> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 3 per additional class."
> 5; there are occasional uses of size classes 4 and 6 as well, but
Really? I always felt that K1s were overpriced (in terms of mass), and
that K-guns in general really weren't worth the mass/cost until K3 and
especially larger, except for the diminishing returns at 6+ (because of
the limit on the doubling roll of a 6 is always a failure). I never liked the
FB2 KV ships with numbers of K1s, I always felt that
scatterguns make better dual-purpose secondaries, and replace all the
K1s with SGs if my opponent will allow (assuming we're using
pre-designed ships).
> In other words, "it" IS done with the open-ended K-gun sizes - not
But it is done with the mechanics of how the weapon operates, not with
the more artificial mass / class formula, which is more dependent on the
PSB in the background that you play. After all, this is supposed to be a
"generic" game, easily adaptable to any background.
> From FB2, pg 36, left column, "Plasma Bolt Launcher" Section, 14th
> need 26 Mass of equipment (1 PBL5 and 1 FCS), so there is a mild but
Really? I just re-read the Phalon section of FB2 and this is not
mentioned in either the PBL section or the FCS section.
> Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick
> might revise your opinion about the relative value of B2s and B4s
> the table). No wonder if you haven't found long-ranged weapons
> ago) was 80 x 120 mu; when I finally build a new one it'll probably be
> 100 x 200 mu or thereabouts.
Then there probably should have been a note made of this in FB1, that is
that the design system has a break point that depends on the size of the
playing area. This is fairly significant. Especially if design balances are
being made based on a small sampling that does not reflect the majority of
players.
Q: How many people play on an area this large? (as O.O.'s)
<snip>
> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
> *if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. Sure,
> it takes them a long time to whittle the enemy down... but if he can't
> reply, they usually have all the time they need.
Six feet, and none of our designs have less than T3. Most capital ships
(and ours are large compared to the FB designs) have T4 and escorts have T6.
> So you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10 ? ) table that:
Is this in 1 MU = 1" or 1 MU = 1 cm? The minis we use are to large for 1 MU =
1 cm.
> the ranges usually average 20-30 mu (including occasional short-range
> shooting). Short-range slugfests - multiple consecutive turns at range
> 12 or less, ie. where B1s and B2s have the biggest advantage over
> losses at longer ranges that when they finally manage to close the
> at this point in the battle, the minor firepower advantage the B2
Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or equal
Thrust and B3-B5 and the pursued force has a mix of all-B2 ships and
all-B3 ships (no SML, PBL) on a 4x6 scrolling table. In this case you
will find that the * pursuee * gets to dictate the pace of battle.
> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
Your previous posts about Cinematic vs. Vector made it clear that in your
opinion it would matter quite a bit.
> A) the only ship in either FB, except the SV, with T8 is the ESU
My point being that T8 is pretty expensive in terms of relative portion of the
hull and is an unusual feature among capital ships, or even large
escorts.
> B) the expected damage increases much faster with a K-gun (up to
> is the ratio between the expected damage per Mass at the range you're
You are assuming that the play area is large enough to allow this
continuously. Doesn't happen on a 4x6 table.
<snip average human design>
> Why are you wasting Mass on an Average hull? With those engines
Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table..."
How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)? LL made no stipulation, so it
should be relevant to the average, not just special cases. If the Human is the
pursuer (to quote LL: "kill or drive off"), the KV can force your human ship
off the table if he gets going too
fast, then continue on to blow up your in-system supply base.
> It is too fast for the FB2 KV to catch (their fastest ship is
> a thousand cuts, it has no other option than to withdraw. In my book
From LL's post, I took this to mean a single ship encounter between a custom
built FB BC size human ship and a similar FB2 or custom built KV ship (but
following the KV design philosophy, not a special purpose design) since most
of the FB2 KV are sub optimal designs to start with.
However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass 60,
238 points) into your star system to raid your infrastructure (using the
scenario I described in my previous post) against your proposed ship on a
scrolling, cinematic, 4x6 table with 1 MU =1".
J
On Friday, September 05, 2003 11:13 AM, Jared Hilal
[SMTP:jlhilal@yahoo.com]
wrote:
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass
Anyone able to program this into FTJava? I don't have the time for a manual
process duel at the moment.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Commonwealth policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Finally, please
do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware of these
restrictions.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> On Friday, September 05, 2003 11:13 AM, Jared Hilal
Ah... A challenge. I'll be happy to set it up. You'll have to provide me with
more details. I've been vaguely following the discussion thread.
We'll also have to get Jared set up with FTJava.
> But it is done with the mechanics of how the weapon operates, not
They are both equally artificial.
> Q: How many people play on an area this large ? (as O.O.'s)
sometimes I play on a 24x48 table (nut then I use 1cm = 1mu); usually I play
on the livingroom floor.
> >>> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
No--the tactics will vary but the end result won't.
> My point being that T8 is pretty expensive in terms of relative
So what? Nothing says it's an unusable combination.
> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)? LL made no
In space, there is no "off table", so that doesn't work.
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass
I personally wouldn't play that kind of game again--done it a few
times already, and it's boring. But if you can talk someone else into it, I'd
be interested to see how many turns it takes.
Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Pick one.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Commonwealth policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Finally, please
do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware of these
restrictions.
Rock
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Return to the Sulaco and nuke the site from orbit. Just to be sure.
: )
Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.
J
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 08:13 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or
> and all-B3 ships (no SML, PBL) on a 4x6 scrolling table. In this case
> you will find that the * pursuee * gets to dictate the pace of battle.
Do you mean the "purser" gets to dictate the pace of the battle. The side that
has the higher or equal thrust and the longer ranged weapons should usually be
the pace setter unless scenario conditions dictate otherwise.
> Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."
> cases. If the Human is the pursuer (to quote LL: "kill or drive
> too fast, then continue on to blow up your in-system supply base.
One thing that has to be addressed - there is no way a balanced point
system is going to true in all situations. The scenario setting, playing area
size, and whether the board is "floating" is going to make a huge difference.
If the area is 24 mu by 24 mu, B2's and B1's are much more effective than B3s
and higher, while on a larger playing surface this favor may switch to the B3s
and higher. A point system that can take this into account amost certainly
would need to change values as the game factors were known, something that is
not acceptable to a game system that is being kept simple on purpose (it also
invalidates the designs and/or information in the first fleet books
potentially, another bad thing). Trying to work out kinks in the system under
the constraints mentioned is a difficult task and you should see the
discussions that go on about this.
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass
I'd meet this change depending upon the conditions placed. Does the defender
get to meet the raider out part way from the resource, giving them time to dog
the attacker? Or does the raider surprise the defender at the planet? Each one
of these favors a different party.
Both are valid situations, unless your campaign/story lines say
otherwise due to technology or limits placed on space travel.
Sorry, that should have said "challenge" not change.
> I'd meet this change depending upon the conditions placed. Does the
> them time to dog the attacker? Or does the raider surprise the
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Brian B wrote:
> Rock
Hand grenade.
Sorry, did this have anything to do w/ FT? I'm only half-following the
current thread...
I'll pick: A10 Warthog.
Brian.
> --- "Robertson, Brendan"
> > --- "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
On Friday, September 05, 2003 3:00 PM, Brian Burger
> [SMTP:yh728@victoria.tc.ca] wrote:
Very subtle dig at the whole thread.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Commonwealth policy unless otherwise stated. 5. Finally, please
do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware of these
restrictions.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
[snip K-gun discussion]
> This is a deliberate feature of the K-guns, and it works to restrict
Really.
> I always felt that K1s were overpriced (in terms of mass),
Their big charm is 6 arcs and a limited PD capability. (Interesting that
you find them overpriced, BTW - I know at least two quite vocal
small-table
players who consider them *under*priced instead, and claim that they're by
far the most effective of all K-guns... something to do with how
difficult
it is to aim the single-arc guns properly IIRC.)
> I never liked the FB2 KV ships with numbers of K1s, I always felt that
That's nice. On a large table and using Cinematic movement, I'd *love* to
engage such a fleet with, say, a thrust-6 beam-armed cruiser squadron...
allows me to stay out of your (F) arc most of the time, and you won't get to
use your scatterguns until it is way too late <G>
More seriously though, for a dual-purpose weapon the 6 mu range of the
scattergun is rather limited - even on a small table.
> In other words, "it" IS done with the open-ended K-gun sizes - not
Nope. It is done by the interaction between the weapon's game mechanics and
its Mass/class formula; in that respect the K-guns are no different from
the beam batteries.
> The PBL *itself* increases linearly... but unlike virtually every
Yes, really. It is very easy to miss and should've been expressed much clearer
(and *will* be expressed much clearer whenever the next edition of
Full Thrust comes out - Any Decade Now), but it is there:
"Note that an operational fire-control system is required in order for a
Phalon ship to launch A PLASMA BOLT,..." [emphasis added].
If a single FCS had been sufficient to launch multiple plasma bolts in a
single turn it would've said "...to launch plasma BOLTS,..." instead.
> Ever tried playing on large tables, where the B4 is able to pick
> revise your opinion about the relative value of B2s and B4s :-/
> ago) was 80 x 120 mu; when I finally build a new one it'll probably be
> 100 x 200 mu or thereabouts.
<chuckle> If we were to include notes about how different gaming styles
affects the game balance, we'd need a 50-page book to cover all
variations.
Two observations here:
* Large-table tactics seem to work reasonably OK even on fairly small
tables (though 4x6 is border-line) as long as you know what you're
doing,
but so far I've never met any small-table players who has developed such
tactics. OTOH small-table tactics are often disastrous on larger tables,
since they tend not to account for the enemy's wider manoeuvre envelopes.
* In another post you said that your SDNs are usually much larger than those
in the Fleet Books. The Fleet Book ship design system has a bug which makes
large ships inherently more powerful than their own Mass in small ships (with
similar total armaments, hull integrities etc.) no matter what size your table
is and which movement system you're using, which means that whether or not
you're aware of it, your use of large SDNs means that you're exploiting this
bug. I must say that I find it rather amusing that you're complaining about a
feature which limits the use of certain weapons under certain conditions
(long-ranged beams on small tables in Cinematic movement), while you're
exploiting another bug which consistently underprices large ships compared
to small ones :-7
> This is fairly significant. Especially if design balances are being
And "the majority of players" is defined by... who? <g>
(That's another interesting thing, BTW - why is it that small-table
players are so certain that their table size is the "standard"? Over the years
I've 'talked' (both IRL and over the 'net) more players who say that they play
on large tables than players who claim to use small tables, yet the
small-table players are far more vocal that theirs is "the standard" way
of
playing...)
> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
with
> a scrolling table.
> *if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range. Sure,
72 mu, if you measure in inches. Even a B2 can cover two-thirds of that
unless it sits right on the table edge... 'course, if you set the ships up
in a way which reflects the most likely pre-battle manoeuvres which
would've taken place on a larger table a long-ranged ship would be able
to
use its long-range weapons quite effectively.
> and none of our designs have less than T3.
Side note: You are aware that a T3 (standard engine) ship can only make
1-point turns, aren't you? (Not all players are aware that FB1 changed
this
- T3 used to allow 2-pt turns in FT2 - which is why I'm asking.)
> you are saying that on a larger (5x8, 6x10 ? ) table that:
1 mu = 1 cm. I've used that scale even with my SpaceFleet Wars
"super-galactic dreadnoughts" though (they're around 8" long and 3-4"
wide, mounted on high enough stands that most of my other models can move
under them), so I can't really say that I have very much sympathy with your
complaints about miniature sizes <g>
> Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or
In this case you'd probably set the B2/B3 force up at one short end of
the table, facing towards the table edge, and the B5 force at the other short
end of the table facing the enemy.
However, a more realistic situation has the B5 force move up *beside* the
B2/B3 force (ie. set the forces up at the opposite short edges, but make
both of them face the same *long* table edge so they fly parallell to each
other)... try this one and see what happens <g> Keep in mind that if either
force leaves the table, it won't take very long before the B5 ship
re-engages under the same conditions as before (ie. flying parallell to
the
B2/B3 force).
As Laserlight said, it gives a rather boring battle (or series of battles)...
though "depressing" might be a better word than "boring" for
the B2/B3 player :-/
> The cost of a K gun doesn't increase the same way as beams, but
When you have twice the enemy's weapon range and a higher thrust rating to
boot, you can pick him apart from outside his range regardless of which
movement system you use. While the exact tactical manoeuvres used will vary
between the two movement systems, the end result in this case is the same. In
other words, "it doesn't matter".
> A) the only ship in either FB, except the SV, with T8 is the ESU
Your "A) the only ship ..." comment above was a counter-argument to
Laserlight's claims about what such a ship could do to Kra'Vak ships -
ie.,
you used it to "show" that the T8 B5-armed ship could not do what
Laserlight claimed it could, that is destroy KV ships.
Since it is completely irrelevant for this ship's capabilities whether it is
"unusual" or not, your point rather misses its intended target.
> B) the expected damage increases much faster with a K-gun (up to
A 4x6 table is a *really* good simulation of open space, isn't it? :-)
And
your standard set-ups are able to capture the pre-battle manoeuvres
which
would take place if the gaming area - like open space - was bigger,
don't
they? :-)
> On a large enough gaming table and given enough time, this ship can
Open space has table edges? I didn't know that :-)
> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?
5'x8' hasn't a problem when I've used it - at 80 x 96 mu it approaches
my
old table (80 x 120 mu) in size. 4'x6' is borderline; the "large-area"
tactics still work reasonably well as long as the table scrolls and the
set-up reflects what would've gone on before the ships reached the
table, but you have to be fairly careful about what you're doing.
As mentioned throughout this post it also depends on how you set the game
up, since the set-up on a small table essentially replaces the
out-of-range
manouevring that would've occurred on a larger table. Note that a set-up
which puts the long-range fencer in an impossible situation is
equivalent
to the fencer having screwed up the initial out-of-range manoeuvres
completely :-/
> From LL's post, I took this to mean a single ship encounter between a
A single-ship encounter would go faster, since the victim has fewer hull
boxes <shrug> I was thinking about a single fencer harrying a
fighter-less
KV squadron or fleet rather than a single KV ship.
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass 60,
> 238 points) into your star system to raid your infrastructure (using
How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start (ie. how far
can the table scroll before you reach your destination), and what happens when
you leave the table by moving too far away for the table to
scroll? (In 'real' space, as well as on a larger table, the ships would
re-engage pretty soon - within a game turn or two - so it's not as if
you get away permanently by leaving the table. Particularly not if you leave
in some other direction than the infrastructure you want to hit is located.)
Kind regards,
> Jon Davis wrote:
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> manual
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 08:13 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> of battle.
> should usually be the pace setter unless scenario conditions dictate
> surface this favor may switch to the B3s and higher.
On a 24x24, B1s are the most cost effective (3:2 compared to B2s with equal
arcs), while on a 48x48, B2s are best. On 4x6, 5x6, 5x8 and 6x8, B3s start to
be more useful.
> A point system that can take this into account almost certainly would
> kinks in the system under the constraints mentioned is a difficult
I would love to see discussions like that, but since I have been reading
this list, it has been:
Power Projection
Convention question/news
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ? Q: about rules Power Projection When is
Jon going to make mini XYZ? Look at this site from company ABC
Convention question/news
When is Jon going to make mini XYZ? When is Jon going to make mini XYZ? Power
Projection
Convention question/news
Answer to Q: about rules, maybe
Mr. Tuffley: Mini XYZ is now finished. People with pre-orders better
place orders
A Few: I got my pre-ordered XYZs and I am very happy
A Lot More: The XYZs are really neat, but I can't afford my pre-order,
so maybe next month/quarter/year
When is Jon going to make mini W? Power Projection When is Jon going to make
mini W?
And I don't feel like going through the archives to find the 0.01% that would
interest me.
> However, I would gladly take a single FB2 KV CL-equiv. Vo'Bok (mass
> them time to dog the attacker? Or does the raider surprise the
Resource is off-table. If the raider can get off the "in-system" short
edge of a scrolling table (i.e. more than a full table length between ships,
so that the table can't be scrolled to contain both vessels), then it is
presumed that the raider can destroy the target before the defender catches
him. Of course, if the defender is destroyed...
J
> I would love to see discussions like that, but since I have been
which has been how long?
> Laserlight wrote:
> I would love to see discussions like that, but since I have been
May
J
> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:26 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> One thing that has to be addressed - there is no way a balanced point
> system is going to true in all situations. The scenario setting,
> are much more effective than B3s and higher, while on a larger
True to some extent. On a larger board, with the costs system currently, B1s
and B2s still may be worth their costs (or at least
close to it) depending upon tactics and other ship design/system issues.
> A point system that can take this into account almost certainly would
> need to change values as the game factors were known, something that
<snip>
Understood. Sometimes I wish some of us could discuss more on this list, but
being part of various playtest groups we are bound not to disclose specifics
of ideas under consideration, development, and testing. It's for the best
since we throw out a lot of ideas to see which have merit and thus lots of
changes happen midstream.
> And I don't feel like going through the archives to find the 0.01%
This I can sympathize with.
> I'd meet this change depending upon the conditions placed. Does the
I'll definitely take the raider (higher speed and weapon range of 25%
or greater - maybe less) unless the table size is less than 60 MUs in
length or width. It's a fairly easy battle to win for the raider. Using B4s,
the raider matches the KVs spees and direction (or closely so), staying about
44 inches out. This is enough distance to avoid being surprised by a KV ship's
sudden acceleration towards you (assuming it has T6A). Just shoot away with.
If the KV ship slows
down, so does the raider - with the speed advantage, with proper
planning and no mistakes, the raider should be able to stay at a range of
between 32 and 58 MUs if it has at least a 2 drive advantage and there are no
other mitigating factors (fighters, terrain, board limits smaller than this
range).
The reasoning for the 60 inches is you artificially constrain part of the
movement advantage any "dancing" ship has if the enemies weapons
reach over 1/2 of the length of the board playing area IMO.
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Jared Hilal wrote:
> Laserlight wrote:
May 2003, I assume?
The list has been relatively quiet since early 2003; a number of our more
regular & interesting posters are off in Iraq & other warm places fighting
Shrub's Crusades.
Plus, GZG hasn't done a major release since before your start date...
Brian B said:
> Shrub's Crusades.
No flames in any direction, please.
> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Laserlight wrote:
> Brian B said:
Here, here!
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> variations.
> manoeuvre envelopes.
> those in the Fleet Books. The Fleet Book ship design system has a bug
> large SDNs means that you're exploiting this bug.
> a feature which limits the use of certain weapons under certain
> tables, yet the small-table players are far more vocal that theirs is
From FULL THRUST, pg. 3, right hand column, "Units of Distance" section:
"Throughout these rules we have used inches as the basic unit of
measurement, as this seems to work best on an AVERAGE-SIZED TABLE (say
around 4' x 6' or a bit larger). if you wish to use an area that is
significantly smaller or larger than this, then simply change the unit of
measurement:... try using units of 3" (or perhaps 10cm) if playing
on a large floor area..."
Additionally, the section on "An important Note on Measurements" (FB2, pg. 2)
implies a continued view of 4x6 as standard, but suggests the use
of 1 MU = 1cm for "...high speeds and lots of manoeuvering (sic)
room..."
> Usually one side has a mission e.g.:
> - *if* the table is large enough to allow them to use their range.
> ships up in a way which reflects the most likely pre-battle manoeuvres
> which would've taken place on a larger table a long-ranged ship would
Yes I am. In fact I was the one who pointed out to * you * your questionable
example of FB2 vector ships using 2 out of 3 thrust points for maneuvering.:)
> Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or
> of battle.
> the table, facing towards the table edge, and the B5 force at the
Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section right
above the quoted section about scenario objectives.
Our "converging parallel" courses ar usually set up in adjacent corners of the
short end of a 4x6 table, moving towards the other short end.
> However, a more realistic situation has the B5 force move up *beside*
> in mind that if either force leaves the table, it won't take very long
> before the B5 ship re-engages under the same conditions as before (ie.
> flying parallell to the B2/B3 force).
We have never tried that. Thank you. Adjacent corners of the long table edge
will be the initial condition in our next battle.
I have noticed that it takes about 4-6 posts of wrangling before a
significant suggestion or point comes up. Is this a coincidence, or
intentional? This would have been a lot more useful if you had pointed this
out when I first, explicitly listed our standard setups.
> Key phrase: "On a large enough gaming table . . ."
No, buy my kitchen table does (and coincidentally, my gaming area has
edges that are only about 1-2 feet longer in either direction.
> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?
do you mean 60 x 96?
> it approaches my old table (80 x 120 mu) in size. 4'x6' is borderline;
> the "large-area" tactics still work reasonably well as long as the
> ships reached the table, but you have to be fairly careful about what
<snip>
> How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start (ie.
> how far can the table scroll before you reach your destination), and
The destination is normally an infinite distance away (i.e. the table can
scroll as much as needed) but if one side leaves the table in such a
way that the table cannot be scrolled to accomodate it, then it is considered
to have disengaged from the battle and leaves the area.
As I said, I am going to try your suggestion to begin with the two forces
separated by the long table edge, rather than the short one.
J
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:26 PM, Jared Hilal wrote:
> equal arcs), while on a 48x48, B2s are best. On 4x6, 5x6, 5x8 and
Yes. I agree.
> A point system that can take this into account almost certainly
> simple on purpose (it also invalidates the designs and/or
I understand that, but when someone like me (not in the PT group) asks a
question or makes a statement that was covered in that context, I would much
rather have an answer of one of the following:
A) "We are aware of the problem and are talking about it in the playtest
group. If you have any ideas we would like to hear them. Mr.Tuffley will
decide how much information to release (or not) at this time."
B) "That was discussed during playtesting for Book ABC and we decided on
solution X, as published, because playtesting revealed Y and Z (or compromise
between problem P and problem Q). Some people like house rules J, K or L."
C) "That has already been discussed on this list (2,3,4, etc.) years ago
and we came to consensus B because of X, Y and Z"
D) "That has already been discussed (2,3,4, etc.) years ago and we agree
to disagree because of X, Y and Z. Various options are A, B and C"
E) "If you try small change X in the way you set up (or in your victory
conditions, etc.), the problem goes away (or is reduced to Y)"
F) "Problem A only exists if you play X.. If, instead, you play Y, then there
is Problem B. Published rule PQR is a compromise between A & B because of Z"
Instead, it came across as:
A) "This has been discussed in the playtest group for Book ABC, but we aren't
going to say what was said or why the decision was made as it was. We decided
X. Accept it"
B) "A few of us play differently than what was put forward in the books as the
basic assumptions for the game such that it greatly affects the flow of the
game and we got the rules changed to reflect our way of play, but no mention
was made in the new rules of the new situation. You should change the way you
play to match ours"
C) "X is the way it works best." (no information given on why, conditions of
play, previous discussions, or restrictions to the playtest group).
D) "You didn't listen to our discussion (2,3,4 etc.) years ago." (no further
information given)
> And I don't feel like going through the archives to find the 0.01%
> of between 32 and 58 MUs if it has at least a 2 drive advantage and
> smaller than this range).
I now understand the reasoning behind OO's little ship.
You are the first person in more than a dozen posts on the subject to
explicitly state the reasons and limitations behind the tactics without
assuming that everyone does (or should) play the way you do. You simply
said "it works in this situation because X, subject to condition Y". (this is
a compliment to you)
You are also the only one who actually answered the question as if you read my
explicit description of how my group sets up and pointed out (perhaps
indirectly) the differences.
Mr.Ohlson has given me some information and changes to try, but I think
it was accidental because they came up 3 or 4 post exchanges after the
important part was first discussed, was said in passing, seemed that Mr.
O did not see them as being specifically relevant and I made the connection to
a different topic myself (e.g. "set up in adjacent long edge corners rather
than adjacent short edge corners", or "vector problems predate FB2 changes")
Thank you.
J
> Brian Burger wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Jared Hilal wrote:
Yes.
> The list has been relatively quiet since early 2003;
I consider 50-100 posts per week to be active. It isn't the 1000 posts
a day of the B5 newsgroup when the show was in first run, but it's still
good.
Perhaps you meant that on topics directly related to the
game/rules/options it has been quiet.
> Plus, GZG hasn't done a major release since before your start date...
FB2 was in 2000, and it took 6 months for it to show up at one of the
local stores (via geo-hex). PP was earlier this year (2003), but is,
IMO, aimed at a smaller segment of the customer base, rather than BDS, SG2.5,
DS2.5, FT3, FB3, etc. Aside from miniatures, that's a long time between
releases.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> And "the majority of players" is defined by... who? <g>
section:
> "Throughout these rules we have used inches as the basic unit of
<chuckle>
You may want to consider that this quote comes from the FT2 rule book, which
was published in 1992. That's eleven years ago, and it hasn't been
updated since. By that time Jon had no idea how big a success Full Thrust
would be, or what table sizes people would use to play it. You should also
consider that the largest beam weapon available in basic FT2 was the "A"
battery, which had a max range of 36 mu - ie., corresponding to the
current
Class-3 battery.
Fleet Book 1 was published in 1998. By that time we had a better idea of
what table sizes people were actually using, and because we did we wrote
that the FB1 ship design system accordingly.
> if you wish to use an area that is significantly smaller or larger than
> this, then simply change the unit of measurement: . . . try using units
Hm? The only thing in that section which implies anything about any assumed
standard is that 1" is considered to be the standard length of 1 mu.
> but suggests the use of 1 MU = 1cm for "...high speeds and lots of
"...on your normal size of table." is the continuation of that sentence.
Note "YOUR normal size", not "THE normal size". No implication that
4'x6'
is the "standard" here.
(In fact, since I was one of those who made Jon put this section into FB2 this
particular sentence refers in no small part to my own old gaming table
- which was a mere 2'8" x 4' in size :-/ 2'8" x 4' is ~ 80 x 120 cm,
which
allows plenty of high-speed manoeuvres since I measure in cm. That's the
very reason why I started to measure in cm in the first place :-/ )
> Side note: You are aware that a T3 (standard engine) ship can only
> this - T3 used to allow 2-pt turns in FT2 - which is why I'm asking.)
> for maneuvering. :)
That's right, you did. Of course, since FB2 *vector* allows you to use your
entire main drive rating for rotations and pushes, my example was perfectly
correct :-)
(If you read the second FB2 vector example carefully, you'll note that it
describes a thrust-4 ship making 2 rotations, 1 side thruster burn, and
a
1-pt MD burn.)
> Try a Cinematic pursuit battle where the pursuer has the higher or
> the table, facing towards the table edge, and the B5 force at the
> above the quoted section about scenario objectives.
Those scenario set-ups all looked as if the two sides were facing more
or
less towards one another, which made them rather odd-looking for a
pursuit situation.
> However, a more realistic situation has the B5 force move up *beside*
It is mostly because many of us have already gone through this debate at
least 3-4 times and often more over the past several years. (Eg., I've
been on this list and its predecessor for close to ten years now.) In several
cases, I at least honestly didn't realize that you hadn't already seen it
before.
Now that we know that you've only been on the list for a few months, and
haven't yet figured out how to use the search tools in the archive to find the
older discussions which might interest you, then we could try harder to
explain things to you from the start. But then again, since you only seem to
consider what we're trying to tell you to be "sputtering, spurious, sarcastic
straw man arguments", why should we really bother?
> How about on an average table (i.e. 4x6 or 5x8)?
Yes, sorry. Typo :-( Big enough to use high-speed tactics on, anyway; in
particular it is wide enough that a B2 can't reach from one long edge to
the other.
> How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start (ie.
> how far can the table scroll before you reach your destination), and
In that case the T8B5 has an infinite amount of time in which to
re-engage
your KV raider if either ship leaves the table - unless of course your
raider goes FTL and leaves the system completely, but that means conceding
defeat. IOW, if you want a realistic assessment of what the T8B5 can do you
probably need to reconsider the "if a ship leaves the table it disengages"
rule :-/
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> You may want to consider that this quote comes from the FT2 rule book,
> which was published in 1992. That's eleven years ago, and it hasn't
> You should also consider that the largest beam weapon available in
Then I would have suggested adding something like:
"Although a 4'x6' area is workable, we have found that the game, especially
with the new design system, plays better with a larger maneuver area. We
suggest either using 1 MU = 1 cm on 4'x6' or an area larger than 4'x6' if
using 1 MU = 1". In the latter case, at least 60
[or 70 or whatever] MU in each direction is recommended."
> "...on your normal size of table." is the continuation of that
But without explicitly stating a change, a reader can presume a continuation
of the previous conditions.
> Of course, since FB2 *vector* allows you to use your entire main drive
> rating for rotations and pushes, my example was perfectly correct :-)
> it describes a thrust-4 ship making 2 rotations, 1 side thruster burn,
> and a 1-pt MD burn.)
Since my group does not play vector, I had not noticed.
However, I would point out that no matter what the * intentions * were, what
is actually written does not state that maneuver can consume the ship's entire
thrust allotment (although it can be read that way if one wishes because it
does not limit it either). Since this is a deviation from prior FT traditions,
I would have continued with the "standard
drives get 1/2 thrust for maneuvering" limitation common to both
cinematic and FB1 vector without your making this point to me. Has Mr.Tuffley
ever made a statement about it, or is this just common
interpretation from the list members/playtesters?
> Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section
> or less towards one another, which made them rather odd-looking for a
One was ambush of a group in the center of table. One was perpendicular
courses entering from adjacent sides One was parallel courses entering from
adjacent corners.
And I also said "we specifically avoid 'line up your minis and joust'
type of set-ups".
Which one did you think was "facing more or less towards one another"
> I have noticed that it takes about 4-6 posts of wrangling before a
assumptions.
> Now that we know that you've only been on the list for a few months,
> to find the older discussions which might interest you, then we could
Actually, that statement was about Mr.Laserlight alone.
I have elsewhere stated that several posts have been helpful and/or
informative. I have done this specifically in response to each and every such
item.
In particular, Mr.West, Mr.Walker, and (I think accidentally, but with
good intentions) yourself, Mr.Ohlson.
However, all of Mr. Laserlight's post have been condescending and/or
patronizing, without actually giving any information, ideas, or assistance. He
also uses extreme examples (like a "1 MU x 2 MU table"),
which are neither helpful nor further an understanding of any point being
made.
> Yes, sorry. Typo :-( Big enough to use high-speed tactics on, anyway;
I presume that you mean that a ship with B2s in the center of the (5'x8', 1" =
1 MU) table does not cover the entire short distance from edge to edge with a
360 degree weapon?
> How far from the infrastructure in question does the battle start
As in "infinite" = "undefined"
< snip >
> IOW, if you want a realistic assessment of what the T8B5 can do you
Do you have any suggestions on how to determine when, where and how the
ship re-enters the play area? I would like to hear how you handle this
situation, because i expect that even on your 80x120 MU area you have
encountered such a situation.
J
> However, all of Laserlight's post have been condescending and/or
It sounds as if you completely misinterpreted my tone, then, in which case I
understand why you're irritated. (I'll point out that several of my posts
agreed with you).
> He also uses extreme examples (like a "1 MU x 2 MU table"),
To make a point, yes, which was that the scenario was not valid for
"any" conditions--but that it was valid for "reasonable" conditions.
It's always hard to tell how much one has to make explicit and how much can be
left for the reader to pick up, and I tend to err on the side of the latter.
(yes, I know "reasonable" is open to
interpretation--<grin> "reasonable" mean "agrees with me").
I'll also say that I understand why you have concerns about the way changes
are made, so I'll go ahead and answer here with my own understanding: In the
rule books, there is limited room, thus tough choices to make. Do we put in
"Designer's Notes" for everything? If so, we have to leave *something* out and
that means you're getting less for your money (ie fewer fleets, fewer ship
designs, or fewer new systems). Now, a Designer's Notes web page might fly...
if we can find someone to write it, HTML it and host it.
As for the Playtest List, we know, for example, how we're planning to handle
the issue you raised about extra fire arcs and Advanced Drives being
overpriced. But: a) we could be wrong! We don't want to have the "solution of
the month" and then come back and say "ah, now that you've incorporated the
changes and designed your ships and gotten used to playing that way...we found
out that it doesn't work." (it happens enough
anyway--the SV from FB2 need to be fixed, for instance, and the FB1
vector rules had a loophole that had to be patched in FB2). b) we want fresh
ideas! We don't want to say "this is the way it's going to be" and explicitly
or implicitly quash other people's
creativity--maybe someone will come up with an elegant solution that
the playtest list hadn't thought of. c) it's a condition for membership on the
test list that one not discuss test proposals on the main list. So when the
Test List members don't explain something, it's not because we're all curt
heartless evil SOBs (<grin> none of the rest of
them are--just me...).
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 05:21:56PM -0500, Jared Hilal wrote:
> What's FTJava?
http://home.nycap.rr.com/davisje/ftjava/
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Fleet Book 1 was published in 1998. By that time we had a better idea
Something like that will most likely go into FT3, yes. As and when it is
finally published, that is <sigh>
> Of course, since FB2 *vector* allows you to use your entire main drive
> rating for rotations and pushes, my example was perfectly correct :-)
Which makes your critizism of this particular example look a bit
over-hasty, doesn't it...
> However, I would point out that no matter what the * intentions * were,
> what is actually written does not state that maneuver can consume the
Space was at a premium, and it was felt that the example following immediately
after the rule (together with the paragraph about the difference between
Advanced and Standard drives in FB2 Vector being the legal direction of an MD
burn, implying "instead of the difference in thrust available for
manoeuvring") would make the intention clear to the
players. Appearently we were wrong in your group's case; sorry about that.
> Actually, I explained our standard set-ups in the snipped section
type
> of set-ups".
All of them.
If both forces *enter* the table on perpendicular courses their courses have
to be converging (unless your table has a very strange shape), thus
the forces are "facing more or less towards one another". They're certainly
not moving (and, since you play Cinematic, facing) *away* from one another at
the start of the battle.
The word "ambush" strongly suggests that the force being ambushed is not
moving away from its attackers, nor that the attackers are moving away from
the ambushed party. (They might all be stationary, but in that case the
ambushees have unknowingly stopped right in the ambush area which doesn't seem
all that likely.)
Finally your description of the "parallell" courses scenario, combined with
the statement that ships which move so far off the table that it can't be
scrolled without at least some ships leaving it means that the ones that
leave have "disengaged", also implies that the forces move on converging
courses rather than "parallell" ones. Otherwise you wouldn't have a battle,
after all - unless of course one or both sides have weapons which can
reach clean across the table, but that means using B4s or larger batteries and
your previous posts had implied that your group doesn't use such weapons much.
(Note that "facing more or less towards one another" does not mean "on
directly opposing courses". It only means "on converging courses", as opposed
to a classic pursuit situation where both forces move at roughly
the same course one in front of the other.)
> I have noticed that it takes about 4-6 posts of wrangling before a
> been on this list and its predecessor for close to ten years now.) In
Yes, assumptions. At least I assumed that you had more FT experience than you
now appear to have, and therefore would understand more of our explanations
than you appear to have done. Because of that I left out details which I
considered to be either obvious or beside the exact point under discussion, in
a vain attempt to keep the length of these posts down at least somewhat. For
that I apologize; now I know better. I've discussed this in more detail in
another post today.
> Now that we know that you've only been on the list for a few months,
> harder to explain things to you from the start. But then again, since
> spurious, sarcastic straw man arguments", why should we really bother?
Whatever you say. The rest of us you seem to accuse of giving you answers
only by accident and/or after long delays, or you come up with
explanations based on an occasionally limited understanding of the rule
interactions involved (see my other post today) to tell us why the answers we
give you are wrong. Considering that we're doing our best to answer your
questions, I must say that I don't find that response of yours to be very much
better than what you told Laserlight.
> Yes, sorry. Typo :-( Big enough to use high-speed tactics on, anyway;
in
> particular it is wide enough that a B2 can't reach from one long edge
A 180-degree weapon is sufficient if it is oriented in the right
direction.
(B2s, of course, never come with less than an 180-degree fire arc.)
[On the raider-vs-T8B5 scenario]
> The destination is normally an infinite distance away
> ship re-enters the play area?
Simply repeat the set-up process. On a large enough table it will
usually
not take more than 2-3 turns before the T8B5 is back in position (unless
the raider it is harrying changes course completely and starts moving *away*
from the infrastructure it is supposed to be raiding in which case it can take
a bit longer for the T8B5 to catch up). Unless the
infrastructure target is at a more-or-less defined and fairly short
distance - within a few table-lengths, give or take some depending on
the
velocity the ships move at - the T8B5 will be able to catch up before
the raider can hit its intended target.
> I would like to hear how you handle this situation, because i expect
I have, but it doesn't happen very often even in larger battles and it is
quite rare in two-ship duels. The extra table size usually allows the
pursuer side in this kind of battles one turn in which to react (ie., change
course to follow the enemy) before the pursuee can leave the table by turning
aside.
Regards,
Yeah, my first inclination was a smartass answer too, but I thought I'd play
along and see where the poster of the question was going with this.....
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote: