> Do you consider "simultaneous execution" to be a significant,
> desirable and/or essential feature?
YES. No doubt about it. Essential is a good word.
> And if so, why?
>Now I chose simultaneous execution because it seemed more realistic,
>and less game-like to me. But now it seems to me that atmosphere is
>its only advantage.
That's one of the two big reasons, as I see it. This isn't a combat game
or a strategy game or a trade game, or whatever. It is a world simulation
with all the appropriate options. So don't knock atmosphere. It helps the
'willing suspention of disbelief' which is important to this kind of game.
IMO, of course. It's one of the aspects that makes the game seem 'real'
and hence fun. Points and Phases would move away from this into the
abstract, and that would be a bad thing.
The second reason has to do with a combination of flexibility and clarity.
Right now it is easy to plan a turn because you can see operations in terms
of days. It makes sense to spend a week studying combat, and that while
you are doing that you can't be doing something else, and that you can't be
studying while moving, etc. It is clear and easy to see. Sure there are a
lot of questions about how things work (the studying on a ship question, for
example), but the overall aspect of _understanding_ what is happening and
what your character is doing is much clearer this way. Which make it easy
to plan. For example, while the stack leader is spending 7 days curing
runny noses, it is _obvious_ that the other nobles have 7 days to do other
things. Using a points and phases system would make this a little harder to
follow.
BTW, I got issue 51 of Flagship yesterday. The (short) article on Olympia
seemed pretty lame to me. It didn't give a good feel for the game, and he
got a couple of simple points _wrong_. On well. Your ad looked very
professional, though.
Nazgul