Babylon5 Battles?

The difference being that FT is reasonably playable, while (after playing it
for 13 years)SFB is definitely NOT!!

Date sent:  24-OCT-1996 10:21:31

I've just been looking at the TFG web page. Apparently, they are very closely
tied with Agents of Gaming, which does not bode well for the new B5 game. In
fact, Agents of Gaming are responsible for much of the SFB material including
the Newsletter and PBM variant.

With such a strong link, what are the chances of the B5 game being nothing but
a clone of SFB? Damn high I'd say. (But then again, the Earthforce Sourcebook
variant will probably be nothing more
than a clone of FT 8-)  ).

> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Niall Gilsenan wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:25:44 +0100
Ahhmmm. If you read the AoG page you will see a disclaimer mentioning the fact
that Babylon 5 Wars has NOTHING to do with SFB, TFG, or ADB. In
E-Mail I have recieved from AoG they have stated that B5 Wars will be
NOTHING like SFB an any way shape manner or form. I think we are gettting just
a little paranoid here. We should wait for the game to come out THEN pass
judgement on the system. In the meantime, they are
planning WWW-based playtesting of B5 Wars.  I suggest we get involved
with these tests and try to influence the game as much as possible (This

way if the game screws-up we have only ourselves to blame.)

Later,

> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:25:44 +0100

> Date sent: 24-OCT-1996 10:21:31

Oh dear.

In fact, Agents of Gaming are responsible for
> much of the SFB material including the Newsletter and PBM variant.
Oh dear, oh dear.

> With such a strong link, what are the chances of the B5 game being

Oh dear (you get the the idea by now). Considering that I have tried playing
SFB and failed miserably at getting a game up and running in any

reasonable length of time, this is very bad news. It had occured to me that
the Starfury diagram that appeared on the AOG site reminded of some

game. Now that we know that its SFBinfluenced I can see the horror of it
already. 20 pages on the various complexities of how a ship jumps into warp
(see subsection X3.1214, Ooops not in this supplement!!).

Looks as if the only items of interest will be the ships.

> Allan wrote:

> > With such a strong link, what are the chances of the B5 game being

> ...and Nial wrote:

> Oh dear (you get the the idea by now). Considering that I have tried

> playing SFB and failed miserably at getting a game up and running in

> already. 20 pages on the various complexities of how a ship jumps

Well, <trying to keep positive> remember if this is designed around a
role-playing game, then you WANT more detail because that's the level
the charcters are at. You also tend to have only a few ships to worry about at
one time. It almost sounds like they're going to have very detailed rules for
role-playing with one or two ships, and then publish the supplement for
fleet
actions with more ships, less detail (ie -- FT).

At least, I hope so....

Scott

AFFECTATION: The attempt to boost one's social status by aping the mannerisms
of a more prestigious class, as when white athletes greet each
other with high-fives, or when bourgeois celebrities appear on talk
shows
wearing hole-in-the-knee jeans.

> Niall Gilsenan writes:
@:)
@:) Oh dear (you get the the idea by now). Considering that I have @:) tried
playing SFB and failed miserably at getting a game up and @:) running in any
reasonable length of time, this is very bad news. @:) It had occured to me
that the Starfury diagram that appeared on @:) the AOG site reminded of some
game.

Seems like there's a lot of concern around here that the new B5 game could end
up like SFB and thus be completely unplayable. Some of this may be valid but,
having played SFB for several years myself I think I
can state that it is _not_ totally unplayable.  Something must have
kept it alive for almost 20 years. There certainly are problems with SFB but I
think people get the wrong ideas sometimes.

@:) Now that we know that its SFBinfluenced I can see the horror of it @:)
already. 20 pages on the various complexities of how a ship jumps @:) into
warp (see subsection X3.1214, Ooops not in this
@:) supplement!!).

Actually I find that the rules size and complexity of SFB is anb
asset.  Compare subsection X3.12.14 with FT's "page 7 - special note:
the rules in this book are only valid with even numbers. Odd numbers do not
exist in our FT universe and cannot exist in any FT universe you create. Odd
numbers are an abomination and blasphemy". I'd rather have more rules than
less.

The real problem with SFB is not how complex it is because you've got plenty
of time to read the rules over again if you need to, but
how time-consuming it is to play.  It takes me about 30 seconds to
draw up a FT ship. That's about enough time to figure out my drone loads on a
typical SFB ship. Once you get into actual game play, things rapidly
deteriorate in SFB with 32 phases and simultaneous firing and the like. If
they can avoid that kind of time lag, but
keep the rest of an SFB-style ruleset, all 800 pages worth, I would be
quite pleased.

BTW, my favorite part of SFB is rolling my ship's destruction on the damage
chart so it wouldn't bother me at all if Star Furies had some kind of critical
hit table (I'm also a great fan of Interceptor's damage system, though not of
the rest of the game). On the other hand, if a Star Fury has 20 HP (what it
looks like from the AOG web
page) one is forced to wonder how many HP an Omega-class Destroyer (or
for that matter a space station) might have. I'm more curious about the scale
of this combat system than anything else.

There seems to be a common misconception here. There are going to be *TWO*
Babylon% space combat games published.

Agents of Gaming is publishing Babylon Wars, which looks to be much more
detailed than Full Thrust.

Chamelion Electric (the makers of the RPG) have gotten the Full Thrust author
to do a set of ship to ship rules for the RPG which are supposed to be very
Full Trust like, and much more tied to the RPG elements.

These are two totally seperate and independent projects.

        -=- Matthew L. Seidl

FieldScott@aol.com said...
> Allan wrote:

> At 11:34 AM 10/24/96 -0500, you wrote:

Great idea, Mark. Though, like most people here, I'd probably buy the figures
just to use with Full Thrust, I will in all likelihood buy this game if it's
reasonably done. The best way to do that is to influence the design to begin
with.

Matthew L. Seidl wrote,

> There seems to be a common misconception here. There are going to be

Oh. <stares at feet> Uhh...never mind.

"Mongo only pawn in game of life."

Scott

GRADUATE STUDENT: A newborn intellect that returns to the womb for further
incubation, sometimes indefinitely.

----------
From:	"<Mark Andrew Siefert>" <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu>
Sent:	Thursday, October 24, 1996 11:34 AM
To:     FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Cc:     FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:	Re: Babylon5 Battles?

> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Niall Gilsenan wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:25:44 +0100
Ahhmmm. If you read the AoG page you will see a disclaimer mentioning the fact
that Babylon 5 Wars has NOTHING to do with SFB, TFG, or ADB. In
E-Mail I have recieved from AoG they have stated that B5 Wars will be
NOTHING like SFB an any way shape manner or form. I think we are gettting just
a little paranoid here. We should wait for the game to come out THEN pass
judgement on the system. In the meantime, they are
planning WWW-based playtesting of B5 Wars.  I suggest we get involved
with these tests and try to influence the game as much as possible (This

way if the game screws-up we have only ourselves to blame.)

Later, Mark A. Siefert

E-MAIL: cthulhu@csd.uwm edu             WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu

> Mike Wikan wrote:

I'll second that!!! If you try and sit down with more than two people with one
ship each your in for a long evening.

> The difference being that FT is reasonably playable, while (after
Hear, hear!!

I have played just about every space combat game that's been released from
Triplanetary to FT. I have had more *fun* and played more games with Full
Thrust than with any of the others. I'm adapting it to every genre and scale
that I can think of because it *works* so well! If that makes me
narrow-minded so be it.  I'm always willing to look at new ideas but I
think Mr.Tuffley was just about right on the money with this one.

Here's looking forward to his work on the B5 RPG!

As far as B5 Wars is concerned, I agree with Mark, Indy, and the others that
we participate fully in the WWW playtest. I have been VERY impressed with the
creativity, ingenuity, and writing abilities of those of you who post to this
mailing list. With our help, AOG might just come up with a better game.

Let's hope they have open minds.

> >The difference being that FT is reasonably playable, while (after

Wow! Triplanetary takes me back. That was my first space combat game too!

I have to agree with you on Full Thrust. It is a versatile and marvelous game.
If this gets any worse, we'll have to form Full Thrust support groups.

Does anyone else wonder if it is possible that they could come up with a name
that's better than "Babylon 5 Wars"???

Perhaps we could suggest something for them... I wonder if they are prohibited
from using episode titles...

Babylon 5: The Long Dark Struggle

or simply

Babylon 5: War Without End

(or as a fringing variant: "Wars Without End", which after all is what we
wargamers want...)

-dunk

---

How about Babylon 5: Armies of Light and Shadow.....

Just a thought..;-)

> John Dunkelberg writes:

@:) Does anyone else wonder if it is possible that they could come up @:) with
a name that's better than "Babylon 5 Wars"???

Yeah, unlike the "Star Wars" people and the "Star Trek" people, they don't
have a series title to work with that neatly describes the entire universe.
Most of the battles we've seen in the show don't involve the Babylon 5 station
at all. Maybe "Starfury"?