> > I had SFB myself. I remember it well.
>
> Oh yeah? Have you ever tried playing it by
> email? I tried that twice, and both times was
> enjoying it quite well when my opponent
> bailed out on me for one reason or another. I
> haven't given it another attempt yet...the last
> time I tried was before my son was born, so...

No, I can't say I have. If I can dig it out (I might still have it, gathering dust somewhere) I'll give it a go. All I need is an opponant...

> > To be fair, space combat wouldn't be much
> like aerial or naval combat, but I think of the
> two, naval would be closer. The ships have a
> large crew, and are expected to spend
> months, or even years out of port.
>
> Ah, it seems to me that you're thinking more
> along the lines of what *life* would be like
> aboard a starship, not just combat.

Yeah. I like to think that the two would reflect each other. It's at least half romanicism. Plus, it makes it easier to think about, if you only have one metaphor.

> > I always think of space combat as
> "submarine combat, with more directions you
> can travel".
>
> Why more directions? Submarines can travel
> in any direction a ship in space would be able
> to go. Besides the medium, the only difference
> I can see is that subs have more of a limit on
> how far they can travel in a given direction. A
> starship would simply have more *space* to
> move around *in*.

Well, without any defined "up", you have more directions you have more possible facings, which lets you attack from more directions, which is more what I meant.

winter"Do you know the Klingon proverb 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'? Well, it is very cold in space"mute