CT Experience Revisited

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
(Shooting guns in a video training session is terribly useful, but won't get you very far if you don't know what happens when the weapon actually goes BANG! and jumps in your hand!)

You don't think a TL 13 simulation would sport a weapon that seems as real as the real thing? It's just as loud, has the same kick, even smells of gunpower after it's been shot.

I would argue that a TL 13 sim would be just as real as going to a shooting range and firing your weapon.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
(Shooting guns in a video training session is terribly useful, but won't get you very far if you don't know what happens when the weapon actually goes BANG! and jumps in your hand!)

You don't think a TL 13 simulation would sport a weapon that seems as real as the real thing? It's just as loud, has the same kick, even smells of gunpower after it's been shot.

I would argue that a TL 13 sim would be just as real as going to a shooting range and firing your weapon.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by WJP:
Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

Actually, WJP, they went to flight school (more than one of them, anyway).

Originally posted by WJP:
You don't think a TL 13 simulation would sport a weapon that seems as real as the real thing? It's just as loud, has the same kick, even smells of gunpower after it's been shot.

Maybe. It's just one of those things that I don't think technology can overcome. YMMV.

But, WJP, BGG, I will say your arguments are compelling. (And, you are right, BGG, the weapon rules are different.) Remember what the skill levels represent, though: 3 is a professional, 6 is a master. I won't be convinced you can become a Baron Richtoffen/Bob Munden/Gen Yeager/Tiger Woods/etc. by playing in a holosim. Again, YMMV.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by WJP:
Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

Actually, WJP, they went to flight school (more than one of them, anyway).

Originally posted by WJP:
You don't think a TL 13 simulation would sport a weapon that seems as real as the real thing? It's just as loud, has the same kick, even smells of gunpower after it's been shot.

Maybe. It's just one of those things that I don't think technology can overcome. YMMV.

But, WJP, BGG, I will say your arguments are compelling. (And, you are right, BGG, the weapon rules are different.) Remember what the skill levels represent, though: 3 is a professional, 6 is a master. I won't be convinced you can become a Baron Richtoffen/Bob Munden/Gen Yeager/Tiger Woods/etc. by playing in a holosim. Again, YMMV.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WJP:
Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

Actually, WJP, they went to flight school (more than one of them, anyway).</font>[/QUOTE]Yep. And before that, they started their studies with computer flight sims.

Remember what the skill levels represent, though: 3 is a professional, 6 is a master. I won't be convinced you can become a Baron Richtoffen/Bob Munden/Gen Yeager/Tiger Woods/etc. by playing in a holosim. Again, YMMV.

Good point. And, I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I just feel more experience can be obtained by those who study, and a lot can be taught with simulations and such.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WJP:
Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

Actually, WJP, they went to flight school (more than one of them, anyway).</font>[/QUOTE]Yep. And before that, they started their studies with computer flight sims.

Remember what the skill levels represent, though: 3 is a professional, 6 is a master. I won't be convinced you can become a Baron Richtoffen/Bob Munden/Gen Yeager/Tiger Woods/etc. by playing in a holosim. Again, YMMV.

Good point. And, I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I just feel more experience can be obtained by those who study, and a lot can be taught with simulations and such.

 

[Supplement Four]

WTF?

What's up with my posts appearing in multiples?

I deleted three of them, but the page is running slow--I'll try to delete the others later (maybe the page will be moving faster).

 

[Supplement Four]

WTF?

What's up with my posts appearing in multiples?

I deleted three of them, but the page is running slow--I'll try to delete the others later (maybe the page will be moving faster).

 

[Pickles]

With regard to (flight) simulations, I think it may be possible to advance to a fairly high level by the use of interactive simulators. The main limitation of simulators is that they cannot go beyond their programming, but this could be overcome by having multiple human users (spaceflight, infantry combat, etc.).

You'd have to draw up a very carefully-thought out advancement table for different skills, though, with regard to how far they can be respectively advanced using self-study.

 

[Pickles]

With regard to (flight) simulations, I think it may be possible to advance to a fairly high level by the use of interactive simulators. The main limitation of simulators is that they cannot go beyond their programming, but this could be overcome by having multiple human users (spaceflight, infantry combat, etc.).

You'd have to draw up a very carefully-thought out advancement table for different skills, though, with regard to how far they can be respectively advanced using self-study.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

You mean you got more than 4 copies to start with?!

Bromgrev, I think this is one of those cases where a hard and fast rule works - when the player wants to do something different, you say "Convince me". If the player does convince you, then you work it out. If not, you save yourself some trouble...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

You mean you got more than 4 copies to start with?!

Bromgrev, I think this is one of those cases where a hard and fast rule works - when the player wants to do something different, you say "Convince me". If the player does convince you, then you work it out. If not, you save yourself some trouble...

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

Bromgrev, I think this is one of those cases where a hard and fast rule works - when the player wants to do something different, you say "Convince me". If the player does convince you, then you work it out. If not, you save yourself some trouble...

Absolutely. I used to create rules (my new sensor rules are a good example) where I would try to think of every possibility. Now, I realize that I only need to try to consider every possibility (because it might be important later) but actually working out in a definitive manner every possibility is not necessary.

I just need enough to get by in what I want to do in my next game session.

As an example with the sensor rules, I know that I need some sort of DM for EM masking used by a target ship. I'm not sure what that DM should be.

Instead of figuring that out, I can skip that (knowing I'll need to add it to the rules if I ever use a opponent vessel with EM masking....and I know about how I'm going to implement it..with a DM) because my starship encounter I created these rule for, in the first place, doesn't use any vessels with EM masking.

I've turned from a "completeist rule tweaker" in my youth to a "whatever is necessary for the encouter" rule tweaker.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

Bromgrev, I think this is one of those cases where a hard and fast rule works - when the player wants to do something different, you say "Convince me". If the player does convince you, then you work it out. If not, you save yourself some trouble...

Absolutely. I used to create rules (my new sensor rules are a good example) where I would try to think of every possibility. Now, I realize that I only need to try to consider every possibility (because it might be important later) but actually working out in a definitive manner every possibility is not necessary.

I just need enough to get by in what I want to do in my next game session.

As an example with the sensor rules, I know that I need some sort of DM for EM masking used by a target ship. I'm not sure what that DM should be.

Instead of figuring that out, I can skip that (knowing I'll need to add it to the rules if I ever use a opponent vessel with EM masking....and I know about how I'm going to implement it..with a DM) because my starship encounter I created these rule for, in the first place, doesn't use any vessels with EM masking.

I've turned from a "completeist rule tweaker" in my youth to a "whatever is necessary for the encouter" rule tweaker.

 

[Supplement Four]

Strange. I tried to delete some of those duplicate posts, and I'm getting a message that only admins can delete it.

Hm. Maybe it's because somebody replied to one?

Oh well, I tried to delete them, folks. Sorry.

 

[Supplement Four]

Strange. I tried to delete some of those duplicate posts, and I'm getting a message that only admins can delete it.

Hm. Maybe it's because somebody replied to one?

Oh well, I tried to delete them, folks. Sorry.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

You went in under "Edit Post" and you couldn't delete it? Maybe you're partially logged out, somehow?

 

[Fritz_Brown]

You went in under "Edit Post" and you couldn't delete it? Maybe you're partially logged out, somehow?

 

[parmasson]

How about some kind of Int check with a +1 for every level above 8?

A PC with an Int of 9 gets a +1 on the check to see if he gets the skill?

 

[parmasson]

How about some kind of Int check with a +1 for every level above 8?

A PC with an Int of 9 gets a +1 on the check to see if he gets the skill?