> FT points system does not reflect this reality. Looking at Jane's, the
> operating alone sunk a contemporary capital ship at open sea?
I vill only say zis vunce......
FT is not modern naval warfare. FT is not WWII naval warfare.
FT is not even pre-Dreadnought Ironclad warfare (though bits of it are
probably closer to this that anything else...)
FT is SCIENCE FICTION space warfare.
There; I've said it. I feel a lot better now....
< very, VERY big grin, just in case someone takes this too
seriously....>
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I vill only say zis vunce......
Well, yes it is. But as FT lacks anything resembling a campaign economic
system (I'm not saying this is a serious shortcoming), some people, Phil
Pournelle most notably, started using historical data to back their arguments
in the recent debate.
When faced with such arguments, there are two approaches to replies:
1) To discredit the entire line of thinking. Yours. 2) To question a
particular argument and present more historical data on
the subject. Mine.
As long as FT lacks the economic system, it *might* be based on some
semi-relevant historical example. Thus I consider this discussion valid.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Mikko -
Sorry if you took my comment a bit personally (I DID put the "very big grin"
bit at the end for a good reason...); I wasn't commenting solely on
the thread going between you and Phil, but on a not-uncommon tendency
(not just on email, but in snailmail I get too) to go down the course that
something in FT is "wrong" becuase it doesn't fit some kind of historical
counterpart - typically, the "historical DDs could/couldn't take out a
Battleship" argument.
The point I was trying to make (maybe a bit flippantly, but hey, I've got that
sort of sense of humour...) was that although we call one FT ship a
"destroyer" and another a "Battleship", these are nothing but convenient
labels; some players seem to read into this that the relationship between the
two types should therefore be the same as that in
WWII/Moderns/whatever, just because we've used the same names. I even
had one person write me a long (and almost angry!) letter demanding to know
why the relative sizes of ships in FT weren't the same as those in modern
navies! (He was a Harpoon player).
Sure, bits of FT are taken from almost every historical model you could list,
and from probably every space opera SF source I've ever read or seen, as well,
but they are then all liberally mixed around. I just consider the "if this
works in Moderns, why doesn't it work in
FT?"
argument is a bit spurious. But please don't take ANY of this too seriously!!
:)
<snip>
Lets keep in mind that designations change through the years. If a WWII
destroyer was still in service today it would probably be classified as a
frigtate or corvette, depending on its modernization. Why are things the way
they are in FT? Because Jon says so, thats why.
(granted, he *listens* to more comments that other games - and I mean
*listens*).
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Sorry if you took my comment a bit personally
No offense taken.
> something in FT is "wrong" becuase it doesn't fit some kind of
I have no beef with that, as long as the game's internal logic works. The
models its own particular reality, which may or may not correspond to any
other reality.
There are flaws in the internal logic, though...
> that sort of sense of humour...) was that although we call one FT ship
True. Look at modern fighters -- they're bigger than a fair few WWII
bombers. We're likely to attach familiar tags to anything new. It helps people
relate to changes...
> navies! (He was a Harpoon player).
That figures :-)
> Sure, bits of FT are taken from almost every historical model you
Yup. There have been a fair few proposals for a "grand strategic" campaign
system. I think we should really think what kind of reality we'd like such a
system to model.