In my continuing quest to degrade the potency of cap ships I wonder if anyone
has tried any of the following modifications to the rules and, if so, how did
they go?
1) Allow A Bats to only fire every OTHER turn.
2) Give a -1 to all to hit roles from A bats on cruiser class ships and
-2 on escort class ships.
3) Give a -1 to all hit roles from B bats on escort class ships.
4) Allow Pulse Torps to only fire every other (or third) turn. 5) Nova Cannons
can only fire every third turn (still use the regular charging rules).
I think these mods put the weapons in a bit better perspective
vis-Ã -vis their intended (designed for) targets.
Thanks,
After re-reading my own post I realized the way I worded the options was
confusing. In 2 and 3, I meant that there are negative modifiers to the
to-hit rolls from A batteries when fired AGAINST cruiser and escort
class ships. As I wrote it, one could think I meant when mounted on such
ships.
Paul
> In message <01BC3708.2818A0E0@tanker.rahul.net> Paul wrote:
> In my continuing quest to degrade the potency of cap ships I wonder if
Am I the only one who doesn't have a hatred of A batteries? No offence Paul
(and I've heard similar suggestions before, so this is directed towards others
as well), but the above seems totally stupid, useful only in making beam
weapons utterely useless.
The entire point of beam weapons (in FT), is that they are
useful against unshielded and unarmoured ships - normally
escorts and cruisers. A batteries are useless against any
ship with 3 levels of protection - eg most capital ships.
And yet, people also want to reduce their effectiveness against escorts and
cruisers. Why?
As they stand, beam weapons are principally anti-escort
weapons. Pulse torpedoes are much better against capital ships. A batteries
are slightly overpowered relative to B and C batteries, but I think this is
more due to the B and C batteries being too weak, rather than A batteries
being too powerful.
> 4) Allow Pulse Torps to only fire every other (or third) turn.
Making both weapons useless. Nova cannons are difficult enough to aim as it is
(waveguns are far more effective). Would you also give railguns and waveguns
these limitations?
Using the above rules, I'd stick to railguns, sub-packs,
missiles, waveguns and fighters.
> I think these mods put the weapons in a bit better perspective
I think we disagree on what weapons are suited to what purposes. Beam
batteries aren't very effective against capital ships, but are very effective
against escorts, which, to my mind, suggests that their intended targets are
escorts.
Pulse torpedoes do (on average), less damage against escorts than equivalent
mass of A batteries, but far more damage against capital ships. This suggests
pulse torpedoes are designed to be used against capital ships.
> After re-reading my own post I realized the way I worded the options
Combining both interpretations would work also. The smaller ships have less
space for the targetting electronics. Also they would be less able to
compensate for recoil effects. Yes I know they are beam weapons but even if
they are energy beams rather than particle beams there is recoil albeit very
small but when you are trying to hit an object a few hundred metres long (
less for the escorts) at ranges of hundreds of kilometres ( or is it
thousands) you don't need to be off by much to miss entirely.
> At 09:29 PM 3/22/97 -0800, you wrote:
The best way (imho) is to make the A batteries mass 4. Capital ships then have
to maneuver into B battery range to bring there full firepower to bare.
> On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Paul Calvi wrote:
> In my continuing quest to degrade the potency of cap ships I wonder if
> 1) Allow A Bats to only fire every OTHER turn.
Possibly. I wouldn't use them at all in this case.
> 2) Give a -1 to all to hit roles from A bats on cruiser class ships
This is equivalent to giving all cruisers lvl-2 screens against capital
ships' A batteries, and Escorts lvl-3 screens. I've tried it, but didn't
like it much; especially not since I had to roll dice from different beam
batteries separately from each other. It didn't slow things down too much, but
it was annoying.
> 3) Give a -1 to all hit roles from B bats on escort class ships.
...ie, equivalent to lvl-2 screens. See above.
> 4) Allow Pulse Torps to only fire every other (or third) turn.
This makes them virtually useless. Since they are one of the (possible)
_anti_-capital ship weapons (they're only effective (compared to beams)
against screen levels of 2 or higher, and they need to be mounted on fairly
manouvrable ships) I wouldn't use this.
> 5) Nova Cannons can only fire every third turn (still use the regular
I can't hit anything with them anyway (this might be because I measure
distances in cm rather than inches, which makes the templates pretty
small...). Using the Wave Gun recharging rules for them could be fun, though.
> I think these mods put the weapons in a bit better perspective
Well, if that's what your background thinks is the intended targets, go ahead!
Mine didn't...
Regards,
> At 09:29 PM 3/22/97 -0800, Paul wrote:
As long as the Thrust Efficiency issues are not changed to benefit the Capital
Ships as proposed for FTIII, I think there is no need to handicap Cap ships
further. Big ships should be able to carry alot of big guns, they just
shouldn't be immensly mobile... Phil P.
> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
I don't; as a top-of-the-line weapons system, they do a good job,
and they just need a little tweaking to make them more balanced. The "4 mass
for 1 arc, and 1 mass per additional arc" suggestion seems like a good way to
make them as expensive as they are effective.
> Beam batteries aren't very effective against capital ships, but
Yep -- this is one of those built-in logistical considerations you make
when you design a Full Thrust starship.
I agree that Capital ships need to be more balanced with escorts on a ton per
ton and cost to cost basis. But these rules seem draconian. They also require
more "memory" between rounds. I feel the fix to the problem is in
changing the damage rows and/or screens.
Justin Case
----------
From: Paul Calvi <tanker@rahul.net>
To: 'ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk'
Subject: Bigger--not always better
Date: Sunday, March 23, 1997 12:29 AM
In my continuing quest to degrade the potency of cap ships I wonder if anyone
has tried any of the following modifications to the rules and, if so, how did
they go?
1) Allow A Bats to only fire every OTHER turn.
2) Give a -1 to all to hit roles from A bats on cruiser class ships and
-2
on escort class ships.
3) Give a -1 to all hit roles from B bats on escort class ships.
4) Allow Pulse Torps to only fire every other (or third) turn. 5) Nova Cannons
can only fire every third turn (still use the regular charging rules).
I think these mods put the weapons in a bit better perspective
vis-Ã -vis
their intended (designed for) targets.
Thanks, Paul
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
Hatred? No. They're just a bit too good compared to the other beam batteries.
[Snip]
> There's a downside to everything, though:
So? It's not hard to make new FT designs, you know. If the new designs
mean more variation in the game - since you suddenly see more than one
type of beam weapons, for example - I'm all for it.
No matter how FT is changed to give a better balance between weapons,
ship classes etc old designs will have to be re-done.
> - It uses fractional units
Not a big problem IMO.
> - It screws up the balance wrt other weapons
Not "screws up". It _improves_ the balance wrt other weapons. It makes
the Pulse Torp a bit better (the original mass 3 A battery is almost as good
(measured in damage/weapon mass) as the Pulse Torp against level-3
screens, and better against all other targets).
As for the other weapon - well, railguns are the worst balance problem
in
the game anyway, and the efficiency of one-shot or area weapons like
Wave Guns or Submunition packs is pretty hard to compare in this way (...how
much damage does a Wave Gun shot inflict? Depends on how many targets it
strikes...).
> - It screws up the balance, period. (Since you can now mount typically
> less weapons, fights last longer)
I don't think "longer games" = "Worse game balance", though...
> - Do you really want to draw 41 little C's on an optimised mass
If you do, I'll be very happy blasting you to pieces with long range A battery
fire. It'll take me a while, of course.
> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Am I the only one who doesn't have a hatred of A batteries?
Nope. Any self-respecting battleship man likes big guns.
IMHO, the problem is quite the opposite: Current system makes it beneficial to
stick A batteries in the smallest dinghy that can take them.
If you want to look for "bugs", check the class limits. A 36 mass supercruiser
(or CB if you will) will come out on top compared to a BC
practically every time -- and it's over 100 points cheaper too.
Likewise with mass 18 superdestroyers and light cruisers, though the
difference isn't quite as big.
Big, slow ships are already prime missile targets. Three DDGs slinging 9
missiles in your direction will spoil the day for any superdreddie, and they
cost a fraction of the points.
> The entire point of beam weapons (in FT),
IMHO, their point is to be the basic weapon. You shouldn't NEED anything
else, which is not true fighting Screen-3 ships.
The "vanilla" designs are IMHO pretty well balanced, but the design rules
leave too much room for optimization.
Current facts:
A -batteries are always better. You should always have them. Get rid of
all lighter batteries. AA's are too handicapped. I can't see anyone mounting
them. Fire arcs are too cheap. I mean, it's completely braindead to limit the
arcs on the standard superdreddie. For a few more points it gets max arcs.
Mass is far more important than points. Once you get going, it's relatively
easy to pay points only, since the startup costs for hull and
drives are so high. E.g. 25 more points will buy you lot's of nice things for
an existing ship, but only a pitiful scout for a new ship. Drives don't have
mass. Buy the biggest set you can afford. Optimize maneuverability by getting
and odd number for thrust.
Let's face reality for a while: Historical experience suggests that the
biggest guns in best possible mountings IS the best way to go. But only the
biggest ships can do it.
We might restrict arcs for A-batts. Say, caps can only mount them on two
arcs, and smaller ships only on one.
We might add mass for arcs. A's get 1 mass per each arc, B's 1 each after
first and C's get two "free" arcs.
That would give the following numbers:
Pts/mass
Batt Arcs
1 2 3
A 7/4 10/5 13/6
B 5/2 7/3 9/4
C 3/1 4/1 5/2
Same per firepower at close range:
1 2 3
A 2.33/1.33 3.33/1.66 4.33/2
B 2.5/1 3.5/1.5 4.5/2
C 3/1 4/1 5/2
Still no good... let's make that no extra mass for C's, 0.5 per arc for
B's.
1 2 3
A 2.33/1.33 3.33/1.66 4.33/2
B 2.5/1.25 3.5/1.5 4.5/1.75
C 3/1 4/1 5/1
Much better... ofcourse, this means you have to redo ALL your ship
designs :-(
Points too low? Add +1/arc for B's and +2/arc for A's
1 2 3
A 3/1.33 4.66/1.66 6.66/2
B 3/1.25 4.5/1.5 6/1.75
C 3/1 4/1 5/1
Now, that's more like it. A's your choice for narrow arc long-range
firepower, C's good for flexible mounts and B falls in between.
There's a downside to everything, though:
- You have to redo nearly all designs
- It uses fractional units
- It screws up the balance wrt other weapons
- It screws up the balance, period. (Since you can now mount typically
less weapons, fights last longer)
- Do you really want to draw 41 little C's on an optimised mass
100 superdreddie?
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> So? It's not hard to make new FT designs, you know. If the new designs
> mean more variation in the game - since you suddenly see more than one
> type of beam weapons, for example - I'm all for it.
Still, it's work. And with all changes of this kind, you're going to run
into someone who designed his fleet with a different set of house rules.
Someone in a hurry is likely to whip the "vanilla" designs out of the rulebook
anyway.
> No matter how FT is changed to give a better balance between weapons,
But if you only change point costs, you can just re-calculate old
designs. If you change mass, you must re-do them completely.
> > - It uses fractional units
I don't mind it, but some people do.
> Not "screws up". It _improves_ the balance wrt other weapons. It makes
I didn't analyse other weapons, but I was assuming they were somewhat
balanced. It wouldn't hurt to do a dmg/mass analysis of all weapons,
though.
> As for the other weapon - well, railguns are the worst balance problem
The Kra'Vak as a whole make the point system a joke. What serious point system
gives free bonuses without compensating handicaps? Fight with the
Kra'Vak? I'd never bother with Screens in the first place.
> and the efficiency of one-shot or area weapons like Wave
Well, for one-shots you have to assume an "average" combat length. E.g.
most of our battles are over by turn 10. A "unlimited ammo" weapon might get
5-8 good, meaningful shots. So I might compare the damage from a
one-shot
to 3-5 times the damage from a "normal" weapon, since small ships
mounting them typically get shot up fast anyway.
Area weapons can be compared to other area weapons with best detail, but
you *can* make comparisons to weed out gross imbalances like if an area weapon
is more effective even vs. a single target than a regular weapon.
> I don't think "longer games" = "Worse game balance", though...
I didn't say it's worse balance -- it's a different balance than
originally intended (thus "screwed up"). Since you now have less weapons, it's
easier to close range without being blown to bits. Which also makes C's (and
the kravvies) better...
> If you do, I'll be very happy blasting you to pieces with long range A
> battery fire. It'll take me a while, of course.
I admit, it's one of those "it works once" designs. Or do you habitually
check other people's designs before playing? We always play with limited
intelligence.
I don't know if this has been suggested but here goes...
Given the current ship "breakpoints" (ie escort, cruiser, capital), it would
seem appropriate to make use of them in a solution to the battery arc problem.
If, for example, the number of arcs on larger beams for the smaller ship
classes is restricted.
ie an escort could have "A" batts (restricted to 1 arc), "B" batts (restricted
to 2 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs), a cruiser could have "A" batts (restricted
to 2 arcs), "B" batts (3 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs) and a capital could have
"A" batts (3 arcs), "B" batts (3 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs)
This would mean that most of the current diagrams could be used with a minor
recalc on the points.
This just exasperates the problem of small ships being ton for ton weaker than
large ships.
Justin Case
----------
> From: Rutherford, Michael <MRutherf@nibucorp.telstra.com.au>
My quibble isn't with Cap ships carrying tons of guns, it's their ability to
decimate a CC (or DD) in a couple of turns. I just think that the smaller
ships should be harder to HIT with the bigger guns. If they do get hit they
should get pummeled appropriately.
Paul
Hmm. Some more good points. I think perhaps my proposed solutions do not fit
my real purpose...
Paul
----------
From: Samuel Penn [SMTP:sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 1997 4:01 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bigger-not always better
> In message <01BC3708.2818A0E0@tanker.rahul.net> Paul wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't have a hatred of A batteries? No offence Paul
(and I've heard similar suggestions before, so this is directed towards others
as well), but the above seems totally stupid, useful only in making beam
weapons utterely useless. The entire point of beam weapons (in FT), is that
they are useful
against unshielded and unarmoured ships - normally escorts and cruisers.
A batteries are useless against any ship with 3 levels of protection -
eg most capital ships. And yet, people also want to reduce their effectiveness
against escorts and cruisers. Why?
As they stand, beam weapons are principally anti-escort weapons. Pulse
torpedoes are much better against capital ships. A batteries are slightly
overpowered relative to B and C batteries, but I think this is more due to the
B and C batteries being too weak, rather than A batteries being too powerful.
> 4) Allow Pulse Torps to only fire every other (or third) turn.
Making both weapons useless. Nova cannons are difficult enough to aim as it is
(waveguns are far more effective). Would you also give railguns and waveguns
these limitations?
Using the above rules, I'd stick to railguns, sub-packs, missiles,
waveguns and fighters.
> I think these mods put the weapons in a bit better perspective
I think we disagree on what weapons are suited to what purposes. Beam
batteries aren't very effective against capital ships, but are very effective
against escorts, which, to my mind, suggests that their intended targets are
escorts. Pulse torpedoes do (on average), less damage against escorts than
equivalent mass of A batteries, but far more damage against capital ships.
This suggests pulse torpedoes are designed to be used against capital ships.
Oops. I never intended for all the points to be used together!!! I presented
them as five SEPARATE options. No wonder you all think I'm
crazy...!
Paul
----------
From: Justin Case [SMTP:pdga6560@csi.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 1997 9:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Bigger-not always better
I agree that Capital ships need to be more balanced with escorts on a ton per
ton and cost to cost basis. But these rules seem draconian. They also require
more "memory" between rounds. I feel the fix to the problem
is in changing the damage rows and/or screens.
Justin Case
> At 09:59 AM 3/26/97 +1000, you wrote:
You know, I really like this idea. For me, it fits in with my conception of
the different ship sizes. I would also expand this to include railguns in a
similar manner: escorts can mount Class 1 railguns in the front arc. Cruisers
can mount Class 2 in the front arc, Class 1 in the side arcs. Capital ships
could mount Class 3 in the front arc, Class 2 in the sides, etc. Naturally, AA
Bats, Wave guns, and Nova Cannons should only be mounted by Capital ships. As
far as the current argument that Capital Ships are too powerful, I would
submit that that is why they are called Capital ships. A Capital ship OUGHT to
be able to pound the hell out of an equal point value of smaller ships, with
the trade off being that smaller ships can afford to be faster and in several
different places at once. Furthermore, 4 ships can be guarenteed at least one
ship will be ignored if they go head to head against as standard Cap ship (So
many targets, so little firecons...) Think about it; what would you pay if you
knew that 25% of your systems were completely invulnerable to a first salvo
attack? I think the system balances itself out nicely. Call it Simulated
Tactical Darwinisim. These are just my thoughts on the subject; if you're
inclined to disagree, then by all means do so. I've played both sides of the
battle: lots of small ships against a few big ships and vice versa, and the
results haven't really indicated favoratisim towards one or the other.
Just my thoughts,
In responce to:
> "Rutherford, Michael" <MRutherf@nibucorp.telstra.com.au> 03/25/97
I don't know if this has been suggested but here goes...
Given the current ship "breakpoints" (ie escort, cruiser, capital), it would
seem appropriate to make use of them in a solution to the battery arc problem.
If, for example, the number of arcs on larger beams for the smaller ship
classes is restricted.
ie an escort could have "A" batts (restricted to 1 arc), "B" batts (restricted
to 2 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs), a cruiser could have "A" batts (restricted
to 2 arcs), "B" batts (3 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs) and a capital could have
"A" batts (3 arcs), "B" batts (3 arcs) and "C" batts (3 arcs)
This would mean that most of the current diagrams could be used with a minor
recalc on the points.
Michael "Wargh" Rutherfurd
Just a quick word to the capital debate.... my house rules limit the
percentage points you can have of capital ships per fleet. I find that better
than juggling with the actual system. Plus it gives a better representation of
a "real" fleet. Just my 2 cents.
IMHO Capital ships are usually able to utterly crush any 'reasonable' number
of smaller forces that attack them. There is not enough of a
penalty for taking a Big, Level-3 Screened Behemoth.
So, a small suggestion: Fire Control: You need to roll for 'Lock on'. (Note,
with the Gas Cloud rules in MT, you already have to do this).
If the target is a: Capital Ship, you need a 1 or more for success (ie don't
bother, you succeed) Cruiser, you need a 2 or more Smaller, you need a 3 or
more and maybe if you're feeling adventurous, Large Fighter 4 or more Fighter
5 or more (not this is ONE fighter, not a group!)
Then add 1 or so for ECM, Gas Clouds etc.
This will mean that Capital ships will overwhelm anything they can hit -
but locking on to that small, evading target might be difficult. A swarm of
missile boats can now have a decent chance of getting SOME survivors into
range of a DN: while the DN's firepower is only decreased by an
average of 1/3 (in fact, 1/27 if he only wants to fire on one small
target).
Feedback?
This is what we are going to do I think. It seems to be the easiest solution
without causing others undo distress.
Paul
Ah! This is what I was getting at, only I was trying to tie it to specific
weapon systems not the ships themselves. Do you mean a C Bat on
a DD would also have the same "lock-on" roll?
Paul
----------
From: Alan Brain [SMTP:aebrain@dynamite.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 8:25 PM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bigger-not always better
IMHO Capital ships are usually able to utterly crush any 'reasonable' number
of smaller forces that attack them. There is not enough of a
penalty for taking a Big, Level-3 Screened Behemoth.
So, a small suggestion: Fire Control: You need to roll for 'Lock on'. (Note,
with the Gas Cloud rules in MT, you already have to do this). If the target is
a: Capital Ship, you need a 1 or more for success (ie don't bother, you
succeed) Cruiser, you need a 2 or more Smaller, you need a 3 or more and maybe
if you're feeling adventurous, Large Fighter 4 or more Fighter 5 or more (not
this is ONE fighter, not a group!)
Then add 1 or so for ECM, Gas Clouds etc.
This will mean that Capital ships will overwhelm anything they can hit -
but locking on to that small, evading target might be difficult. A swarm of
missile boats can now have a decent chance of getting SOME survivors into
range of a DN: while the DN's firepower is only decreased by an
average of 1/3 (in fact, 1/27 if he only wants to fire on one small
target). Feedback?
> b3580009@ariel.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU wrote:
We just use what Jon suggested in FT and that's a fleet cannot have move than
50% composition of any one ship size class. (e.g. A fleet of five ships can
only have up to two capitals.) This seems to work well without making the
build process too restrictive.
> At 01:11 PM 3/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
One of our players got around that by building a fleet of capital
ships and throwing together pitiful little courier ships--one for each
capital ship.
James
> At 04:45 PM 3/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
Well, you can get around THAT by awarding victory points for ships destroyed,
not mass of ships destroyed.
Or you can require that for every capital ship you must have X cruisers
and/or Y escorts. So if half the fleet is made up of capital ships, you
would require the same number of cruisers. If you carry this all the way
through, you can even require that each capital ship requires one cruiser, and
each cruiser requires one escort. Change the ratio as per whatever type of
battle you want to play that day. A 1:2:3 ratio puts a lot of smaller and
medium size ships on the table. The Battle of Tsushima, as a
pre-dreadnought
historical example, was at a ratio of about 1:1:3 (or thereabouts; I can't
remember how many torpedo boats actually took place).
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Hopefully it'll be possible to balance weapons by changing the costs
alone - after all, that's the basis for a descriptive design system!
However, it's not that easy. You tend to end up with fairly large point
changes (which was why I started changing the masses instead). An
"A" battery should cost something like 6 +4/arc if it is to be balanced
against two "B" batteries - but then you haven't taken into account that
the two "B" are Mass 4, not Mass 3, so you have to add points for Hull (4
points), Thrust (varies) and probably FTL engines (2 points) to compensate.
All in all, the Mass 3 "A" "should" cost something like 12
+6/arc, to balance it against two Mass 2 "B"s.
Changing the "A" battery mass to 4 is much easier from the
game-designer's point of view :)
> > Not "screws up". It _improves_ the balance wrt other weapons. It
They're not. Yet, at least.
> > and the efficiency of one-shot or area weapons like Wave
True. It takes more work than I had time to when I wrote the previous post,
though:) Thanks for the input!
...
> > I don't think "longer games" = "Worse game balance", though...
The native English-speakers will undoubtedly correct me, but I've always
interpreted "screwed up" as something very similar to "gone straight to hell"
rather than simply "changed"...
> > If you do, I'll be very happy blasting you to pieces with long range
No. My designs usually have mid-range weapons, and I _am_ going
to notice that you don't fire back when I keep the range open (and against a
new opponent, I will be fairly cautious) so I keep keeping the
range open, and blast you to pieces:)
Of course, it depends on your maneuvers as well <g>
> We always play with limited intelligence.
Same here. The scanner rules from More Thrust are fun, though - Superior
scanners give you a fairly good idea of the enemy designs.
> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Hopefully it'll be possible to balance weapons by changing the costs
I'd prefer mass/space/whatever limitations on the side. I generally
don't like systems where you can just plunk down money (i.e. points) and get
anything, like a man-portable 16" cannon.
> The native English-speakers will undoubtedly correct me, but I've
Maybe I should have said "skewed" instead...
> No. My designs usually have mid-range weapons, and I _am_ going
Hmmm... that would work, because in FT no weapon is better at long range
than short.
One escort for each cruiser and one cruiser for each capital gives a
1:1:1
ratio. If you have two escorts for each cruiser and two cruisers for each
capital it gives a 4:2:1 ratio. The problem with ratios is it makes it harder
to fit a fleet within a tonnage or point limit (or to set such a limit). Not
impossible, just harder.
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?