well, I was thinking last night... in my younger days, my friends and I wrote
a game based on the GUNDAM anime series. (space combat with robots). it was a
simple game to play, not quite as quick as full thrust, but nearly so... the
main difference was that it had very complex ship construction rules. all in
all, I think this was a good thing...
applying this logic to full thrust, I'd come up with something that let
you allocate mass for not just fighter/launchpad/repair like now, but
seperate space for storage of the fightercraft and launch facilities. then it
wouldn't be important how to define your ship as a carrier, if you pay the
mass to buy enough lauchpads to launch all your fighters in one turn,
then so be it! I'd add mass-per-firearc for batteries (at present,
there is little reason NOT to have all your guns fire in 3 arcs), I even like
the FMA system better, now that I've been thinking about it.
all these things I support (now) because they don't add much (if anything at
all) to the playing time of the game. they do add some time to the
pre-game construction of your ships, but as with anything that will
speed up once you get the hang of it (I can almost make Dirtside vehicles in
my head now!)
we also had a system, I really doubt that you'd want to adopt it, where an
item had a size attribute (like now) based on its power/performance,
etc... you could decrease the cost (in points) by increasing the mass and
lower the mass by paying more points (representing using older tech with
larger, more complex parts). this made the construction phase MUCH more
complex, but also added a nice touch. that way your dreadnaughts COULD go
thrust 8 if you wanted, but the engine would be huge if you didn't want to pay
too much...
at any rate, if the new system is done up right (and I think it would be a
superb idea if the list were allowed to playtest the rules and perhaps
even give some opinions [assuming we all respect the god-like power of
The
Tuffley ;-) ] on the game as it develops...
since game development is a long process (I assume!) why not also do a small
reprint of more thrust?
> Brian Lojeck wrote:
then
> it wouldn't be important how to define your ship as a carrier, if you
I agree with you. It would be great to launch fighters based on facilities
available. It's a bit goofy when a supership can only launch a max of two
fighter groups and only if it is classed as a carrier. I would like to see an
option to install launch tubes, static launch bays, and external grapplers. A
launch tube could send one fighter group per turn out in the direction it is
installed, at a distance up to the fighter groups max movement(12"). A static
launch bay could allow one fighter group to launch per turn, but receives no
additional launch movement(i.e. it is stationary until fighter movement). An
external grappler launches fighter groups the same as static launch bays, but
the fighter group is not protected by the ship's hull(exposed to needle
weapons, etc.).
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:07:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
> grapplers. A launch tube could send one fighter group per turn out in
We use these in our group. call 'em launch/drop tubes. 2 mass 8
points per hangar on the ship. We allow players who want to pay the extra to
fix a direction (P,S or R) and launch them 6" in that arc at the midpoint or
end of a ship's move. Tubes are an either or option all bays are fitted or
none. Tubes are tied to a particular hangar. Recovery is per the normal rules
and the tubes are threshold checked like normal. Once destroyed launching is
treated as for non carriers.
In message <Pine.SUN.3.92.961211105632.27829J-100000@caroli.usc.edu>
> lojeck writes:
I disagree completely. A space-ship in FT is a game-token like a
piece is in chess. Simple tokens can make for very complex games, and for very
enjoyable ones.
Complicated design-it-yourself tokens leave me cold. Putting the
whole of the game into the design stage impoverishes the game at the
face-to-face level. A game that needs to be constantly added to to
keep interest in it is a poor one.
I'd rather be an admiral than an engineer.
---
A different approach to ship design would be just to write down the stats
quite without reference to each other. So many hull boxes, so
many weapons, so much thrust, so many fighters-launched-per-turn, so
many shields with a points cost for each (and thrust as a multiplier).
"Mass" simply would not be relevent. If you want thirty 3-arc-A's in a
thrust-10 ship with 3 hull-boxes, go ahead.
> David Brewer wrote:
Good point. I use the chess analogy often to help describe the game to
newbies.
> I'd rather be an admiral than an engineer.
Unfortunately, I consider myself as both types!;)