From: hal@b...
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 04:25:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Fighter groups (designer please read)
> I agree with the intent of the endurance rules but I think the return Hello List and designer, As I mentioned once before with respect towards designing a strategic version of FT (ie economics, shipbuilding times, etc...), FT enjoys the same flaw that STARFIRE has - namely the pinning down of actual space/volume configuration. Consider: a M1 Abrams supposedly takes up around 1600 cubic feet (or 535 cubic yards). According to More Full Thrust, a MBT takes up 12 spaces, and each of a "MASS" can hold 50 "spaces". If one assumes that there is a 30% wastage space for holding equipment, then each cargo space is about 175 cubic feet, with each MASS being about 8750 cubic feet, or roughly 325 cubic yards. Therefore, without being particularly nasty about those who would like to keep the volume of a "mass" nebulous, we already have one "measurement" that would seem to apply to FT. For those who desire to avoid this "pinning down" of the elusive volume per MASS ratio <grinning> ignore it. However, the situation with regards to the fighter endurance - that is again a problem that should be addressed at some point of time or another. Endurance is a measure of staying power - which implies a time limit. The question is, what is the time duration of each turn? Duration is a combination of fuel duration, life support duration, and perhaps pilot wear and tear. How long can a pilot last? How long did the bombers of world war II last? How long does fuel last? If there is a fuel restriction on fighters, why not is there a fuel restriction on the main line ships? I guess the real question regards to duration is based upon the life support. How long can they survive the life support? I find it "unrealistic" that the duration for a fighter is only 3 turns offensively, AND 3 turns to return to base. What I would like to see happen overall, in echo of the previous poster who asked about extending the landing duration timeperiod, is that each turn be given a reasonable time duration, and that each inch is given a reasonable distance. I believe the phrase here is "scale". Light is known to travel 186,000 miles per second. In three seconds, light will have travelled 558,000 miles. In 5 seconds, it travels some 930,000 miles, which is approximately 1/100th the distance of an AU. If we assume that the distance of 36 inches is the distance that a "beam" weapon can travel and still be effective and you rule that the "time duration" is one second, then one inch equals approximately 5,000 miles! WARNING: FULL THRUST is meant to be a "game" and it is meant to be fun. Assigning scale is where it gets to be messy in my opinion, and by using the artificial limitation of how many turns the fighters can be on the board, I think the ugly problem of scale begins to rear it's ugly head. My suggestion is to go back to the original rule regarding unlimited duration. If the reason fighter duration became an issue was due to the unbalancing feature or strength of fighers, then the fighters themselves should be limited, not their duration - for that implies a time scale, which is reasonably measureable. SUGGESTION: use the limitation that fighters can only fire 3 shots of ship killing power, and unlimited shots for anti-fighter work. Returning to the carrier or ship with fighter bays allows one to "recharge" the ship killing capacitors. Variances on fighters can now include their "weapon load outs" in the form of how many ship killing shots they have. Also, to be reasonable, fighters should have a higher point cost to reflect their combat value. I am aware that Jon would like to avoid recalculating the point cost values, but I would endorse this plan of action should he ever print another edition of FULL THRUST. As time goes one, more and more experience is being gathered about weaponry and their tactics in the game. If through general playing and playtesting, it is discovered that certain weapons are not efficient in terms of the game, or perhaps some weapons are overly efficient, then the point cost formula needs to be revamped. In all, I like the movement system from FULL THRUST. I also like the combat system for the weaponry. To get a full "tactical" feel to Full Thrust, perhaps the 270 degree firing arc needs to be toned down to either a 90 degree arc, or perhaps a 180 degree arc. In addition, I would like to see an amendment to the rules regarding needle beam damage and damage control parties. It is unrealistic to assume that anyone would be interested in using a needle beam when the limited damage that the needle beam can do is nullified easily enough. Consider: a ship with two damage control parties can fix the damage from one needle beam with a 1 in three chance. In two turns, that is 2 in 3 chance. The needle beam takes up "mass" whereas the damage control party does not. All in all, I think that Needle beam damage should not be repairable by damage control parties - otherwise, the advent of damage control parties makes this weapon obsolete (which some say is not worth the point cost in any event! Solution: make needle beams use only 1 space rather than two...)