Hi. I know many of you will hate this, just thought I'd throw it out, anyway.
I want to build up in playing Full Thrust. I've started with really basic
ships, no missiles, no fighters. I'll add stuff as I go on, I guess. There are
a lot of wasted points and mass on ships, even small ones, because of PDAF,
which is irrelevant in the games I intend to play for a while.
What do you think about, for a simpler version of the game, just equating C
batteries and PDAF? You can only use them for one or the other in a turn,
though. Maybe ADAF can be used for Cs, but not vice versa.
I know, I could just ignore the wasted space and points until I get up to
using them. I just didn't want to fool with them. I wanted to design a bit,
but I'll either have to put them in, knowing that they don't do anything, or
give my wife (who would choose ships from the standard list--
she'll play, but not design ships) some extra points to make up for me not
wanting to put them in ships that won't use them.
> Andy Skinner writes:
@:) What do you think about, for a simpler version of the game, just @:)
equating C batteries and PDAF?
@:) I wanted to design a bit, but I'll either have to put them in, @:) knowing
that they don't do anything, or give my wife (who would
@:) choose ships from the standard list-- she'll play, but not design
@:) ships) some extra points to make up for me not wanting to put them @:) in
ships that won't use them.
Why not design some ships for your wife? Anyway, PDAFs are easy to replace
with C batteries because they have the same weight but you'll be harder
pressed to find something to do with the ADAFs. I don't think replacing them
with A batteries will preserve the characteristics the designer intended the
ship to have. On the other
hand, it might add more violence and chaos to the game - always a
positive option.
Following this thread, it remains me an anti-fighter weapon that
is used in Wing Commander 2. The flak gun (I don't remember the name exactly,
but something to that affect.) This is how I conceive it worked The flak gun
shoot out small explosives all around the capital ship, the
small explosives wouldn't able to penetrate the ship's own shield, but it will
knock the fighter's shield down. Convert this to FT is something like this..
flak gun mass: 5? It function as a PDAF, but it will knock every fighter
groups within 6' of the ship which carry this weapon.
Suggestion? Correction?:)
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
Andy wrote,
> What do you think about, for a simpler version of the game,
If I understand you, you want to use the standard designs, but you play
without fighters and missiles and whatnot so the *DAFs are wasted?
Well, PDAFs take up the same mass as a C-bat and cost about the same
(depending on # of arcs), so for simplicity you could just "pretend" that
they're all C-bats, and the ADAFs are all B-bats. Whatever works for
you.
> What do you think about, for a simpler version of the game,
Yes. The part that I thought people wouldn't like may not have been stated
explicitly: Even when I add fighters and missiles, I might just leave out
PDAFs and let C batteries do either thing (but not both in one turn).
But whether people like it or not, there does seem to be a pretty good amount
of tolerance on this list.
Andy wrote,
> >> What do you think about, for a simpler version of the game,
Well...*I* wouldn't do it, I think both fighers and missiles are deadly enough
without downgrading your defenses. But that's me. Give it a shot. If you don't
like it, you can always switch back. I'd think twice, though,
before bringing a *DAF-less fleet to a tournament or anything. :-)
> But whether people like it or not, there does seem to be a pretty
Hey, it's not like any of *us* have changed the rules around any, right?
;-)
In message <970226171542_1779474670@emout18.mail.aol.com>
> FieldScott@aol.com writes:
The way I read what Andy is writing, is that he would drop PDAFs from
the game, and allow C-batteries to act *exactly* as a PDAF. None of
that "only on a 6" rubbish, but your actual full-blown 4's-5's-2-kills-
for-a-6 PDAF gubbins.
I can see the appeal.
I might even suggest taking it further. Much like your (Scott's) "needle
firecons" (directing standard batteries like needle beams), one
could have an "area defence firecon" that could direct one's C-
batteries against fighter groups exactly like ADAF's.
Dave quoting Scott quoting me:
> > Yes. The part that I thought people wouldn't like may not have
just
> > leave out PDAFs and let C batteries do either thing (but not both
in
> > one turn).
Yes, that's what I meant, plus that you couldn't use the C for both in one
turn.
> I might even suggest taking it further. Much like your (Scott's)
I like that. I wasn't quite sure what to do with ADAFs, and I think that fits
in with what I was saying.
> At 09:12 27/02/97 EST, you wrote:
> been
> just
> in
> shot. If
========================================================================
====
===========
There is no need to kill off PDAF's or ADAF's!!!
First: A PDAT can kill more fighter per attack than a 'C' beam.
Second: A PDAT or ADAF does NOT require a working Fire control to fire against
fighters. ( Thay are to import for this job as thay are needed to direct the
attack against oher ships.)
Thirdly: A ADAF can attack any fighter group attacking any ship within 6
inches of the ship fitted with the system. Any one who has played againts me
would have come up againsy my escorts fitted with ADAF's and little else,
correctly placed thay can provide fighter cover for 3 or 4 capital or cruiser
units, so that a group of fighter may well find them selves under the combined
fire of 12 plus ADAF's, the normal result being that on average 8 fighter are
killed a turn. Note this is BEFORE using the target ships own PDAT's. The
result under the fighter moral rules is that thay DO NOT attack. There fore
ADAF are vital cover against fighters. Please no not remove!!
Graham defends PDAFs and ADAFs:
> Please no not remove!!
Don't worry. We were talking about how it would work as a house rule. I
promise not to show up at anybody else's
games and make you play that way. :-)