1) Not really, but it gives scope for conflict when not using any other
background. 2) Yes, I read it. 3) B5, & occassionally startrek.
4) Probably a half-page on the major powers, & a quarter page on minor
powers. about 7-10 pages all up.
5) Yes, although I have enough trouble getting hold of current novels. 6)
Current mix is fine, as science shouldn't stand in the way of a good fight.
7) I prefer mano-a-mano, as it means casualties actually have meaning.
(I sacrifice 20 escorts to destroy your battleship....) 8) Yes, please stop
the hardcore science posts to the list.
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background?
NO, I have the ships but the human future history background's a bit sucky and
optional :-)
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
Read it then generally ignored the human history stuff. I use the names of the
fleets for the CMD models. I use the Kravak and Svaskvu they were
fine/excellent as a background.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (
STOS, STTNG, B5, Honor H
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced
NO more human timeline please. Stuff like the Xeno files is welcome about a
section in size is fine.
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Yes, with a Xeno slant or Space Opera.
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want?
I want a simple abstraction for a board game If I want reality it belongs on a
computer.
> 7) do you want to see guys in fighters, escorts and "Don't bother too
Its an abstraction, big ships blowing the sh*t out of each other in space is
what I want.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
Stop the threads that are irrelevant and intransigent whether they're about
science or any other off topic subject (that generates 30+ posts in a
weekend) which have little real application to the games in hand
FT/DS2/SG2.
It's getting tedious having to delete so much stuff. More relevant and
interesting discussions get lost in the noise or from over zealous use of the
delete key. More signal less noise.
sincerely
> 1) Do you REALLY care about the FT background? Are you really
I like the background as a starting point. It is nice to have a common
background available (but not crammed down our throats) that we all have a
chance to know. GZG's willingness to allow other backgrounds is great but when
meeting new players who just got the rules and at conventions the GZG
background is common knowledge
> 2) Did you read the FT background stuff or did you ignore it?
I read it, let it sit, then when I got DSII, read it again. Game rules
have to include a few scenarios and I enjoy the scenarios more when they have
some background instead of being ships in the middle of nowhere for no reason
other than to blast each other.
> 3) Do you use another background for your games (like Star Trek, Star
Starfleet Wars and others depending on my mood. With all the new rules
coming out soon (B5 Wars, Earthforce Sourcebook, Star Blazers Fleet
Battles, Imperial Squadrons, etc), this may change ;-)
> 4) Would you like to see the FT background enhanced, with a more
I like the current mix of background to rules, some pages at the end of
the rule books but mostly rules. I will get the Fleet Book when it shows up
because I think the GZG background is interesting enough to develop further
and I want to see the design philosophies behind each fleet
> 5) Would you like to see some FT fiction?
Yes, though the first installment must be high quality for me to get any
more
> 6) How "accurate" a background do you want? "I want a hard science
Fun first, but with enough reality fit in to make it plausible
> 7) Regardless of number 6, do you want to see guys in fighters,
With the current scale of FT, I don't think it matters. Once a campaign system
is out there, then it could become a factor. Fighter kills are only mission
kills and after the battle, shuttles would comb the area after the battle.
Something like the following would be used: for each
fighter lost roll a d6, Manned fighters; 1-2, pilot killed-ftr
destroyed,
3 pilot killed-ftr repairable, 4, pilot recovered but injured misses
next
battle-ftr repairable, 5 pilot recovered healthy-ftr destroyed, 6 pilot
recovered healthy-ftr repairable. AI fighters; 1-4 fighter destroyed,
5-6
fighter repairable.
> 8) "Stop with the stupid science posts, already! This is just a game!"
I enjoy them to a point. The AI thread went too far for me and I delete most
of them now.
In a message dated 97-07-21 11:58:10 EDT, dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com (Dean
> Gundberg) wrote:
<< I will get the Fleet Book when it shows up because I think the GZG
background is interesting enough to develop
further and I want to see the design philosophies behind each fleet >>
What Fleet Book? And, When can we expect it?
Chan 'I'm really out of the loop here!' Faunce
> At 10:51 PM 7/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
The Fleet Book is expected imminently, and has been for several years...
:-)
Jon Tuffley apparently keeps getting sidetracked into other areas and ends up
not quite getting round to it.
Any suggestions that there are Egyptian hieroglyphs refering to "the eagerly
awaited FT Fleet Book" are exaggerated. Probably. :->
Seriously, I think that a fleet book along the lines someone suggested
yesterday,
containing eg a bit of background, a basic design/tactical/strategic
philosophy for the various nations, a couple of examples of fleets and perhaps
a couple of
mini-campaigns like that already published, would be pretty saleable.