Call for Players- New FT

RE>Call for Players: New FT Game Starting
19/6/96

Damn the torpedos! Full steam ahead!!!!

Count me in!!

Re: Sensors, perhaps the Japanese fleet could be given this advantage in
place of their gunnery co-ordination spotters etc.

Steve Kerr

--------------------------------------
Date: 19/6/96 4:23 AM
To: Stephen Kerr
From: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Hi, gang. I've been working on an idea for a PBEM FT game for later this year
and I'm wondering if any of you are interested.

The game is set in a universe I call "The Age of Iridium". I got the idea from
the "Hornblower" thread a couple of months back. The ships and
background are loosely based on the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 in the
pre-dreadnought era (the Age of Iron). It will be a fairly large
engagement
with each player controlling 2 - 3 capital ships, or 3 - 5 cruisers, or
4 -
6 destroyers. The "Imperial Tsarist" fleet will be attempting to break a
blockade by the "Nipponese" fleet. If everyone enjoys the battle, a second
game can be played based on the Tsarists linking up with their blockaded
fleet, with a Nipponese fleet in the middle.

As in Ludo's PBEM game, there will be jump points. However, jump points in my
game are formed only in the corona of binary star systems. Ships jump out of a
system by diving for the jump point within the star, while they maintain their
entry velocity on the other side of the jump point. This is good, since a
portion of the battlefield will contain the star's corona, doing an automatic
1 point of damage to each ship within the corona at the end of a turn. Most of
the battlefield will be outside of the star, though there will also be a
hotter zone on the board edge that does 2 points of damage per turn. This
should make for an interesting tactical environment.

I'm trying out one optional rule: ships WILL be able to fire in the rear arc.
I agree with the design team of FT as to the reasons for preventing fire into
a rear arc (mostly, that it increases the tactics needed for the
game). This is necessary in a game that allows players free-reign when
designing ships. To make a rear arc playable, I've designed the ships along
the lines of pre-dreadnoughts, with forward and rear turrets and
secondary batteries that have at most two firing arcs (and often only one).
This should make for a unique FT tactical excercise that will mirror
pre-dreadnought combat. I intend to publish my "Age of Iridium" design
rules on this list after they've been tested in the game.

The ships are built around weapons from the main FT rules, but I'll be using
some of the More Thrust optional rules (mostly damage control and striking the
colours). I was just going to stick with basic sensor rules, unless I hear
requests to use the more advanced MT sensor rules.

Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you are interested in playing. I can
accomodate anything from 4 to 12 players. So far I have 4 berths confirmed,
with another berth probable and a 6th berth possible. I thought I'd extend the
invitation to the FT mailing list in general.

I'm planning to start the game sometime between August 19 and September
9.
This is lots of advance notice, as I want to code a database system for
maintaining and running the game. Also, we're just entering prime vacation
time. The universe background and ships will be sent out a week or two ahead
of time.

This should be an interesting battle, and it's likely to be a bit different
from any other FT game you've played.

Allan

Allan Goodall: agoodall@sympatico.ca "The secret rules of engagement are hard
to endorse, When the appearance of conflict meets the appearance of force."
     - The Tragically Hip

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by regate.dpie.gov.au with SMTP;19 Jun 1996 04:18:20 +1000
Received: from stromlo.dpie.gov.au (ext-ns.dpie.gov.au [152.91.75.1]) by
conargo.dpie.gov.au with ESMTP id EAA23512
  (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for <stephen_kerr@REGATE.DPIE.GOV.AU>); Wed, 19 Jun
1996 04:14:37 +1000
X-Notice: Views expressed by this message are not necessarily those of
the Department of Primary Industries and Energy or of the Government of the
Commonwealth of Australia. Received: (from uucp@localhost) by
stromlo.dpie.gov.au id EAA19535
  (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for <stephen_kerr@REGATE.DPIE.GOV.AU>); Wed, 19 Jun
1996 04:13:56 +1000
Received: from basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk(193.63.48.5) by stromlo via smap
(V1.3)
id sma019528; Wed Jun 19 04:13:48 1996
X-ListName: Full Thrust Combat Game Mailing list <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk
Sender: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk
Received: from smtp1.sympatico.ca by basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk (MX V4.2 VAX) with
          SMTP; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:35:17 +0100
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp1333.on.sympatico.ca [206.172.225.181]) by
          smtp1.sympatico.ca (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA13048 for
          <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:34:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:34:58 -0400
Message-ID: <199606181734.NAA13048@smtp1.sympatico.ca>

> At 09:25 AM 6/19/96 +1000, you wrote:

Hey, good thinking! It will take up some extra space on the Nipponese ships,
so I'll have to think about it. I love reading about the Battle of Tsushima,
and how the Russian admiral refused to allow his ships to do gunnery practice
with live rounds...

> Hey, good thinking! It will take up some extra space on the Nipponese

Actually, the journey from Europe of not merely the 'First Line' Russian
Fleet, but the 'Self-Sinkers' of the Black Sea dregs was an absolutely
epic achievement. IMHO the greatest strategic feat ever in Naval Warfare.

Too bad about the end game though... For Strategy, 10/10. Tactics....
maybe

> At 10:26 PM 6/20/96 +1000, you wrote:
->Actually, the journey from Europe of not merely the 'First Line'
Russian
> Fleet, but the 'Self-Sinkers' of the Black Sea dregs was an absolutely
maybe
> 4, with Morale 2. Unfortunately their opponents scored about 7 and 10

Not sure I'd give him a 10 for strategy. Attacking those two British fishing
boats was bad enough, but they compounded it by refusing to apologize to
Britain. The resulting mess closed a lot of neutral ports that would have gone
a fair way to lifting morale. On the other hand, just moving the entire fleet
from one hemisphere to another was quite an achievement.

> Not sure I'd give him a 10 for strategy. Attacking those two British

In 1980, Secret Cabinet documents released after the 75-year review were
quietly made public.

Two Japanese Torpedo boat tenders and a dozen or so Torpedo boats made an
unsuccessful attack at that time. This was known to the British. From what I
can recall, an even less successful attack was made off Suez on a small party
of Russian vessels later, by a different group.

The Brits ACCURATELY realised in 1980 that no-one except a few military
historians would care about the Dogger Bank Incident. It was a one-liner
on page 150 of the few papers that carried it. But it IS there, in the public
libraries.

I speculate that the Russians were completely sure that they had been
attacked, and were completely sure the Brits knew about it (how could they
not?). Yet could not prove it. An attempt to do so might just be enough to
make it a Causus Belli... or the threat to reveal such a proof might be the
reason why the Brits didn't strike at France's Ally. But I guess I'll have
to wait till 2005, when the next review of 1905's MOST SECRET - CABINET
IN CONFIDENCE materiel occurs.

-------------------------      <> <>   How doth the little Crocodile