Hi all,
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:07:06AM -0700, Gregory Wong wrote:
Seeing as this subject has come up in the last few days' discussions, I
thought I'd take the opportunity to canvass some opinions from all
of you out there in gzg-list-land..... this is something that's been
discussed at some length in the past within the playtest group, but sometimes
it's both interesting and valuable to get some feedback from a much larger
group of players.
The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
acquire a target is one that we've played around with (at least in theory) for
some time; the exact mechanisms are not important at this stage, but the
general principle of the idea is that when it is a particular ship's turn to
fire, the player nominates the intended target(s) and makes a roll for each to
see if the firing ship's FCs can acquire that target with sufficient precision
to perform direct fire against it. If the roll succeeds, then play proceeds to
fire resolution exactly as normal FT rules; if it fails, then the firing
ship has not been able to lock-on to the target and may not perform
any direct fire against it that turn. Multiple firecons (if the ship has them)
may be dedicated to a single target to improve success
chances, but this must be decided before any lock-on rolls are made.
Now, this idea is obviously adding a completely new step into the FT combat
procedure, and there are a number of arguments both for and against this.
The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
easy implementation of a number of new variables that are harder (or more
clumsy) to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as
they stand; such things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility,
enhanced sensors, etc etc.... Thus a lot of different ideas which currently
would need a load of different and sometimes quite complex rules to implement,
would suddenly all fit into a single, relatively simple mechanism.
On the other hand, there are a number of possible arguments against; ones that
have already been identified include:
1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
consequent possible game-slowing...
2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under current
rules, so players will be tempted to load up with larger
numbers when doing own-design ships unless this is limited in some
way.....
3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire at
all that turn; this can be either incredibly frustrating or a huge relief
depending on which side you're on! While it may be annoying to
fail to acquire a target with a small ship, it could be a game-losing
point if you fail with all the firecons on a big ship.....
Now, if we had just launched FT as a new product and it included a
lock-on step, I'm quite sure that almost no-one would even mention it
- it would just be taken as a part of the game. The fact that FT
hasn't had this for all these years, however, means that introducing it now is
a much more difficult matter. I'm always very aware that this list represents
only a small proportion of the people who are playing FT, and the test list an
even smaller subset of those; trying to judge how the "silent majority" of
players out there will react to any major (or even minor!) changes to the
rules is always going to be very difficult. But, hopefully, some feedback from
the list may give us an idea of whether this is something that is worth
pursuing or not. I'd be especially pleased to get some reactions for those
list
members who don't post much - your opinions are just as valuable as
those of the more vocal "regulars"! ;-)
Looking forward to reading the responses..... :-)
Over to you!
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 10:30, Ground Zero Games wrote:
What are you most trying to aim for with Full Thrust?
A simple set of rules which is fast to play? A generic set of rules which can
model all types of space combat?
Adding ELINT stuff improves the second but reduces the first. Some genres are
difficult to do in standard FT (B5 for instance) without adding ELINT of some
sort, but then if you wanted to model B5 warfare you can always use B5 Wars.
FT is perfectly playable without ELINT, and it's not really needed for the
standard background.
Having said that, I like sensor rules, and would be quite happy with a more
complex game system with stealth, sensors, command vessels and the like (B5
Wars style ELINT vessels are interesting).
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 10:30, Ground Zero Games wrote:
discussions,
> I thought I'd take the opportunity to canvass some opinions from all
I think that FT is already a combination of both - a simple fast
basic system which may be adapted and customised as desired to produce a
reasonable representation of MOST, if not all, backgrounds.
> Adding ELINT stuff improves the second but reduces the first. Some
Now, I feel that the point of the FCLO (Fire Control Lock-On) roll is
exactly that it is NOT adding very much in the way of complexity -
it's going to be one or two rolls per ship per fire phase in most cases (ok,
maybe three or four at most if a large ship is attempting
to lock-up the maximum number of small targets at once) - and those
will most likely be balanced out by the fact that if a ship fails those rolls,
you don't spend the time taken to fire it's weapons!
Things like ECM/ECCM, stealth, agility and other countermeasures will
just modify the roll, and thus all be resolved in one simple mechanism.
There is no doubt that introducing something like this (which, I must
emphasise, is nothing more than a discussion point at present - not
any kind of indicator as to the way we will actually decide to go)
will make the game feel a little different - but I think that only
testing on the table will tell if that is a good or bad thing, and how much
the real difference is. If the general feeling is that it will change things
enough that it will no longer feel like FT, then that's the sort of thing I
want to know.
Would this only affect weapons that need a fire control?
To address the frustration of not being able to fire, could you give an
across-the-
board penalty to shooting at a ship if it fails? You'd still have a chance of
hitting, just reduced. That's more complex, though.
I'd think this would be a good optional rule/rules, though we've seen
optional become official often enough. However, having worked on
home-brew
game systems at various times, admittely with little success, I'm aware how
important it is to build the basic system in a way so the drop-in parts
can fit. I'd suggest that the work in making functional room for the add on,
i.e. fits for those who wish to use it without feeling 'klunky', is worth the
effort.
It's the kind of thing I'd tend to avoid; I've decided the next time I
play, I'll have a handful of color-coordinated-to-individual-system dice
for each ship when it's time to roll threshold hits so I can do it in one
toss. I'm a K.I.S.S. kind of guy, remember.
Also, I agree with John (heavens rumble) about the granularity of the current
rules mitigating against it.
However, the concept is too common in so many stories/shows/movies it's
hard to leave out as at least an option. I just wish it could be done without
adding rolls. Contrary to Jon, I HATE adding any.
I know the RPG folk will use it as an example of my non-game-ness...
;->=
The_Beast
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 13:17, Andy Skinner wrote:
The B5 Wars approach of doubling the range if you don't have a lock on might
work.
I really miss the EW realm in FT. It opens up the tactical game greatly. Do I
try to hide or do I try to burn through my opponents ECM?
Your suggestion also models damage in a way that "feels" more granular.
"I've lost two fire-controls, my electronics are acting up and my chance
of lock-on is reduced."
I say add it in if you can keep the mechanic quick and simple.
FWIW I've gone from being a vacuum head to playing mostly SG because FT
doesn't have the tactical decisionmaking requirements to be fun for many
games. That is, of course, IMNSHO.
Roger Books
> On 6/22/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
We normally play with a fairly small number of ships (I think) 6 or so a
side and I would not object to a fairly simple "lock-on" roll especially
if it made modeling ECM/ECCM easier, on the other hand I don't want to
end up beaten to death with modifiers while trying to figure the roll.
In my own mental model of space combat ECM and EW are very important but don't
seem to be modeled very well in FT.
> The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
I've only recently started to play FT, but once upon a time I played many
games of WRG's naval wargame Seastrike which uses a
fire-control/serviceability test for every shot, helicopter launch,
airstrike etc. Seastrike uses a pack of special cards rather than dice to
handle random factors, but essentially one has a 50% chance per shot (a shot
being one attempt to fire one ship's weapon at one target) that the weapon
malfunctions or the fire control fails to lock on. If the target is acquired,
one then tests for effect. At times one seemed to spend a lot of time flipping
cards for not much effect. Seastrike requires an FC test per
weapon/target pair, and testing only per shooter/target pair would cut
down on the number of tests required. I definitely got the feeling that my
ships' weapons weren't all that reliable (which might be realistic of course),
and it was prudent to plan for redundant attacks. It's certainly frustrating
to pull off some nifty manoeuvre, only to be left holding an empty bag on the
attack.
I'd rather assumed that fire control was factored into FT's "chance to hit"
rolls. If one added a FC check without adjusting fire effect resolution,
wouldn't one simply make it harder to score hits? Do we feel that ships die
too quickly in FT at the moment?
> The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
to include in the game under the basic FT mechanisms as they stand; such
things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility, enhanced sensors, etc
etc.... <<<<
I can see that. How much of a demand for this is there? Is everyone out there
using the bogey markers and other "fog of war" options already offered by FT?
> 1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
I did rather like the idea someone suggested of adding different coloured dice
(one die per firecon allocated to the target?) to handle the
lock-on
test. But some sort of record keeping would presumably then be required to
ensure that no firecon is used for more than one target per turn. I'd be
less worried about an extra die-roll, than about all the modifiers (+1
for
enhanced sensors, -2 for target stealth etc.). It could end up like the
old WRG ancients rules with all sorts of tables to look up.
> 2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that under
Is that a problem? Designers would have to trade off mass, points etc. as
normal.
> 3) If you blow the lock-on roll(s) then you just don't get to fire
My experience with Seastrike leads me to think that an FC test would make
attacks feel "chancier" and encourage multiple and combined attacks. Fleet
Book smaller ships would be at a disadvantage with only one firecon. It MIGHT
discourage fast slashing attacks (FSE?) and encourage a slow
"phalanx"-like approach (NSL?) to give the less reliable weapon systems
more chances at the target. Playtesting required obviously.
Ok, here you go:)
Personally, I would like the "Unspend thrust gives an evasive bonus" idea the
most. I works best from a belivability point of view IMO and would have pretty
much the same effect as a lock-on malus against small ships, as those
ships usually will be the only ones with left over thrust. It also gives one
new tactical possibilities: Do I use all thrust to move
in/out of range or am I putting most thrust into jinxing?
I like additional options and as a bonus, all ships will still fire, just miss
a lot more. Much better than "What, I can´t shoot back because my bloody
targeting computer couldn´t lock on? I´m gonna kill my computer
engineer!"
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
[quoted original message omitted]
It's funny that you would ask this.....
I have been quietly been working on a set up for this... something that would
actually bring FT a little closer to the FMA system in fact...
The thing about the current system is that it combines the 'to hit'
rolls with the 'to damage' rolls in most (what, 2/3's? OA would
probably know the exact... ;-P) of the games weapons.... making a
separate to hit roll would stop this....
Adding a to hit roll I think opens many possibilities to the game, and yet
would still allow for scalability...
Some of the possibilities include proper implimentation of sensors, ECM,
etc... as well as being able to introduce a system quality element similar to
dirtside... which would also lead to being able to add crew quality rolls...
which could then lead to 'certain other' motivation and morale rules already
included in another game or two.... you could also have a shot deviation roll,
so that if you miss, you can still see if the stray shot hit a different ship
altogether....
And as far as complexity is concerned... Jon's the first one to tell you that
if you don't like a rule, don't use it... Don't like the sensors and
jamming... don't use them.... Don't like the crew morale rules, don't use
them, don't like crew quality and system quality charts... don't use them...
It all just adds
up to ye ole 'Basic Rules/Advanced Rules'.... something even FT2 had...
Jon if there's any interest in seeing what I've worked up so far, and passing
it on to the playtest list, or even this list, just let me know and I can send
it whereever it needs to go...
Remember, even light is shaped by the darkness that surrounds it, and the true
crafters are seldom ever seen. Welcome to the shadows kid.
> We normally play with a fairly small number of ships (I think) 6 or so
Well, just to give you some idea of the lines along which I'm
thinking, here are a few rough ideas of how the simple lock-on rules
could work....... note that these are NOT anything more than
off-the-cuff ideas for discussion at this stage, so don't take them
as gospel! ;-)
If anyone out there actually wants to put some toys on the table and
give these a spin (even if just the basic lock-on idea, ignoring
stuff like ECM and Stealth for the moment) to see how they feel, then I'd be
very interested in seeing the AAR....
Jon (GZG)
.............................
FIRE CONTROL LOCK-ON ROLLS:
When a ship is selected to perform its fire resolution, the first step is for
the owning player to nominate which target(s) the ship is
attempting to acquire firing solutions on (or "lock-on" to). Each
functioning Fire Control system on the ship may be used to make ONE
lock-on attempt on one target per turn. Two or more FCs may be
allocated to a single target if desired, but all FCs that are to be used must
be allocated before any rolls are attempted. All that
ship's lock-on attempts are then rolled, one die per FC; regardless
of how many FCs were allocated against a single target, only one
success is required to allow the ship to lock-on to that target and
engage it with direct fire. Multiple successes against the same target have no
additional effect, the use of multiple FCs simply
increases the chance of getting a successful lock-on.
Once a successful lock-on is achieved against a given target, that
target may be fired at by any desired mix of direct-fire weapons on
the firing ship subject to the usual range limitations of the individual
weapons.
The lock-on roll is dependant on the quality of FC system and the
range to the target, modified by any countermeasures used by the target. It is
completely independant of whatever kind of weapon systems are fitted to the
ship, or the effective ranges of those
weapons - though of course it is recommended that any given ship is
fitted with sensors that have at least the same maximum range as the ship's
weapon systems!
The basic roll needed for success is: 2+ at CLOSE sensor range, 3 +
at MEDIUM sensor range and 4+ at LONG sensor range.
Fire Control sensor system ranges:
BASIC FC system (old or low-grade system found on civilian ships and
obsolete warships): CLOSE 12mu, MEDIUM 24mu, LONG 36mu.
STANDARD FC system (average system found on most typical warships): CLOSE
18mu, MEDIUM 36mu, LONG 54mu.
ADVANCED FC system (state-of-the-art system on latest warships and
specialized sensor boats): CLOSE 24mu, MEDIUM 48mu, LONG 72mu.
Each level of ECM and/or STEALTH carried by the target adds ONE to
the required score; if target is EVADING (see optional rule below) then add
evasion thrust level to required score.
Note: regardless of modifiers, a lock-on roll score of 6 is ALWAYS a
success (even if the combined applicable modifiers push the required number
over 6).
Example: A Battleship with 3 x standard FC systems is ready to fire; the
player decides to allocate one FC to an enemy Destroyer at 15mu range, and the
other two to a Heavy Cruiser at 28mu range. The DD is applying 2 thrust points
to evading in this turn, while the CH has
level-1 ECM capability.
One die is rolled against the DD - the needed score is 2+ for the
range (Close for standard FCs), plus the DD's evasion thrust of 2, =
4+. The BB's player rolls a 5, and gets a successful lock-on to the
DD.
Now he rolls two dice for the other FCs against the CH; as all FCs have to be
allocated before rolling, he may roll both dice together.
The player needs to roll at least one 4+ here too, 3+ for Medium
sensor range plus one for the CH's ECM. He scores a 2 and a 6,
getting the required one success - and thus a firing solution on the
CH too.
The BB player may now decide how to split the fire of his various
weapons between the two locked-up targets.
EVASION:
[Optional rule for settings where this sort of thing is considered a
valid tactic!]
Evasion consists of a ship using its drives to perform brief, random
shifts in position and course (minor jinks, side-slips etc) in an
attempt to prevent enemy sensors acquiring an accurate firing solution on the
ship. These evasive maneuvers are considered too small to actually affect the
physical position or course of the miniature on the table, but they apply
modifiers to the enemy's
lock-on attempts against the evading ship.
Evasion comes from the same "pool" of thrust points as course changes
- ie: up to HALF (rounded up) of the ship's main drive thrust. Note
that this is the SAME half as used for course changes, so a ship may be
declared to be evading by any "left over" thrust after course changes, up to a
total of half the available thrust rating.
Example: a thrust-6 ship has up to 3 thrust points available for
course changes; if it performs a 1-point course change then it may,
if desired, use the remaining 2 points for evasion. If it uses 2 points to
change course, it may only use the remaining one to evade,
and if it makes a 3-point course change then it may not evade at all.
Of course, if it does not change course at all then it may allocate the full 3
thrust points to evasion, making it a very difficult
target for direct-fire weapons - at the cost of being unable to
maneuver that turn.
[OPTION/Question: should an evading ship suffer penalties to its OWN
FC lock-on attempts that turn, or not?]
Thrust allocated to Evasion must be specified in the order writing
phase, as an E and the amount of thrust allocated - thus E2 means two
thrust points are being used for evasion that turn.
..................................
> Would this only affect weapons that need a fire control?
Yes. Self-guided and/or area-effect weaponry would be launched in the
general direction of the target, but anything classed as a "direct
fire" weapon will need a lock-on.
> To address the frustration of not being able to fire, could you give
I'd rather not go this way. Either you have a firing solution or you don't; if
you don't, you try again next turn, or throw a wide spread of indirect small
stuff (new use for a modified form of Submunition or "anime missile
spread"....?). Harsh, but simple.
My vote for KISS
Extra rolls are bad as they stifle the game flow - less is more - FT
is just about at the perfect level of abstraction - tinker not.
ECM was modelled in MT this could be enhanced using simple range
modifiers - if ECM is in effect then move the ship up one range band
for the weapon class
> Now, I feel that the point of the FCLO (Fire Control Lock-On) roll is
Things like ECM/ECCM, stealth, agility and other countermeasures will
just modify the roll, and thus all be resolved in one simple mechanism.<<
Is there any thought as to making this a 1/engagement roll? Or
1/engagement
until circumstances change? Because all of those things sound great but I (for
one) don't want to complicate things with more rolls.
I, for one, don't have much of a problem with merely adding things to the
"roll to hit" which would allow for differences in weapon systems and what
they're affected by. Is it "as" accurate? No, but I'd be fine with that level
of granularity since it seems to be in keeping with the "traditions" of the
game.
> There is no doubt that introducing something like this (which, I must
will make the game feel a little different - but I think that only
testing on the table will tell if that is a good or bad thing, and how much
the real difference is. If the general feeling is that it will change things
enough that it will no longer feel like FT, then that's the sort of thing I
want to know.<<
I think that if that's the route to go, then redesign the game from the ground
up and then just factor in a "Full Thrust Lite" for people who don't want a
complicated system.
As one of the requested quiet lurkers I guess I'll weigh in.
At first I was like, oh boy, yet another crazy newcomer with bright ideas that
involve adding more rules. But as I read on, I was thought, "This is pretty
reasonable, and doesn't complicate things too much". Then I then I got to the
end and realized the crazy newcomer was Jon. Oops.
That said, I like it. It's an extra roll, but that one new roll adds a whole
lot of new territory to add into the game play. And it doesn't necessarily
invalidate any of the old designs. I like that it takes one of the more
passive components of the ship design and gives it a more active roll in game
play.
One thought, could this new roll also help decomplicate some of the Beta
fighter rules? Instead of having the fighters evasion reduce the chance of
taking hits, it just applies to the lockon roll, and thus cuts down on some of
the rules for each weapon type against fighters? Make the fighters generally
harder to target to begin with and it might balance out okay.
Alrighty, back into my hidey hole.
Throwing my 2 cents into the fray.
I would be very much for the extra rules and rolls to be able to model ECM and
stealth in a nice gracefull manner.
I like the idea of making the rules optional to the point that 2 ships in
range of their primary weapons would have a 100% chance of lock on with each
other unless they do something specificly to avoid that. 2 heavy cruisers
looking to tangle should have no problem finding each other. But if one of
those has a dedicated ECM frigate helping out and running evasive manuevers
there would be some play.
This also lets you put in an easy mechanism to hide ship size, type, bogies,
etc... without making it a special case rule.
IMHO it would be worth the effort to add a whole lot of options and
flexibility to the game play.
I missed the initial post on this. COuld someone please email it to me?
Rather than having another roll, why not add another die to the firing roll.
Say either a d6 of a different color or a different sized die. If
that shows you didn't make the lock-on, the shot has no effect.
No slower, IMHO, just a little frustrating if the damage dice are perfect
and the lock-on failed.
I tend to agree with Martin -- I feel that the "lock-on" is
already represented in the 50% miss chance when using a regular beam.
Admittedly, right now this is thus identical for all ships, but as John A.
pointed out, that's really the way it should be given the nominal size of
ships vs. engagement distances that have been proposed. There's a lot of
"wiggle room" in various explanations of things due to the granularity of the
system; not everyone likes that, though, especially when trying to tweak the
system.
A few more comments here... partially just tossing out ideas and
questions about the lock-on roll and it's effect on the current
system:
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
One question might be, if you are getting a "lock-on" then would
there still be a 50% miss chance for beams? Or would the direct fire rolls
then reflect the higher accuracy, and do more damage?
How would K-guns be affected?
I suppose how far you want to go in this depends on how hard the
standard lock-on roll would be... the ideal would, I think, be
to keep the same average damage that is dealt currently in a
single toss of the beam dice, when you have first a lock-on roll
and then (if successful) the toss of the beam dice. No?
The next question becomes, how do you design the system such that it is *not*
a requirement that one has the best
ECM/ECCM/ELINT/whatever to win a combat... and/or to make the
price of higher-level gear such that it makes sense to not
always use it.
Also, what effect will this have on the "large ships do better"
effect? If a large ship can mount -- and, because of more hull,
armor, shields, etc., better protect -- high-level electronics
system, they will get proportionately more use out of them than any smaller
ships will... exact same effect of any weapons system out there, of course,
but depending on the influence of the electronics system this could have a
huge effect on the overall battle.
> >To address the frustration of not being able to fire, could
I suppose this might make the indirect fire types a little more popular...
though most of those, I seem to recall, you are supposed to launch before the
fire phase (or even before ship movement) so you can't really fire them
"instead of" beam
weapons if you don't get a lock-on.
Or would there be some new weapons involved as well, that are indirect but
fire in the beam fire phase? And in this case, why
wouldn't people use that exclusively -- no lock-on at all
needed, then? (Though presumably a firecon would still need to "be
available".)
Just some questions, and food for thought....
> The idea of a lock-on roll for a ship's fire control system(s) to
First off like others have said, if a lock on roll would be implemented I
would like the default situation with no ECM or stealth involved to be 100%
lock on for weapons in range so basically the lock-on and things that
effect it would be optional and thus both sides would have to agree to it
before they play.
A lock-on roll could work, but it would add time to the game and how it
is done would also have some effect. If you roll a lock on a ship in turn 1,
do you have to roll a lock on the same ship in turn 2 if you are still firing?
If you do have to roll for another lock, why? Didn't the FC keep the lock? If
no roll needed on turn 2, how do you keep track of all the ships you have FCs
locked on? Would that clutter the table when you have to track the locks of
all the FCs on all the ships? If you don't have to roll for a lock on a later
turn, what if you don't fire on a ship for a turn, do you loose the lock and
have to roll again?
Do ships have data-links so when one ship locks, they all lock? (but
still
need a FC to direct fire, but no lock-on roll is needed.)
Personally, I prefer modifying the effective range of a ship instead of a
lock-on roll. Use 2 thrust to evade, use 5" increments instead of 6"
increments on weapons that fire at it. Use 4 thrust to evade, now ships attack
it using 4" increments. The dice rolling is all the same, you end up
using less dice in some situations or the to-hit portion of the roll
isn't as easy to make. The Stealth proposal uses this method and the ability
to change the range bands is in the hull of the ship. ECM systems would do the
same thing but they would be separate systems. Enhanced sensors could make the
weapons use 7" or even 8" range bands.
> On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> a much larger group of players.
Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try to "break"
the
lock-on of a ship that is attacking it. If you think about it, the
reason that an attacking ship is unable to lock on usually depends on some
property of the defending ship. Either it has ECM, stealth, decoys or is
performing evasive
manoeuvres. Also, the effect of the failed lock-on may depend on the
defence being deployed. For example, an ECM defence may produce a fuzzy
target, whereas a decoy would produce a double target.
> As one of the requested quiet lurkers I guess I'll weigh in.
Thanks (I think....) <GRIN>
> That said, I like it. It's an extra roll, but that one new roll adds a
Yes, that's my feeling about it. I DO like the concept in theory, if I didn't
then I wouldn't be posting about it, but I'm by no means fixed on including it
in FT3; that's why I'm interested in getting as much feedback as possible at
this stage through the list.
> One thought, could this new roll also help decomplicate some of the
My thoughts exactly. You can fire at fighters with almost anything, IF you can
get a lock on the little b*ggers.... This could well be a way of keeping in
some of the aspects of the
(IMHO)over-complex beta fighter rules that I've been less than happy
with, using one new rule to cover everything.
Answering a few points made in other posts, in no particular order.....
Someone suggested a separate to-hit roll for every weapon shot -
that's something that I really DON'T want to do, as one of the things that FT
has always had over most of it's competitors is that a lot of combat shots are
resolved in 1 (or at most 2) roll(s) instead of 3 or more. Now, I know that
I'm now suggesting that we add some extra rolls into
the game with the lock-on concept, but I think we can get away with
that because the few additional rolls involved are per-ship, rather
than per-weapon.
Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
the hit/damage chance of most weapons be increased? Well, I think no.
Yes, 50% of beam shots against unscreened targets will have no effect
- but that doesn't necessarily mean they have all been "misses"; that
50% may be considered to include those shots that hit but do
negligible damage - the ones that just scorch the paint off the hull
a bit. Having a lock-on simply means that your sensors and
fire-control computers have predicted the target's location in space
accurately enough to place the fire in the close vicinity of the
target - but whether any individual shot then actually hits that
target with enough power to do at least 1 box of damage is still up to the die
roll.
Re the suggestions that we introduce some sort of target-size-based
modifier, I think someone already answered that one - the problem is
that it reintroduces artificial break points (which were in original FT2 but
FB1 then disposed of), eg: if you say that ships up to 50 MASS (for the sake
or example) are considered "small", then given the
D6-based granularity of FT you are going to end up with a situation
where a 51 MASS ship is at least 17% easier to lock-on to than a 50
MASS ship. Now, this doesn't feel right in many ways - but in real
gameplay terms, is it actually a problem or not? Yes, such a system would mean
that munchkin ship designers would always go for ships
just under the break-point, but in trying to do so they may well be
compromising other aspects of their designs..... I originally
dismissed this one out of hand due to the break-point argument, but
the more I think about it the more I'm wondering whether it could be made to
work after all...... opinions, anyone?
> Alrighty, back into my hidey hole.
Thanks for the input! Please keep following the discussions, and feel
free to chip in again at any time! :-)
Jon,
> My thoughts exactly. You can fire at fighters with almost anything,
Err, well... I'd say the tracking speed of a weapon mount is pretty relevant
too. E.g. if you got an excellent lock on a fighter, getting your spinal mount
onto the target at the right time is still difficult. Same for larger turrets
etc.
> Someone suggested a separate to-hit roll for every weapon shot -
And a failed lock on actually reduces the nbumber of dice rolled that
turn...
> Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
So this means in general the lethality will go down.
> Re the suggestions that we introduce some sort of target-size-based
I'm personally not too worried about those break points. In real life there's
plenty such break points as well; e.g. the amount of weight most
bridges will stand, the maximum depth most harbours/channels are
navigable at, etc. Space equivalents could well be the maximum size that will
fit
through a warp-gate/in a docking cradle etc. Yes, the break points will
be for all the wrong reasosn in this case (munchkinism), but the fact that
ship designs will lean towards the limits of those breakpoints is not by
itself a very bad thing(tm). IMNHO.
Cheers,
> Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
It is still the case that those weapons are 50% less effective. Doesn't that
change the balance?
> On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Hmmm, an interesting way of looking at it - one that had crossed my
mind at some point, but I hadn't developed it any further.
Letting the |target" player roll does not actually make things any
different to having the firer do it, but it does give the target the FEEL of
trying to defend his ship, and that's a good thing.....
So, for example (as with the ideas I posted yesterday), take a BB
with 3 FCs - the firing player announces he is using 1 FC to engage a
DD, and the other 2 against a CH - he expects the CH to try to break
lock, hence the choice to use 2 FCs on it.
The DD is neither evading nor using countermeasures, so lock-on is
automatic.
The CH, on the other hand, is using ECM and is trying to evade as well; the CH
owner adds up whatever values these give him, and must roll equal or less than
this total to break the lock; as the BB player is dedicating TWO FCs to the
task, the CH player must roll TWO dice and must succeed with BOTH in order to
prevent the BB getting a firing solution.....
I think I kind of like this.... what does everyone else think?
> > Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
that
> 50% may be considered to include those shots that hit but do
Yes, it does, but by how much depends on how hard we make the lock-on
roll and how much countermeasures people load up with. The 50% mentioned in
the example above was nothing to do with the
lock-on ideas, it was just talking about the "misses" in regular FT.
Whether lowering the overall damage potential by having the lock-on
mechanism (and not altering the normal weapon fire resolution) is a problem
depends on peoples' views about whether current FT damage is 1) too low
already, 2) about right, or 3) too harsh.....
It doesn't look bad, although I'd make the close roll be 1+. Unless the
target has some form
of ECM it would be auotomatic lock on. Also, I'd give evasion +1 per 2
thrust.
Roger Books
> On 6/22/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Dirtside style lockons?
Is d6 sacrosanct with FT?
Roger Books
> On 6/23/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try to
...
> I think I kind of like this.... what does everyone else think?
..."roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, each WITH (possible) modifiers
and special automatics (auto hit or auto wound or no save)..."
It keeps the defender playing during the other person's turn, so you are not
'only waiting' til your turn, which is prolly why it's part of the Evil
Empire(tm) mechanic. But it's still an extra roll, so I'm against it. Please
note, the range band adjustment will add time of varying amounts depending how
quick the players are, too, but it's not a separate step in the process.
Is the concept of alternate, or even complimentary, systems right out? Could
you see offering each as an option, and pointing out that mixing and matching
the extra die rolls with range adjustments would make a fiendishly complex
system, which may be what some folks seek?
The_Beast
> It keeps the defender playing during the other person's turn...
Just wanted to point out that rolling threshold hits does this to an extent.
The_Beast
The main reason for doing the lock-on is to provide a place to hang
stealth, ECM, target agility, etc.
The lock-on only applies to weapons requiring a fire control.
I suggest writing up a table of the things you'd want to be implemented this
way vs all the weapons, and make sure that there aren't some things that don't
use FC but should be affected by those things, and that all the things that do
use FC should be affected by them.
For example: does "stealth" include cloaking? If you don't know it is there,
why
should you be able to launch a non-FC weapon at it?
Do some of the non-FC weapons assume a FC onboard the weapon?
> "Andy Skinner" wrote:
This means that the relative effectiveness of indirect fire weapons will be
increased. Should these weapons be made more expensive to reflect this?
Balancing this might be very tricky.
> Just wanted to point out that rolling threshold hits does this to an
True. But it's not a good activity to undertake.;)
I like the idea of using opposed rolls (ala SG, DS, FMA). No ECM (or other
counter measures) means the defender rolls a d4. Evasive maneuvers, better
ECM, etc. will boost this die upwards.
Attacker would roll based on quality of firecons, sensor, and crew. Attacker
beats defender and *blammo*...damage is done. The better the attacker rolls
the more damage done with the hit.
I guess what I'm really looking for is being able to have a ship become
a hole in space-- being hard to detect thus being hard to hit. Once the
Drive lights up and sensors/firecons go active then you have a giant
"Shoot Me!" sign on your back. Unless, of course, you have some sort of
extra drive masking/directed sensor PSB.
> >> Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try
As those on the playtest list will already know, I'm VERY much against the
range band adjustment idea, mainly (being entirely honest here) on grounds of
personal taste. I know it does work, but I find
it messy and counter-intuitive in the context of FT. YMMV, of course.
I can live with a very simple modification like doubling or halving range
bands, but when it gets to taking one, two or more mu off each band, I really,
really don't like it. I firmly believe that the time
taken to roll a die under a simple, streamlined lock-on rule will be
MUCH less that the time it takes a lot of players to work out the altered
range bands for each and every type of weapon as it fires.
;-)
> Is the concept of alternate, or even complimentary, systems right out?
I'm wary of offering too many alternate systems because, as someone else
mentioned, you then end up with everyone playing a different
version of the game - OK until you want to play with a different
group or enter a tournament.... You really can't please everyone, no matter
how many options you give
them - I recall reading a review of a rule sets several years ago
where the reviewer criticised the designer for offering (IIRC) two different
methods of initiative sequence, saying that it made it look like he couldn't
make his mind up which one worked best and so put
both in to cover himself.... :-/
> Dirtside style lockons?
Yes.
;-)
The CH, on the other hand, is using ECM and is trying to evade as well; the CH
owner adds up whatever values these give him, and must roll equal or less than
this total to break the lock; as the BB player is dedicating TWO FCs to the
task, the CH player must roll TWO dice and must succeed with BOTH in order to
prevent the BB getting a firing solution.....
I think I kind of like this.... what does everyone else think?
I guess I'll throw in my two cents:
I don't object to the FC rolls *in principle*. I do think though that they
should be in an "advanced rule" section so as to make the current game system
the default. I don't know if the actual dice rolling will add time to the
game, but I'm quite sure that the decision process for allocating your fire
controls definitely will add time to the game. People spend time mulling what
to shoot at now. Having to figure out whether or not you'll achieve lock on
will add to it. Like I said, I don't oppose it, in fact I like the principle
and the possibilities it allows. I would want to make the "easier" form of the
game be the default though, so people who want a quicker game won't be turned
away.
One suggestion: Ships that are using "evasive movement" should have a harder
time locking on as well as being locked on *to*. The movements that make it
harder to target you also make it harder for you to target them.
I like the latest proposals that have had the default be "automatic lockon" if
neither side is doing anything to make a lockon more difficult.
I would include something about how lockon range bands would need to be
different depending on the setting. Your longest lockon band at least
correspond to the range of your longest weapons. If the setting has class 8
beam batteries, the lockons should be possible to that range.
Do fighters require a lockon to fire at a ship? If not, why not? If the answer
is that they are so close (which is fine), then I think the fighter models
should actually be moved that 6 MU to the ship they are attacking. If the
fighter is actually firing from 6 MU away instead, then they should have the
same lockon problems as a ship, at least from a logical standpoint.
Along the same lines, do PDS require lockons to fire at missiles and fighters?
Anything that weaken PDS (even a little) tends to make those already powerful
systems (missiles and fighters) even more powerful.
> >Would this only affect weapons that need a fire control?
This part concerns me. If you accept the idea that missiles and other placed
weapons are currently balanced versus beams and other direct fire weapons,
then lockons will upset that balance considerably.
If
beams are going to fail because they missed lockons when salvo missiles are
unchanged, then I am much *much* more likely to use missiles now (let alone my
missile happy opponents). Similiarly if you know your opponent is going to be
deploying high ECM ships, then you want to building missile ships to lessen
their impact. It threatens to devolve into the "lots of pds are good against
fighters and not anything else" kind of situation. At the very least, I would
reduce the range of the secondary "attack"
move based on the ECM/evasive maneuvers of the target.
> Jon (GZG)
Right, where to start...
Jon and the playtesters have already seen me make most of the following points
on the playtest list, but for the rest of you:
R. Bryett:
> >>>> The main argument FOR such a system is that a lock-on roll allows
such
> things as ECM/jamming, stealth, target agility, enhanced sensors, etc
I don't think so. I've actually never encountered any FT gaming group who
claim to use these rules regularly (I know a few groups using them in special
scenarios, but that's all); to me at least it seems like most players deploy
the models on the table immediately unless they're Cloaked.
> >>>>1) Adding in an extra die-roll step to the combat sequence, with
[This also answers Robert Crawford]
If you do this you first spend X time to measure the range, checking what
target numbers your P-torps/K-guns/etc. have, checking how many beam
dice to fire for your beam and graser batteries, etc... and then you flunk the
lock-on roll. As someone (Randy or Derk IIRC? - I deleted that post
since I
didn't disagree with it, so can't check) noted, making the lock-on check
*first* speeds the game up since you don't have to resolve the fire of weapons
for which you get no target lock.
> But some sort of record keeping would presumably then be required to
No record-keeping necessary if you resolve all of a ship's fire at the
same
time (which is the case in the beta-test fighter rules).
> >>>>2) Larger numbers of firecons become much more attractive that
as
> normal.
It is *yet another* game mechanic which favours big ships which can easily
afford buying 2-3 extra FCSs over small ones which can't, and that's a
problem unless you like games where the smallest ships are Mass 150. (Full
Thrust already has several other game mechanics which also favour large ships
over small ones.)
EFSB avoided this game balance problem by requiring the players to specify
which weapons on the ship were using which SINGLE FCS - and no weapon
could use *more* than one FCS, even if several FCSs were targetting the same
victim. IOW, if a battleship had weapons A, B, C, D, E and F and FCSs 1 and 2,
it could say that "weapons A, B and C use FCS 1, weapons D, E and F use
FCS 2"; it then made lock-on checks for both FCSs, and if FCS 1 got a
lock while FCS 2 didn't then only weapons A, B and C could fire.
Unfortunately this solution doesn't work from a PSB point of view. If any
single FCS aboard a ship gets a lock, there's no good PSB reason why it
couldn't share that lock with every weapon on the ship... which is most likely
why that particular EFSB rule has been stripped out of every "update
to EFSB" I've seen on-line :-/
***
Ralph Hoenig:
> Personally, I would like the "Unspend thrust gives an evasive bonus"
idea
> the most.
If the evasive manoeuvres give any noticable protection, it will take the
munchkins approximately ten minutes after this rule becomes implemented to
make sure that their capital ships have enough thrust to make evasive
manoeuvres.
***
> Rrok Anroll wrote:
> And as far as complexity is concerned... Jon's the first one to tell
As Robert Bryett noted, the fire resolution is *very* fundamental to the
game. Any "house rule" which changes the fire resolution results noticably
- and Jon's recent concept rules do change the fire resolution results
*very* noticably - will effectively throw the entire ship design system
out the window.
That's not a problem for those who don't use the ship design rules anyway, but
unfortunately they seem to be a rather small minority of the FT players...
> >The problem I see with this approach is that, as with the split
If your players design to the rules and your group uses the same rules all the
time, you'll spend most of your games playing with or against the same DESIGNS
(or designs which are very similar to each other) as well
with/against the same FOLKS. For a game which prides itself on being
highly customizable, that's not a good thing.
> Additionally, it would seem that if you're building to the rules
In my experience roughly 90% of all players (in all wargames which allow
custom design of units, not just in Full Thrust) build to the rules more
than they build to any actual design element. Many are unaware that they do
this, but you'd probably be surprised by how often an outside observer can
tell what movement system and other variant rules a particular gaming group
uses just by looking at what type of ship designs they've come up with.
***
Tim Jones:
> ECM was modelled in MT
In MT, ECM had one single use: deny the enemy detailed knowledge about the
state of your ships, by making his sensor scan attempts harder. It had nothing
to do with denying him target locks.
***
Broadband:
> Its speed divide by its present speed rounded of to the nearest whole
"Its speed divided by its present speed" sounds as if it would be exactly 1,
every single time...?
Using a spreadsheet to calculate the lock-on rolls means that you must
have a computer handy whenever you're gaming. Not all gamers do,
unfortunately.
> In the real world Motor torpedo boats can (and frequently have)
suceeded
> against far heavier ships (destroyers were invented to specifically
In the real world *of the early 1900s*, the battleships of the time didn't
have any light-speed weapons :-/
'Course, in the real world of *today* warships still dont have
light-speed
weapons, yet in spite of that MTBs and similar don't stand much of a chance
against larger modern warships unless there are plenty of nearby islands
for the MTBs to hide behind... and deep space is usually rather short on
such cover :-/
> Any naval history will point out that big slows ships where there to
Any *good* naval history will point out that big slow ships were there to make
sure that the *troop transports and freighters* got where they were
supposed to get, no matter who tried to stop them - be it "pirhanas" or
other big slow ships.
***
Andy Skinner, replying to Jon:
> > Another point brought up was that if we have a lock-on roll, should
that
> > 50% may be considered to include those shots that hit but do
Doesn't
> that change the balance?
Er, no, it isn't "still the case that those weapons are 50% less effective".
The 50% Jon talks about here are the 50% of the time a standard beam die rolls
"1", "2" or "3" (instead of "4", "5" or "6") and thus
inflicts no damage whatsoever - in the CURRENT rules; and since it is in
the current rules rather than a change it does not change the balance.
One thing which DOES change the balance however is when the lock-on
probability varies with the range - because that makes shots at longer
ranges less likely to get a target lock, and thus be fired, than
shorter-ranged shots are. Since the existing FT weapon Mass and Cost
values were all determined based on how often they get to shoot under the
*current* rules, and the longer-ranged weapons pay extra for their
ability
to inflict damage before the shorter-ranged weapons can do anything,
reducing the number of long-range shots more than the number of
short-ranged shots means that all long-ranged weapons in the game
immediately become overpriced.
Regards,
> Doug Evans wrote:
> Perhaps a small change in perspective: let the defending ship try to
I think from what Jon's saying it's more like "if dodging/jamming, roll
to break lock and then hose with damage". Of course some weapons (grazers)
have two step damage proceedures, but we're already used to those now aren't
we <grin>.
> It keeps the defender playing during the other person's turn, so you
But as a seperate step,one right at the beginning of fire decleration, is only
one roll per target and then only when the target ship is attempting to dodge.
Dean and a few others suggested that the dodging modifier should be 1 per two
thrust expended, which sounds good. It means that unless a ship has at least 4
thrust, it can't dodge (a nice inherent limitation and a new wrinkle to the
game system... also makes more sense for the FSE designs). As well, I find
changing rangebands to be mentally cumbersome... you get people thinking....
"okay, normal band
is 12... minus 2 for dodging and ecm, plus one for enhanced sensors. so it's
11. So it's not 11 away... 22? no....". It's not so bad with most rangebands,
but with grazers you start having to think of multiples of 16 or 17.
> Is the concept of alternate, or even complimentary, systems right out?
> The_Beast
Roger Books said:
> Dirtside style lockons? Is d6 sacrosanct with FT?
Some brilliant person came up with an idea for using polyhedral dice
for crew quality (see http://home.quixnet.net/deboe/ft/quality.htm ),
but for standard FT, yes, we should plan to stick with d6.
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Yes, I should have been a little more clear about that, I guess.
> Whether lowering the overall damage potential by having the
The other consideration would be balance between systems, as
Andy mentioned in a later e-mail. For example, salvo missiles
would seem to be an indirect fire weapon, and in fact have a
'lock-on' mechanism in place already, to a degree. But how will
making ships lock on for beam or K-gun fire affect the balance
in effectiveness between salvo missiles and beams?
Scatterpacks? Subpacks? (Which are probably pretty under-used
at this point, really, other than by IF.... ^_- )
I do like the 'defender rolls to break lock' a little better than rolling to
acquire, though the mechanism is really similar.
Whether you want to go all the way to a DS-style opposed roll
is also a good question, since at least part of the systems are on the
attacking ship (FC quality, as you noted).
'Til later,
> Seeing as this subject has come up in the last few days'
I wouldn't mind, or would even approve, of lock-on rolls as
long as under "normal" circumstances success is automatic, so you don't
actually have to roll. What is normal? Well, that's where it gets more
interesting.
My suggestion is that lock-on rolls be used to encourage
certain styles of play, or perhaps shift imbalances. For instance, I offer
these wild and untested ideas:
* A ship has to make a lock-on roll to fire on any other
ship half it's own mass or less. Very simple brute force rule to encourage
superdreadnaughts to have destroyer escorts to deal with the enemy destroyers.
* A ship has to make a lock-on roll to fire on any ship
that has already been fired on this turn. This is purely
and simply because I like old-style capital ship actions
where ships ended up fighting one on one against a similar enemy, rather than
FT style "everybody shoot the biggest guy first." PSB reason is interference
from friendly radar, lidar, or whatever.
cheers,
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> One suggestion: Ships that are using "evasive movement" should
Not necessarily, as you're pretty well aware of your own movement - and
you probably have a pretty good idea what they are going to be ahead of time,
too.
> I like the latest proposals that have had the default be
Same here.
Cheers,
OA said:
> It is *yet another* game mechanic which favours big ships which can
Could be reduced, somewhat, if you can't use multiple FCS to improve your
chances. And of course, small boys often have shorter ranged weapons,
which may well be within "auto-lockon" range.
I'm delurking for a while to comment on this. Right now I am just sticking to
the original idea, not the commentsback on it.
I don't think a lock on roll is a good mechanic.
1 FT already takes Fire COntrol into account by requiring you to dedicate fire
control to fire. 2. Its NOT FUN. honestly, this is the biggest point. I have
played games with a Fire Control roll. NOthing ruins your enjoyment of a game
like having played really well, and then not being able to do anything
because of a single eff-ing die roll. Absolutely not fun. That kind of
super random only the luckiest player can win should be left to GW. 3. As I
said before, its too random. We already have a fair amount
of uncertainty in the attack rolls. Do we need to have a "all or nothing" roll
to be able to attack as well? I don't think so. I have always thought of the
GZG games to be games of strategy and tactics, not random
rolling.
Instead of a roll to determine lock on, how about making it more FC
dependant. Each level of ECM/Stealth requires an additional FC to be
dedicated to be able to target and fire. ECCM could them be modeled as
something similiar to a FC that is dedicated to a single target to counter its
ECM, high power sensors to counter stealth. This will foster more strategy adn
tactics, instead of "roll and don't get a one".
As for evasion, aren't ships assumed to be evading anyway? FT is a game
of abstractions, and I always got the impression that ships were using
their manuvering thrusters to provide as much randomness as possiblie -
thus the 50%+ miss rates on shooting anyway. Plus, Evasion will add
more book keeping, which is always, IMO, something to avoid. Every ship on the
table could potentially need to yet another marker or comment to keep track
of.
In addition, the evasion bonus is way, way too high, if we are going with it
(which we shouldn't). It is possible to have escorts sitting in the middle of
the enemy fleet and being untargetable due to evasion, size and fire control.
And do we really want to see what the Kra'vaak can do with these evasion
rules?
Here's another way to handle ECM/Evasion. Feel free to rip it apart, or
(more likely) just ignore it.
Every ECM/Evasion point provides one (or more) die worth of
damage reduction. This is rolled after movement, but before firing (and noted
on your movement sheet).
The die is the EXACT same as beam dice, and applies to ALL damage (creating no
particular large swing in balance between weapons).
During that turn, you just ignore that amount of damage before you
start crossing off hull boxes (effectively they are temporary hull/armor
boxes).
It involves another round of die rolls, but eliminates the
all-or-nothing
effect that's caused by lock-on rolls, and the fiddliness of modifying
range bands.
I don't think it favors large ships. Small ships should, in fact, be getting a
larger "percentage" of extra damage taking capacity each turn they evade or
use ECM than a comparable large vessel (although this might be evened out by
large vessels having more chances to
evade/use ECM).
It would promote the tactic of high thrust ships accelerating fast than
coasting/evading while they made their attack pass.
And, of course, it's simple.
Daryl
> On 6/24/05, tsarith@io.com <tsarith@io.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 15:11, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Why does it have to affect the range *band*? It's far simpler just
to affect the range - a ship at 23" with +6" from stealth is now
effectively at 29" for all weapon systems. One simple addition.
I'd agree with you about not changing the bands.
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 15:11, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Why does it have to affect the range *band*? It's far simpler just
to affect the range - a ship at 23" with +6" from stealth is now
effectively at 29" for all weapon systems. One simple addition.
I'd agree with you about not changing the bands. I don't like that idea
either.
> Why does it have to affect the range *band*? It's far simpler just
*ahem* It's true, I said I'd shut up, and will, but for to point out this is
what I was thinking while saying "range bands". I kind of assumed the
same effect would be a distinction without a difference, but how you state the
mechanic IS important for understanding.
Trying to be good and lurk, again...
The_Beast
> I don't think a lock on roll is a good mechanic. <<<<SNIP>>>> Its
This is kind of what I was driving at when I was babbling about Seastrike, but
Mr.Engebos put it much better!
> I'd rather not go this way. Either you have a firing solution or you
"Harsh but simple...." reminds me of the Islamic Fed Steel Cage Grudge
Match, held in a 13mu-wide arena using ships with 25 Beam2 and 20
hull. Whoever wins initiative, wins the match. Rather luck-dependent,
admittedly.
To be quick and reasonably polite:
the SaVasku and the Kra'Vak will be near invincible under this suggested
mechanic.
(Not to mention the needed PSB with the fact that 'turn' thrust is now
'different' from 'acceleration' thrust.)
Bye for now, John L.
> > >On 22-Jun-05, at 2:30 AM, Ground Zero Games
In a message dated 6/26/2005 2:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:
To be quick and reasonably polite:
the SaVasku and the Kra'Vak will be near invincible under this suggested
mechanic.
(Not to mention the needed PSB with the fact that 'turn' thrust is now
'different' from 'acceleration' thrust.)
Bye for now, John L.
I can see the SaVasku being that powerful, after all, they are over a million
years old. What do you expect from a race that old in space travel?
Vince
> VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2005 2:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
A concession card for 'old' aged travelers?
Cheers
In a message dated 6/26/2005 8:35:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> djfulton@bigpond.net.au writes:
A concession card for 'old' aged travelers?
Cheers
Derek
PS; Yes Beth is traveling again, this time Lindau, Germany.
Cheers
Derek
Sorry, I do like the SaVasku and LOVE to play them. Even rana SaVasku game at
ECCVIII
> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:
> I can see the SaVasku being that powerful, after
The question is: Will you enjoy facing them time and again during a game(s)?
Bye for now,
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John Leary wrote:
That's the thing. IN a role playing setting I don't care. But in a minis game,
the forces should have some sort of parity for interesting gaming.
> To be quick and reasonably polite:
I assume that here you're referring to the suggested rules for evasion, John,
rather than the stuff actually quoted at the end of your post? If so, then
yes, we'd need to look at revising what an "advanced drive" does in order to
cope with this.
> (Not to mention the needed PSB with the fact
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here? In cinematic, the amount of turn
thrust with "standard" drives is already limited; the assumption is simply
that what you don't use for major course changes that turn can be used for
minor jinking about to throw off enemy firing solutions.... surely the PSB is
that doing this uses the same part of the drive system as is used for actual
course changes?
Mind you, all this may be academic if I decide not to include it at
all - it was only put up here to gather opinions!
Jon (GZG)
> Bye for now,
I concur with this view, it can really ruin your day; do everything right but
role a dice
Regards
Ian
> "R. Bryett" <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:
This is kind of what I was driving at when I was babbling about Seastrike, but
Mr.Engebos put it much better!
Best regards, Robert Bryett.
In a message dated 6/27/2005 12:47:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:
> I can see the SaVasku being that powerful, after
The question is: Will you enjoy facing them time and again during a game(s)?
Bye for now, John L.
yes, I actually would love facing them time and again.Besides, not everything
is a wining scenario you know. and the points values is what keeps things in
balance. So as long as the poit values are still correct and matched up. There
should not be to much an isue Vince
> So as long as the poit values are still correct and matched up.
That's a tall order....
> Well, just to give you some idea of the lines along which I'm
yuk starting to look like starfleet battles
How about failure of a lock on acts as levels of shields?
> On 6/22/05, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:25:40PM -0400, Roger Books wrote:
Fails to account for shield-ignoring weapons - some of which, like
K-guns, are still quite certainly precision-hit weapons.
R
In a message dated 6/27/2005 11:03:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> damosan@comcast.net writes:
> So as long as the poit values are still correct and matched up.
That's a tall order....
Jon,
Opinion Warning!!!
At the present time I do not believe that this machanic can be reduced to a
SIMPLE enough state to be useful. (I.E. using this will increse
the number of die rolls/functions that need to
be performed during the turn sequence. Something
that is already to slow due to the single ship/
fighter movement.) I use a thrust based movement, lowest to highest, that
eliminates written movement orders. This simple function speeds up the game
dramatically.
Bye for now,
So how do you deal with SMLs and fighters? If SMLs go first ships will always
dodge. If they go last the will always hit.
> --- Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> So how do you deal with SMLs and fighters? If SMLs
The SML would be treated as the MT missile, moving first. SMLs wind up being
like a 'minefield', you either take your chances or
try to avoid them. Low speed, low thrust ships
have few options with SMLs. Fighters move last and must be in base to base
contact to fire.
Bye for now,
In a message dated 6/27/2005 4:43:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> roger.books@gmail.com writes:
So how do you deal with SMLs and fighters? If SMLs go first ships will
always dodge. If they go last the will always hit.
Roger Books
On 6/27/05, John Leary <_john_t_leary@yahoo.com_
> (mailto:john_t_leary@yahoo.com) > wrote:
I use a thrust based movement, lowest to highest, that eliminates written
movement orders. This simple function speeds up the game dramatically.
I dont know about you all, but playing the Java and have SMs and fighters
striking in the same turn as the ships firing their main guns kinda takes away
from the strategy of FT.. This give the ships a chance to fire and destroy one
of your ships without risking anything... Whereas in table games, a ship could
be destroyed by missiles before it has a chance to fire. is there any remedies
to this problem?
Beef up point defense and anti-fighter activity to compensate.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
This give the ships a
> chance to fire and destroy one
-----The discussion is saving time in FTF games,
group movement based on thrust is a method to accomplish this end.
Whereas
> in table games, a ship
-----Fire your missles a larger ships!
:-)
Bye for now,
> VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/27/2005 4:43:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kinda takes away from the strategy of FT.. This give the ships a
> problem?
FTJava handles the salvo missile and beam mechanics properly, in turn order
sequence, as per the Fleet Book 1 and 2 rules.
A ship destroyed by salvo missiles will not have a chance to fire its direct
fire weapons.
FTJava handles the salvo missile and beam mechanics properly, in turn order
sequence, as per the Fleet Book 1 and 2 rules.
A ship destroyed by salvo missiles will not have a chance to fire its direct
fire weapons.
Jon
Ohh I didnt notise that in the games... Thats cool then, I was
wrong...