> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> Lemme guess: You round "points available for turning" UP, don't you?
Mikko, If you were in charge of the game I would certainly conform to
the conditions you preferred/required. If I was in the same position,
outnumbered and defending, I would still have gladly paid the extra 70 or 80
points to move the thrust to a value of six (6). It is worth the loss of a DD
stratigicly, to be able to withdraw tactically if I should find my fleet badly
outmatched by the attacking
force. The thrust 5/6 BDN/DN squadron cannot be persued by the
attackers because they will lose or have many ships damaged in a
running battle. (This is the Graf Spee concept of battle:
I can defeat anything that can catch me, and run away from anything that can
beat me.)
Yes, I round odd points up for turning, but then everyone in the group does
this, and the person running the game agreed. Do I have guilt feelings, not on
your life.
Bye for now,
> On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, John Leary wrote:
> Yes, I round odd points up for turning, but then everyone
Guilt? Why should you, it's your game.
The point I wanted to make that this rounding is (yet another) grey area
in the rules. However you interpret it is going to fundamentally affect
the way the game plays and how the point balance lies -- and you
neglected to mention this house rule of yours. It appears we are playing
fundamentally a different game, so my experiences and analyzes are not very
valid in your game, nor are yours in mine.
Though I must say, given a rule like that, I'd probably only field
odd-thrust ships. Turning is much more important than straight
acceleration.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, John Leary wrote:
I don't understand the issue over rounding up and rounding down for the amount
of thrust points available for turning. On page 6 of the Full Thrust, second
edition rules, column 1, paragraph 3, states that the thrust available for
changing course is one half rounded up. The example of a thrust 5 ship is
given and it can change course up to 3 points per game turn.
Because of that reason, a thrust 3 on a Capital ship is very valuable and
worth the expenditure of the points.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I will have to go back and look for it but somewhere the rules say (or
strongly infer) that all 'point fives' are rounded up. You are quite correct,
turning is considered more valuble.
Bye for now,
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > Though I must say, given a rule like that, I'd probably only field
> Jon Davis
Actually, I'd like to be able to have a mixture of quickly turning low thrust
gun platforms and slowly turning but high thrust Pursuit ships.
It doesn't matter how tough your fleet is if you can't get it to where you
need to in time.
While I'm thinking about it, how about top speeds based on the amount of
shielding a ship has?
0-shields, Top speed 80
1-shields Top speed 100
2-shields Top speed 120
3-shields Top speed 140
Reflect Fields +20 to top speed
This would enable reasonable strategic combat. Small high thrust ships would
probably be able to get out of scanner range pretty quickly, but the
calculation of whether a fleet can intercept another becomes easier to do.
Here is a system for all those glorified gun platforms to use: Gyroscopic
Attitude Control system: By using enormous, (massive) gyros, a ship is able to
turn much faster simply by spinning up or spinning down the gyros. Mass, 5%
Ship mass
Cost 1/2 Ship mass for level 1 GAC, 2*Ship mass for level 2
Effect, +1 to Turn for level 1, +2 to turn for level 2
Jon, Thank you for providing the information.
Bye for now,
Micheal, The shield top speed concept is workable at any desired speed
maximum. Possible problems:
1) BDNs that run down destroyers because they have a higher maximum speed. 2)
The Reflex shield does not always work. What damage will the unshielded ship
take above the posted speed limit. (Wow man, What a cosmic drag.) Just stray
thoughts,
Bye for now,
> On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Jon Davis wrote:
> I don't understand the issue over rounding up and rounding down for
You are correct. This was probably the first thing I changed in the game
so forgive me.
> Because of that reason, a thrust 3 on a Capital ship is very valuable
Whether I *like* the "official" word is entirely another matter.
I do not like design systems where you strive for certain rounding points.
And, in addition, this is (yet another) "that newbie was stupid enough to take
a book ship" rule.
I sincerely hope that this is either changed in the Fleet Book, or that all
the FB designs are smart enough to use odd thrusts.
Mikko said:
> I do not like design systems where you strive for certain rounding
This will be of no use to anyone, but....
the way to avoid problems with odd thrust ratings is to use the vectores
thrust rules. As main drives and manoeuvring drives have separate thrust
ratings the problem never arises.
Cheers,
> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Steve Pugh wrote:
> the way to avoid problems with odd thrust ratings is to use the
Actually, I agree. I just think it has nothing to do with vectored thrust. You
could easily buy acceleration and turning separately even for the vanilla
system.
Another idea is simply to allow 1/2 point turns.