign.com wrote:

> I find myself struggling to come up with interesting scenarios with

I think I'm going to have to politely disagree here. None of our games
are one-offs.
That is boring. We have a campaign, and scenario objectives are pretty well
set in light of that. Our last battle was about 2K points on my side. I did
far more damage than I took, but only because my opponent made a major
mistake. I'm running into significant problems because my fleet is FSE based,
and the only thing that has saved me thus far is my opponent is just now
gearing up production for defense drones (our name for the jammers).

The sad thing is I'm going to have to fight that battle again, same forces on
my side,
his side will have drones AND out-point me by about 1000 points.
Otherwise he gains a system that gives him an 80% production advantage over
me.

A couple of quick thoughts:

1. The SM debate sounds a lot like the KV scatter gun debate from MT 2.
Scenarios, try
http://personalweb01.veriomail.com/~mwbrown/mikeindex.htm and
follow the links.

<Also, since the closet thing we have to stellar combat might be air combat,
try basing some scenarios on air-to-air battles.>

Navy would be the best to base senarios or campaigns on. Just read up on

some real military history.

Buck