> Schoon said:
I think your SFB flashbacks are distorting your perception of these ideas,
overcomplicating them if you will. Yes there is a small, superficial
similarity with SFB. But consider this: before FT, SFB had plotted maneuvering
of spaceships on a table or game
board - So does this mean FT already smacks of SFB? I don't think so.
The difference is in how ideas are implemented, what effect they have on game
play, and how they impact the complexity of the game.
Looking at the directional screens:
Your ship _might_ have better defensive ability in some directions than
in others, thus maneuvering defensively becomes a concern (or as I prefer, an
'Option') This is a defensively analogous to the fact that your ship already
has offensive abilities that vary with direction (i.e. fire arcs). The
modifications to vanilla rules shielding is minimal, and absolutely no
ship design is invalidated. All-round screens are still perfectly
valid. In fact the only change to design them is to draw a couple of arcs
around the screen icon to show which arcs it covers.
Implementation: seems smooth and easy to me -
Effect on Play: opens new defensive abilities, as well as offensive abilities
as you can attempt to attack through weakened or destroyed screens. Note that
since many weapons ignore screens, and screens generally still allow damage
through to the ship, this will not be the kind
of make-or-break effect as in SFB, but still could help a skillful
player increase his odds of scoring more damage. Also, I can have increased
defense for part of my ship at the cost of reduced defense elsewhere. This may
be good for me on the attack, but where this most quickly turns against me is
in larger fleet battles where flanking becomes a more viable option.
Impact to complexity: Effectively _none_ - You can measure incoming arcs
as easily as fire arcs. You can see at a glance exactly what shields are
operational, so level of defense is clear-cut.
In all, this is _not_ very SFB like, despite superficial similarity.
<snip>
> Hi all. Normally I just lurk, taking in the discussion and snagging
Actually I have been sporadically working on something along these lines, for
a similar reason. I know several people who play SFB, and I did for a while as
well. We actually started a campaign. But midway through the
first battle (with 30+ ships per side, mostly cruiser or better) we gave
up
in frustration - no time for things like that in SFB. (So Schoon, I do
know what you are talking about.) Since I have been unsuccessful in getting
others to play FT, I thought perhaps converting SFB stuff to FT might help
attract some of them.
I have put together a few spreadsheets for calculating / comparing
relative ship sizes in SFB for conversion to FT. It currently contains the SFB
ships from the volume 1 captains edition and their representative masses
for FT/MT. I need to play around with more system masses though, then
convert the masses to FTFB - but that should go fairly easily.
I'd be glad to help when and where I can - There is a huge player base
there waiting to be Illuminated!;)
> Jared wrote:
[snip]
> Looking at the directional screens:
Using the vector system, this creates a problem. With a Main Drive rating of 4
you can rotate to thrust and then rotate back to a defensive posture,
and the odds of not having your strongest screens/armor facing the enemy
are extremely low.
> Effect on Play: opens new defensive abilities, as well as offensive
This
> may be good for me on the attack, but where this most quickly turns
Once again, getting to those weakened screens/armor is easier said than
done using the vector system. Even using cinematic movement, it's usually not
too hard to figure which arcs are likely to be hit.
> Impact to complexity: Effectively _none_ - You can measure incoming
Almost true. I agree that one more arc estimation is not that bad. However,
you're not including the time it will take to allocate shields, the increased
time to figure the best defensive posture with arced
shields/armor.
It also invites specific fleet design abuses, such as high thrust ships with
"one sided" defenses, ships designed with a specific formation in mind, etc.
This, much more than any superficial SFB resemblance, is what disturbs me.
> Jared wrote:
Assuming he does nothing, or does what you want him to, yes. this IMHO is not
a
bad thing - For one, it encourages people to plan their movement - but
the relative weakness of FT screens as opposed to SFB means that this is not
the
all-powerful defensive measure it can be in SFB - so I think after a few
games you will have a sense of when it would be most crucial. It may make
ships a bit
more survivable in a 1-on-1 scenario, but when you start to move to
multiple ships, you gain a new dimension of play. Instead of just maneuvering
a group of ships to bring their own weapons to bear, you now can maneuver to
best take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses. Part of what tactics are
all about.
> Effect on Play: opens new defensive abilities, as well as offensive
This
> may be good for me on the attack, but where this most quickly turns
Well, that's the down-side to trying to make a more 'realistic' movement
system
while not allowing a more realistic firing option (some sort of mid-move
firing). The tactics of penetrating weakened screens may not lend themselves
to
single-ship duels - so be it. however, multiple ship closing from
various directions would be very capable of exploiting enemy weakness. (If I
can't hit your down screen, I'll drive you towards someone who can)
> Impact to complexity: Effectively _none_ - You can measure incoming
However,
> you're not including the time it will take to allocate shields, the
OK - two separate points.
1) Time to allocate shields: This is done before the game, if you reuse
designs it is done before your game group ever gets together. It stays that
way for the
entire game. They are _not_ dynamically reconfigurable (Sorry if I did
not make
this clear - This was my intention all along)
2) Time to plan move/defensive posture: OK this one is valid. There
will intially be a slight increase in planning. however, I think this would be
mitigated by several factors.
First - once you are familiar and comfortable with your own flavor of
movement
(cinematic/vector) you have a pretty good idea of ship abilities, just
like you said. With a quick look you can dismiss those situations in which it
is unlikely you can get the penetrating shot, and you can focus on those that
do look likely.
Second - Figuring out what defensive posture you should take - this is
tied to your initial ship design and your present situation, but again, FT
shields generally mitigate damage, they do not stop it, and with FT damage
system, taking a couple of hits on your DN is just not as big a deal as SFB,
unless you are near threshold. Then you focus on it. It is not the
overwhelming change in play that it is in SFB
> It also invites specific fleet design abuses, such as high thrust ships
So purpose built ships are uniformly evil? Take high-thrust ships with
one-sided defenses, then moan when your opponent surrounds you with
fighters and pounds through your rear. Successful FT fleets depend on a
certain degree of balance. Taking slow, lumbering, heavily armored ships
against a primarily
beam-armed opponent may be workable, against a SML equipped fleet you
are asking
to trouble - No single tactic is uniformly successful.
Cheese-meisters may try some silliness at first - Lord knows they have
with every other system ever invented, but things settle down as you both
learn what works and what doesn't.
As far as specific formations are concerned - that's true, but nothing
like what you see in SFB. Take the worst offender, the ISC. Specifically
designed to exploit almost every major loophole and perversion in the combat
system.
PPD
formulated to use the idiotic 'mizia' damage-table defect.
Yet if you look at enough FT games you will see a few ideas similar to the
echelon concepts---Multiple waves - smallest in front where the enemy
has to deal with them because of the large damage they can do if ignored,
while heavies in back where they can continue to hurt you with the bigger
guns. How many people do you know who attack with their SDN and CA's in front
while their DD's
& FF's hold up the rear? probably not many - as that is generally not
as
effective as the other way round where the tin-cans can get out their
attacks at closer ranges before disintegrating.
If I design a fleet that works best in a certain configuration, that means it
works less well in others. So break it up. Outflank me, force me to react to
you, instead of following my plans. More flexiblity means more options
- a good
thing IMO.
> Schoon
Thanks for the comments and concerns...
> On 14 Jan 99, at 22:07, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> Once again, getting to those weakened screens/armor is easier said
Just a thought... and potentially not easy to do, have an open formation that
allows you to surround the enemy... also, I'd be very tempted to say that
SML's and MT missiles may be bright enough to drop on the least shileded
portions.... or to gauge their attack vector as being from their placement
point, allowing the launching player to perhaps manage to hit unshielded
regions.
> >Impact to complexity: Effectively _none_ - You can measure incoming
However,
> you're not including the time it will take to allocate shields, the
I think the idea is that it is done at the ship design stage, not configurable
during or perhaps even before combat.
> Jared wrote:
[snip]
> Assuming he does nothing, or does what you want him to, yes. this IMHO
I agree, but I just want to make sure that the addition of elements to the
rules, be they shields or whatever, do not also add potential design or rules
abuses. I also am a big fan of keeping FT clean and simple.
> Well, that's the down-side to trying to make a more 'realistic'
movement
> system
Very few FT engagements that I've seen have even gotten to the "drive you"
portion of the tactical exercise. Openning maneuver IS extremely important,
but it tends to generate at least one head on pass before things degenerate
into a furball based loosely on Drive Rating. That first pass usually decides
the game, even if it takes many more turns to resolve. This is no fault of the
rules or the system, but usually table space.
I'm concerned that this could generate fleet designs looking to take advantage
of this by making lopsided defenses.
> 1) Time to allocate shields: This is done before the game, if you reuse
This does change things, and is more acceptable in my eyes, but I'd still make
the fleet design caution above.
> So purpose built ships are uniformly evil? Take high-thrust ships with
Not at all, however, as you so aptly point out, cheesers are bound to poke
around. I'm fine so long as there's nothing for them to find (if you take my
meaning).