> Having said that, I like sensor rules, and would be quite happy with
I would have to agree here. Sensors, lock-ons, command stuff etc will
add new dimensions to the game. New tactical considerations and all. As rules
in SG,DS and FT are presented in a manner which let people use more or less
the level of detail they want, I have no fear that adding these rules will
make things too complicated. (still haven't played FT though). The basic
sensor rules in current FT could still be used in the
new set if people didn't want the added level of detail, thus leaving
out the entire lock-on process etc..
Well, just my opinion for now.. must get my ESU fleet out to beat some enemy
ships soon so I actually have more than just reading the rules as argument
weight!
A quick thought: if the lock-on roll for the base situation (no evasion,
no countermeasures, or whatever the rules dictate) was 1 or above you
could skip the extra die roll in with out-of-the-book ships for some
turns at least. New countermeasure systems and evasion commands could
then increase the lock-on bar, making the the roll a requirement. Not
that an extra roll sounds particularly arduous. If evasion alone only
reduced lock-on chances by a 1 or maybe 2 in 6 then the result would be
quick to see and the risk of game-wrecking turns where capitals fail to
fire would remain remote. My guess is that sensitivity of firecons to
thresholds would remain a more significant factor in the game. With custom
ships or new official specialist ships, of course, anything goes,
but then so it should.
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Claus Paludan wrote:
> As
The problem I see with this approach is that, as with the split between
cinematic and vector movement, there's a need to change designs to take
advantage of the ruleset in use. The more optional rules you have (making an
exception for weapons that can be defended against by "normal" defences, like
Grasers), the more you fragment the idea of what "Full Thrust" actually means;
the less useful a shiplist such as the one at cygnusx1.info, or a Fleet Book,
becomes; and so on.
R
Maybe I'm too simple a man, but in essence, isn't lock on already included?
When we roll a d6 and there is some significant chance that a weapon doesn't
hit, what is it modeling? In a far future with
uber-sophisticated computers for targeting and nano-machines building
ultra-sensitive directional control, what keeps weapon firing from being
close to 100% succesful (barring ECM etc)? I'd argue that when you have a 50%
change to hit in a high tech future, locking on is already factored in. If you
want to have optional rules that modify the roll further, fine, I think they
would be fun.
Back to lurking,
Somehow I just can't seem to see this as a problem....
First off I would think that most of the time you'd be playing with the same
folks... unless of course you travel the country doing shows and
tournaments... which means that for the most part, you should have a rules set
that you use on a regular basis... house rules I believe is
the term? ;-) That being said... unless you're group is constantly
changing the rules they use, or are constantly play-testing... this
really shouldn't be a problem....
Additionally, it would seem that if you're building to the rules system,
instead of using the rules to build, then that would seem to me that you're
more concerned with what you can pack into the numbers than you are with any
actual design element... sure, I like to get the most bang for my buck, but
that hasn't stopped me from designing the shotgun battle fleet (entire group
of ships where the only weapons are submunition packs).
I would also think that it really shouldn't be that big of a deal from the
view point that it would seems to encourage the design of slightly modular
ships... I often design ships that have cargo holds in them... when I get a
better idea of the rules set that I'm going to be using.. or looking at
using.. (or if the design program doesn't have the
symbols for the weapons, like the newer beta-test weapons...) I just go
and plug in the weapons systems that I can fit in the space set aside for the
cargo holds... and any left over space becomes armor, or PDS mounts...
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
Remember, even light is shaped by the darkness that surrounds it, and the true
crafters are seldom ever seen. Welcome to the shadows kid.
I maybe just a glutton for punishment but I have a house rule that gets around
the problem of small fast ships been just as easy to hit as large
slow ships. I used to use a percentage die (from my very old Runequest RPG)
but now use a PC and spreadsheet to test to see if a target is targetable by
anything that can't target fighters or missles (the assumption been that if
they can hit a hypervelocity missle then a ship should be no problem.
Its speed divide by its present speed rounded of to the nearest whole number
(sounds complicated but thats why I got the spreadsheet - everything is
instant). The resulting number just has to be rolled under to make it
targetable. This can produce results of zero which means the target can't be
fired at even though it may be at point blank range
This avoids a problem I have with FTJava and had with FT in general. When
my high-speed attacks get shot to pieces because they end their turn in
the enemy's fire arc. I like my light ships ripping through the enemy
formation causing havoc. I watch far to much B5 in case your wondering.
In the real world Motor torpedo boats can (and frequently have) suceeded
against far heavier ships (destroyers were invented to specifically combat
MTB's in the early 1900's because the battleships of the time were sitting
ducks).
I KNOW that when a flotilla of small fast torpedo boats attacking "the side of
a barn" they should easily make life unpleasant for it until it's light
escorts get involved - thats what they're there for. To destroy
anything smaller than them and keep tabs on anything larger than them.
Any naval history will point out that big slows ships where there to kill
other big slow ships, not mix it with the piranhas.
It would probably be easy to include the various stealth and special weapons
rules using this method. I know its an extra step but its one I thought was
necessary for my peace of mind. PSB just wouldn't cover the gap in realism.
Are my posts getting through? I sent two replies to the list, but it doesn't
seem like they made it to the list?
Remember, even light is shaped by the darkness that surrounds it, and the true
crafters are seldom ever seen. Welcome to the shadows kid.
> --- Broadband <al.ll2@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> In the real world Motor torpedo boats can (and
History Lesson: Destroyers, AKA Torpedo Boat Destroyers, were created to deal
with the automobile torpedo being carried by ships of 700 to 1100 tons, AKA
Torpedo Boats.
The MTB, MGB, PT, E-boat, or S-boat was
a WWII creation.
Bye for now,
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Now,
> this doesn't feel right in many ways - but in real gameplay terms, is
> ship designers would always go for ships just under the break-point,
But considering that most aiming/targeting/firing probably wouldn't be
executed by humans but by computers.. do size really matter?? Wouldn't it be a
question of onboard computers having a fairly good idea of where
enemy ships are when firing. Where as the leftover thrust of the ship being
fired upon could help allow it to negate the fire?
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
[...]
> Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try to
A similar (but not exactly the same) mechanism is used in Flames of War to
reflect target armor deflecting (or not) the inbound shot (presuming it hit).
It seems to work okay, and yes, it does give the target some feeling of being
able to *try* and do defend his unit.
Mk
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Ah, we're back to the old "does size really matter" debate again..... <BIG
GRIN>
Some quick thoughts....
The idea of maintaining a lock unless the target tries to break it is a good
idea. As mentioned keeps the "target" involved in the current phase.
Making the lock on roll start at 1+ is a good way to keep things simple.
These 2 items together will cut down drasticly on the number of times you have
to check for lock on as once things get really intense the only ppl trying to
break lock on will be those ships attempting to disengage from the area due to
combat attrition.
Should salvo missiles need to make a lock on as well? IF so how will that
be handled? Roll a D6, subtract the targets lock-on modifier and that
is the number of missiles landed? Targets with no evasion modifiers are
handled exaclty the same as before.
Should ships be able to "share" lock on data? If ship A knows where the target
is can he tell ship B in the same fleet? All ships in the same squadron? You
could use command structure to limit this. Flag ships should be good for
something I suppose other than big targets. Would also make squadrons of small
ships with limited FCs not so screwed by the the change.
Most of the ideas bounced around here appear to only really get dicey for lock
ons at the long to medium range category and even then if I throw all 5 FCs at
a target from my BB the target is going to have to be doing some major stuff
to hide from me. I think it will give just enough to make things interesting
but not overshadow or drasticly change the rest of the game.
Whoops, said this before seeing Jon's comments. Pretty much hushes me up.
The_Beast
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 06/23/2005 04:25:18 PM:
> Some quick thoughts....
> Mike Stanczyk wrote:
> While I'd love to see the apposed role system (SG2/Dirtside) come to
Yes, it is an idea I'm playing with for my inhouse game. Working to rework FT
in to a Starfighter scale sorta game.
> Let's ask John to consider it for Full Thrust 4! ;-) Available in
I'm more optomistic than that, 2020.....
Remember 2525 is when strippers save the earth.
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >Dirtside style lockons?
While I'd love to see the apposed role system (SG2/Dirtside) come to
Full Thrust, I don't think you can do it without a complete rewrite of Full
Thrust.
Let's ask John to consider it for Full Thrust 4! ;-) Available in
2050!
> From: Ground Zero Games
Nobody mention Phalons, please.
What matters is a combination of target size, target acceleration, and firing
system cycle time. If you have a 2km wide target with.01g acceleration and the
you can acquire, aim and fire ten times every second,
then you're guaranteed to hit--he can't possibly get out of the way. If
your target ship is 10m wide, he constantly changes his vector at 500g is any
direction, and you take a couple of seconds between receiving the radar ping
and firing (to process target data, slew the weapon and fire), then you're
only going to hit by blind luck.
(Pace JohnA: yes, target aspect ought to matter. Shooting at a BB's narrowest
target section might be about the same as shooting at a DD's widest section,
for instance.)
Of course, there's a wide variety in backgrounds--"high thrust" might be
3 gee in the Mote universe, 50g in Vorkosigan's milieu, 600g in the
Honorverse.
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> My suggestion is that lock-on rolls be used to encourage
> While I'd love to see the apposed role system (SG2/Dirtside) come to
Uhm...urm...arn't they doing that now?:)
> tsarith@io.com wrote:
Heck right now I'm wondering what Lockon has to do with anything. Most of the
weapons I know of that require locks are fire and forget
missiles. A lot of anti-shipping missiles are fired on bearings, and
don't aquire their target till they get to the preset scan-on distance,
kinda like SMs do under the current rules.
A lot of what is electronic warfare takes place at the detection phase of any
engagement, so to simulate that we would need detailed detection rules and
equipment.
You guys are missing an opportunity. This is an opportunity to introduce ECM
and Tech Levels.
Assume that the number that needs to be rolled is a 6 or less on a 6 sided to
lock on for ships whose species are at equal tech levels. Therefore two human
clans require no die roll at all (you can't fail). Assume that the Humans are
at Tech Level 1 and Mimbari are at Tech Level 3. The lock on
roll will be 6 -2 (the difference) or 1-4 on a 6 sided dice. Say again
that this time it's a shadow vessel at tech level 5, that will make the thing
hard to hit without unrealistically huge modifications to size or extra rules.
Same scenario, add a Telepath to the Earth ships and it negates the Tech level
of the Shadow ship by the value of the telepath.
I'd prefer that failing a FCS lock means a graduated effect (reduced
ability to hit) rather than an on/off effect (can't shoot at all).
Well, this discussion has certainly made for an interesting few days of list
traffic!! <GRIN>
As I kind of expected, there are almost as many different opinions (and ideas)
expressed as there are people posting..... but I always
knew we wouldn't be able to please everyone! ;-)
Right now, I'm leaning towards the following as a general direction to move
in:
1) Basic FT (the core rules) left much as it is, ie: one firecon
required per target, lock-on is assumed to be automatic (or assumed
to be factored into the shots that "miss" - whichever way you like to
think of it, the game effect is the same).
2) A "module" of rules in the advanced section that combines sensors,
stealth, ECM, evasion etc. into one "lock-on" rule mechanism.
The biggest problem I can foresee with this (as RB-W mentioned way
back at the start of the discussion) is that the values of ships designed to
use the advanced rules module will be different from those designed for the
basic game only.... but then again, I think this will be a difficulty with ANY
advanced or optional rules, and we'll just have to find a suitable way round
it.
Jon said:
> The biggest problem I can foresee with this (as RB-W mentioned way
IMHO, changing the CVP is not much of a problem. Changing the mass and SSD
would be more troublesome.
I would like to see ELINT rules, for FT but at the same time not sure I would
like to make them Mandatory. I think it will make it more of a tactical
thinking game. But at the same time I would like to see it as a very quick
and easy roll system.. yet has to be easy to retrofit to the canon ship
designs.
And at the same time, not sure that different size ship should have target
mods. after all I agree that catching a Destroyer side on will have a bigger
return then a Battleship head on...
Also if U fail Lock on, you still should be able to fire, but at a of double
true range.
Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)
In message <a05210601bee2f8cf529a@[62.125.28.15]>
> Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Well, this discussion has certainly made for an interesting few days
If you design the 'advanced' system so that the default case is that a ship
with a standard fire control system automatically locks onto a ship with
standard defences, then (hopefully) ships designed for Basic FT will have the
same cost as those designed for 'Advanced'.
For example of how this could work:
I'm assuming that all ships have a sensor range equal to that of their longest
range weapons.
Using the 'defender rolls to break lock' system that has been mentioned.
Fire controls come in various classes, as follows
Civilian: a very basic FireCon, has a base break-lock number of 5 or 6
Basic: a standard Full Thrust military FireCon, base break lock of 7
Enhanced: base break-lock number of 8
Superior: base break-lock number of 9
As an alternative, fire controls could be given class numbers equal to
the break-lock number -6.
I suggest that they all require 1 MASS, but with different costs (for example
2 or 3 for civilian, 4 for basic, more for enhanced and superior).
The break-lock number is the number the defender needs to equal or
exceed on a roll of 1d6. Notice that a defender with no special
systems or circumstances cannot break-lock from any firecon except a
civilian one.
For simplicity, there are no range modifiers, or ship size modifiers.
Defensive systems (stealth, ECM) give a bonus number to the break-lock
roll.
Environmental factors such as dust clouds and nebula give bonuses to
the break-lock roll, when including such terrain in a scenario, assign
each duct cloud or nebula with a density number, this is the bonus the
terrain gives to break-lock rolls. The dust clouds and nebula
described in More Thrust (page 9) have a density of 3.
Either a successful break-lock roll breaks all locks from a particular
ship, or each lock (if a ship locks multiple firecons onto the
defender) requires a separate break-lock roll. As has been stated, the
latter option favours larger ships. An alternative option for multiple locks
if that each additional
firecon after the first penalises the break-lock roll (analogous to
damage repair rolls).
The effects of breaking a lock should either be to prevent weapons fire, or to
double the effective range. It should be noted that a logical conclusion that
weapons might be expected to be able to fire without a fire control system,
but with half their usual ranges. If this is not a desired outcome then either
the first option should be used, or some explanation added for the difference
between a failed attempt to lock on, and no fire control at all.
For placed marker weapons - one option is to give missiles their own
individual break-lock rolls, or a 'group lock' roll for Salvo
Missiles, where the break-lock roll determines how many missiles are
on target (not sure about the best option here).
Well, those are my thoughts.
> --- DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
...
> And at the same time, not sure that different size
...
More than likely, the BB will still have a larger surface area than a DD.
(Unless one is talking about the FCT DDs that are about the size of a CL or
CE.)
Bye fornow,