On Tuesday, November 18, 1997 7:41 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> [SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] wrote:
(Whats this server using wet string, its 'chuckin' the data out at 59
bytes/sec
so I can only see half the picture in 15 minutes)
I use cm scale due to space restrictions and have never really found it a
problem. I don't agree it sucks. As the picci shows your table is a fair
size (is it a table tennis table?). I use micro-machines and FASA trek
ships so they average about 5cm on a 1.33m x 2m board.
Its probably only an issue with ships bigger than 12cm, as once you get within
12cm and max beam bashing takes place most ships aren't around that long,
except the big ones
There are various solutions to the rolling game issue of varying degrees of
suckyness:
o Restrict the playing bounds
o Restrict the maximum speed
o Use a virtual system (i know...)
o Make the units smaller (cm)
o Make the movement units smaller (cm) but keep the range units larger (in)
o Use a bigger playing area
o Use smaller models, starfleet elite etc.
o Use cardboard counters that stack
o Use a modular board so that you can move the next section of the track
without disturbing the main mass. Like the old SFB use of hex sheets.
o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad idea
sincerely
I use the cm scale, because you can fit more on your game board, and because
the metric system make a lot more sense than imperial.
Then again, in Australia we use the metric system for everything else so I
guess I may have a slight bias.
On an unbiased not I like the way FT refers to units, rather than inches
or cms. If you wanted to you could use 1/2 inches, or something that
appeal in principle.
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Tim Jones wrote:
> (Whats this server using wet string, its 'chuckin' the data out at 59
Dear Tim, I just checked the line from my office, and it manages
2.5kB/sec quite nicely. I know it's not a speed demon, but it's not
intolerably slow, and best of all it's mine. If your problem persists, I
suggest you check your connection to Finland in general.
> I use cm scale due to space restrictions and have never really found
Half a ping pong table actually... in fact, it's TOO BIG for many other
games. The problem with the cm scale is not solved by table size -- I
could have been playing on a football field but the ships would still have
clumped up.
> Its probably only an issue with ships bigger than 12cm, as
Since I didn't have anything that big on the table, you're telling me the
situation in the pictures didn't happen? I dreamed it all? Oh yes, that
must be it, a shared hallucination, probably induced by GW-summoned
demons, eh sorry, daemons, in order to discredit FT. Or maybe it's just me, we
all know that all real miniatures gamers can, and regularly do, balance 27
snotlings on a Thrud the Barbarian figure...
> There are various solutions to the rolling game issue of varying
I'm glad you agree these solutions all suck to some degree.
> o Restrict the playing bounds
Sounds lame. C'mon, a space game with *bounds*? Yet, it's one of the few I
think could really work.
> o Restrict the maximum speed
Likewise, but better PSB justification can be given.
> o Use a virtual system (i know...)
Are you talking about playing on a computer?
> o Make the units smaller (cm)
Results in ungainly clumps, as I've found out. Not always, but when
you have a proper fleet clash with 20+ ships per side it gets ugly, and
fast. Nevermind completely ridiculous when ships at the opposite edges of the
clump can't even get to short range because of intervening vessels. (This
happened in the picture)
> o Make the movement units smaller (cm) but keep the range units
Screws the game balance between movement and firing. Besides, wouldn't it
be easier to just cut everyone's thrust by 1/2 (yes I know it's not
exactly the same thing)?
> o Use a bigger playing area
Will you pay for my new house? I'd really like a heated garage as a hobby
room.
> o Use smaller models, starfleet elite etc.
As I said, I don't think you can get much smaller than SD fighters (or
the like) on 25mm hex/round bases.
> o Use cardboard counters that stack
Yuck... If I wanted a board game, I'd play a board game.
> o Use a modular board so that you can move the next section of
Hmmm... this might actually work... I'm just wondering how I could manage
that... the minis are very top heavy and tend to fall down easily.
> o Modify the collision rules to make clumping a bad
This actually might work, but it prolongs combats as people can't get within
short range safely. Also, you'll probably see an increase in deliberate and
"accidental" rams.
To further analyse the problems I've been having, here's a short recap:
Inches work great for shooting, but the table is too small for movement.
A fast ship trying to dictate the pace of the battle (as he rightly should) is
off the table in two turns flat. Then I have to move every single ship to get
that one back... and repeat the process every 2 turns
or so. Nevermind when you have two or more groups of fast ships, and they
simply don't fit on the same table anymore...
Cm works better for movement (the aforementioned happens only after
people start pushing 50+ speeds) but ships tend clump together for
firing. This is simple geometry -- the area falling under any given
range bracket is over 6 times smaller in cm scale, thus you can comfortably
fit only 6 times less ships within the desired firing distance. Weapons with
6cm short range get especially nasty.
Another argument against cm scale is that it's so bloody small. When we
play with inches, it's easy to give 1/4" or even 1/2" leeway in ship
placement, since those distances don't really matter. With cms, a similar
leeway is 5mm and under -- which in practice means measuring all
distances exact.
Also, the high speed give ridiculous "fly-by" results -- a ship starts
out of range from an opponent, flies right over it in one turn and ends out of
range without getting shot at...
With this in mind, I've come to the following conclusion:
Even though FT technically allows unlimited speeds, it's not really meant to
be played so. Unlimited speeds just sound so cool for a space game...
anyone disagreeing is welcome to play a test game with 100+ speeds and
report the outcome.
Thus a speed cap is in order. This might be a constant for all ships (e.g.
"c"), or depend on the ship (e.g. "hull vibration" and similar
PSB).
AND... the number of ships needs to be limited. Every time we had a major
clash of 20+ ships per side, things got ugly. This is kind of sad since
the FT is otherwise simple enough to handle largish fleets.