I have just got hold of the new David Weber collection 'More Than Honor'
(Details below). A lucky find in the one Belfast bookshop that caries many US
imports. Though set in the Honor Harrington universe it does not feature her.
Of interest to us is an essay by Weber on the setting for the HH books which
contains a lot of information on how his starships work. It set me wondering,
how would you reflect technology differences in Full Thrust? For example the
Manticorian navy relies on its technological edge and more importantly its
vastly superior crew quality
to balance it against the far more numerous Peeps. Limiting weapon selection
and maybe degrading range for some weapons seems the only easy way to do it.
The system is not really fine grained enough for anything more. Crew quality
is more difficult, any suggestions?
The books details: More Than Honor David Weber Bean Books 1998
0-671-87857-3
$5.99
> Though set in the Honor Harrington universe it does not feature her. Of
> interest to us is an essay by Weber on the setting for the HH books
> enough for anything more. Crew quality is more difficult, any
The only thing that comes to mind immediately would be to limit the
Peeps to B-batts as their primary weapon and allow the Manticorans to
have A-batts.
I see that as a 'built-in' tech level in the FT universe (least, it
works for me;)
Mk
> Michael Blair wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
For example the Manticorian navy relies on its
> technological edge and more importantly its vastly superior crew
...Snip...(JTL)
Micheal, Try using the elite crews as 'plus one' on 'To Hit' rolls. I would
suggest a starting ratio of 1.5 to one for the points difference between the
two sides. (Try a couple games and adjust as necessary.)
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> Try using the elite crews as 'plus one' on 'To Hit' rolls.
John, you might want to re-think this one. Technology has radically
changed crew efficiency. In tanks, the difference between average crews and
excellent crews in M60's is very substantial, the good crew is probably 2 to 3
times more effective. In M1's, it is still a factor, by good crews are only 10
to 15 percent more effective... In ships, the difference is expressed in their
ability to correctly interpret the situation from sensory data, and their
skill at damage control. If you
want to have a difference for elite crews, try giving them a +1 to
damage control, and/or a +1 to all electronic die rolls, and/or the
ability to plot movement "for elite crewed ships only" after all other ships
have moved, but before fighters (another reason why having fighters move
before ships is a bad idea).
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
IAS, The 'plus one' on the 'To Hit' is an 18 percent change (roughly) in odds,
somewhat higher than what you are stating (IF I have not made an error in the
reading), but the best I could do on short notice with a six sided die. Plus
one on any sort of electronic rolls will not have any effective value in
combat and so I did not consider this an option.
Part of the original premise had to do with fighting at odds for the elite
ships, the only way to counteract (IMHO) the additional points available to
the other side is the plus
on the weapons. I DO like the idea of the elites moving after
the mob side, but I do not feel that would truly make the two sides equal in
an uneven point encounter of 1.5 to 1 (or possibly worse odds). IMHO the mob
side would win 70 to 85 percent of such encounters even if executed with
average players.
These comments relate to FTII games. The suggestions/comments
/opinions really need to be tried out and the results reported to
gain an understanding of the possibilities/limitations.
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> Part of the original premise had to do with fighting at
Another possiblity is to alter the effective ranges of the weapons. Eg. range
breaks for beams up to 7 or 8 instead of 6 for the supperior side.
Chris
Hi everybody, (I'm not dead yet!)
> Michael Blair wrote:
Of
> interest to us is an essay by Weber on the setting for the HH books
There's an even better writeup (focuses soley on the starhip technology) in 'A
Short Victorious War', if memory serves.
> It set me wondering, how would you reflect technology differences in
I've got a rules set to adapt FT for Honor Harrington (PLEASE sign up
for my event at GZG-ECC!! (8-) ), and I tackled this problem in
several ways:
1) RMN ships get bonuses on their ECM and point defence. 2) RMN ships get
bonuses on their offense rolls. (I use a variant of
the FT to-hit system)
3) RMN ships never surrender involuntarily. Peep ships must undergo Surrender
checks. (As per 'Striking the Colours', MT)
I haven't quantified them in my rules yet, because I'm still tweaking
them out for GZG-ECC (gee, the shameless plugs are everywhere! (8-) )
But, so far, it looks like a simple +1 appropriate applied in
favour of the RMN works wonders.
I didn't play with weapon ranges, because, at FT scale, the range differences
are irrelevant. A RMN Graser may be able to shoot
5000-10000km farther, but when your unit scale is 24 000km, it
doesn't make that much difference. (8-) I also decided that it was
unlikely that the RMN would be so far ahead of the Peeps as to make
differences in system mass and point cost, so I kept them the same for both
sides.
Also, depending on what stage of the war you're at, the RMN may have access to
'toys' that the Peeps don't.
There are other crew quality factors that could fit in. Sensor interpretation,
fleet morale, things like that. Some of it has to be built into the scenario
description, others (like sensor interpretation), can be translated into a die
roll, and thus we can use bonuses...
Sorry to have rambled. (8-)
J.