TCS PBEM... (again)

Eric:

<about TCS campaign>

>I'd much prefer FFW for a couple of reasons.
>
>*   I think there'd be more people interested if there isn't a need for
>a High Guard background.  And the more the merrier.  With fairly simple
>combat
>
>and build rules anybody could pick it up quickly.  Doing turns would
>also be much much simpler.
>
>*   It's possible for TCS to bog down if all the players aren't really
>dedicated.  The need for daily turns for combat is really a necessity
>if you want the campaign game to progress at a decent rate.  With FFW
>you should able able to play a complete campaign turn in a single PBM
>turn (including all combat).
>
>*       I'm more interested in the "strategic" aspect and not the nitty
>gritty of "tactical" High Guard combat.  General fleet movements,
>co-ordination, capturing planets, not really knowing whats going
>on..... I really want to play just for the feel of the "fog of war" or
>blind system of play.  The simplest system we can place on top of that
>and maintain a Traveller universe the better.

I would prefer MT ship design.  I don't like the idea of being locked
into GDW's picture of future warfare.  I'd like to try my own ideas
out.  As t the strategic level, TCS is slightly more complex than FFW,
but slightly more realistic, too.  The referee helps out a lot.

>Jim Baranski:
>>Would it be more fun in an unknown setting where you had to explore
>>and make contact?
>
>Yes!  I like this idea.  Just give people a map and they have to
>explore it.  This is definitely the way to go.

I can live with this, as I have played games like that.  More work for
the referee, but life is like that.


Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

[email removed]

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun