regarding game complexity I agree there has to be a limit at some point...finding that well ...
I recall a PC game I bought some years back that went full tilt for the complexity ... it was named B17 and each position had its own player and to get the B17 started was about as complex as it was in reality i.e. you needed three hands to start an engine etc. basically it had reached the point where, while I liked the genre it was too complex for me to play
Regards
Tim
>________________________________
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44
>
>
>
>
>
>See, and people say that only GDW makes mistakes.
>
>But here is a larger issue. Anything like FF&S that attempts to do what it
>does is going to be inevitably so complex that it will result in a large
>number of honest errors just like the one you found. There is no getting
>around it. And the reason it does that is because it is so complex, and
>the reason it is so complex is that is what the players say they want. As
>you've seen in the past day, there have been suggestions that we should
>have added details on the wheels in the tracked suspension, or more detail
>to allow the different type rounds to mass different amounts. Okay, but
>remember that each and every one of those additional layers of detail is
>another place where players will inevitably make honest mistakes.
>
>From a design standpoint, I will tell you that GDW was stupid to put out a
>system like FF&S because it is inescapably prone to error due to its
>complexity. Design 101, you don't put out a system that people will
>inevitably make significant errors in. Bad design. But that is what our
>players said and still say they want. In fact, they keep saying they want
>it to be made more detailed. So we made the effort to give the players
>what they say they want. So we're both in this together. Good designers
>would never have given you FF&S, it's just a Bad Idea. But if you really
>want it, here it is, limited by all of iron laws of Mass of Complex
>Concepts divided by Design Time Available.
>
>So when you get down to it, we're right back to, "only GDW makes
>mistakes," by agreeing to put the thing out.
>
>> Forgot to say, your design is correct except for the ammo where you appear
>> to have forgotten to calculate for the propellant. APFSDSDU/HEAP mass
>> correctly calculated is 39.24kg
>>
>> --- In , Master Uxi <master.uxi@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Redesigned this as part of the CPR sequence for doing the M1 Abrams
>>> series
>>> of MBT
>>>
>>> Some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years (and this time in
>>> particular):
>>>
>>> Ammo is pretty far off and should probably be more detailed. Rather
>>> simple
>>> assumption, regardless of type. The table should adjust for materials
>>> and
>>> intent, as well as just TL. For example, 120mm ammunition if I'm
>>> reading
>>> right is 30kg regardless if it's APFSDS, AFSDSDU, HEAT (HEAP, etc).
>>> Real
>>> Life™ ... or even Wikipedia. much less my FM-17-12 (aka 3-20) tells us
>>> the
>>> M829 sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg depending on the
>>> propellant
>>> and density of the DU penetrator as well as details like metal vs carbon
>>> fiber sabots, etc.
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
I recall a PC game I bought some years back that went full tilt for the complexity ... it was named B17 and each position had its own player and to get the B17 started was about as complex as it was in reality i.e. you needed three hands to start an engine etc. basically it had reached the point where, while I liked the genre it was too complex for me to play
Regards
Tim
>________________________________
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: M256 Smoothbore / Rheinmetall 120mm L/44
>
>
>
>
>
>See, and people say that only GDW makes mistakes.
>
>But here is a larger issue. Anything like FF&S that attempts to do what it
>does is going to be inevitably so complex that it will result in a large
>number of honest errors just like the one you found. There is no getting
>around it. And the reason it does that is because it is so complex, and
>the reason it is so complex is that is what the players say they want. As
>you've seen in the past day, there have been suggestions that we should
>have added details on the wheels in the tracked suspension, or more detail
>to allow the different type rounds to mass different amounts. Okay, but
>remember that each and every one of those additional layers of detail is
>another place where players will inevitably make honest mistakes.
>
>From a design standpoint, I will tell you that GDW was stupid to put out a
>system like FF&S because it is inescapably prone to error due to its
>complexity. Design 101, you don't put out a system that people will
>inevitably make significant errors in. Bad design. But that is what our
>players said and still say they want. In fact, they keep saying they want
>it to be made more detailed. So we made the effort to give the players
>what they say they want. So we're both in this together. Good designers
>would never have given you FF&S, it's just a Bad Idea. But if you really
>want it, here it is, limited by all of iron laws of Mass of Complex
>Concepts divided by Design Time Available.
>
>So when you get down to it, we're right back to, "only GDW makes
>mistakes," by agreeing to put the thing out.
>
>> Forgot to say, your design is correct except for the ammo where you appear
>> to have forgotten to calculate for the propellant. APFSDSDU/HEAP mass
>> correctly calculated is 39.24kg
>>
>> --- In , Master Uxi <master.uxi@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Redesigned this as part of the CPR sequence for doing the M1 Abrams
>>> series
>>> of MBT
>>>
>>> Some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years (and this time in
>>> particular):
>>>
>>> Ammo is pretty far off and should probably be more detailed. Rather
>>> simple
>>> assumption, regardless of type. The table should adjust for materials
>>> and
>>> intent, as well as just TL. For example, 120mm ammunition if I'm
>>> reading
>>> right is 30kg regardless if it's APFSDS, AFSDSDU, HEAT (HEAP, etc).
>>> Real
>>> Life™ ... or even Wikipedia. much less my FM-17-12 (aka 3-20) tells us
>>> the
>>> M829 sabot variants ranged from 18.6 to 22.3kg depending on the
>>> propellant
>>> and density of the DU penetrator as well as details like metal vs carbon
>>> fiber sabots, etc.
>>>
>
>
>
>
>