FLEET BOOK (REVIEWED)

4 posts ยท May 5 1998 to May 5 1998

From: Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@S...>

Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:04:41 +0100

Subject: FLEET BOOK (REVIEWED)

Here is my review of the Fleet Book, all comments are meant to be
constructive, this is a great piece of work JT!

This is a must have for any FT player. A very nice simple design system Some
much needed changes to the core rules. For 8 quid this is incredible value for
money.

Contents
========

Real Thrust movement system

Mega weapons phased out

60 degree fire arcs

Rolling manoeuvres

Changes to the damage track

Penetrating damage system

Critical system hits

New fighter rules - greater range and endurance and fighters as PDS

Beam weapons now have numeric size designation

Pulse torpedoes - upgraded

Needle beams - upgraded

PDAF -> Point Defence System (PDS) - upgraded

ADAF changed to a special fire control

Hull Armour

No level 3 screens

Fire control has to be paid for in design system

Crew factors and Damage Control linked to damage track

New turn sequence (like MT)

Salvo Missile System (SLM) - new very powerful offensive system

Super new mass based design system No class breakpoints Hull strength system
using percentage of mass Some beam classes get free arcs Screens get expensive
Multi arc pulse torpedoes Percentage mass system for main hull components

Fleet Designs
=============

This is a brief design synopsis of the 4 fleets in the book

NAC - Fast speed, beams, pulse torpedoes, few SLM's, heavy screens,
medium armour, and PDS/ADS

NSL - Medium speed, beams, few SLM's & pulse torpedoes, no screens,
heavy armour, PDS

FSE - Fast speed, SLM's, beams, few sub-munitions, no armour,
medium screens and PDS

ESU - Fast/Medium speed, beams, few SLM's, strong hulls, heavy screens
and PDS

How these play? I'll trust the playtesters. Everyone has lots of PDS as the
SLM's are dangerous. The 4 fleets are different as if they are using various
doctrines.

Lack of anything but standard sensors?

No ECM or MT missiles.

The crew levels on the ships are incredibly low, compared to say the
contemporary wet navy. I think this reflects the high level of automation in
the future perhaps?

Aliens to be in Volume II

Graphical Design
=================
Overall I preferred the look of MT but I suppose the changes are to emphasise
the differences...

Goodbye digital title font, modern chunky sans replacement

Small sans main text font (8pt?) so lots of information packed in the 48
pages. I found it small and would have preferred something a bit bigger ( the
font size has got progressively smaller from FT, MT to FB)

Nice clean look cover - black/silver/red

Each of the main fleets has a 1/3 page intro

New look SSD, systems aligned on a grid. No ship outline diagram, as its
replaced by the 3d ship view. New system icons for firing arc's, SLM's,
critical systems, armour, crew factors

Nice isometric drawings in pen of fleet ships, direct replicas of the
miniatures, grouped with SSD and blurb boxes about 2 per page giving about 28
pages of ship designs for the 4 main fleets and merchants ( 1 pp).

Good background blurb boxes for each ship, service details, technical
specification and design history

Few bitonal counters for new systems, not too inspiring but adequate

Usability
==========
Generally really very good, the new rules are introduced then the design
system and then the designs. So it takes you through the required steps. I
only had a couple of minor issues:

SML's salvo specifics are mentioned in the point defence rules on pp 7 before
the SML rules are actually introduced on pp 9

The section on how to interpret the SSD's (pp 41) comes after the actual SSD's
I managed to not find it for the first 2 hours as I expected it to precede
them This explains what TMF and NPV are on the SSD's.

pp 9 Salvo Missile Systems Doesn't explain the range of enhanced range (ER)
salvos (this - 36 mu - is found buried in a summary later on pp 12 )

Addenda
=======
I noticed a few funnies:

pp 3 Thruster Pushes
2nd para - '6 manoeuvre points' should be 3

pp 7
Area-Defence Fire Control
(Fighters, SMB's etc) whats an SMB? (SML maybe?)

pp 19 Ark Royal class fleet Supercarrier Crew factor star next to PDS system

There are quite a few discrepancies between the SSD and the technical
specifications. In these cases which is correct the SSD or the technical
specification, its important to know to stop disputes in a canonical source.

pp 17 Majestic class Battlecruiser SSD has no area defence fire control but in
technical specification

pp 25 Szent Istvan class Battledreadnought SSD has 4 PDS but 3 in technical
specification

pp 33 Jeanne D'Arc class Fleet Carrier SSD has 7 fighter bays but 3 in
technical specification

pp36 Volga class Super Destroyer SSD has 2 PDS but 1 in technical
specification

Tibet class Light Cruiser SSD has 2 fire controls but 1 in the technical
specification

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>

Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 12:03:41 +0000

Subject: Re: FLEET BOOK (REVIEWED)

> Here is my review of the Fleet Book, all comments are meant to be

Thanks, Tim - hope you don't mind me making just a few comments on your
review..:)
> This is a must have for any FT player. A very nice simple design system

Not really phased out - just comments on how not to let them unbalance
things....
> 60 degree fire arcs

For the moment. Sensors is an area we want to look at more later.
> No ECM or MT missiles.

For ECM, see comments above. MT missiles can still be used as per original
rules.
> The crew levels on the ships are incredibly low, compared to say the

Yes, as explained in the background section.
> Aliens to be in Volume II

The digital font was very "eighties" - a change was overdue!
> Small sans main text font (8pt?) so lots of information packed in

Lots to get in - a 20,000 word manuscript!  Twice the font size means
twice the page count, and almost twice the price....:)
> Nice clean look cover - black/silver/red

There will be better ones when we do FT3. These were a bit of an afterthought
to fill the leftover space!
> Usability

A problem of writing everything in chunks and then having to juggle it around
when typesetting...
> The section on how to interpret the SSD's (pp 41) comes after the

Layout reasons. The ESU fleet left half a page over, and this was the best way
to fit it in.
> pp 9 Salvo Missile Systems

OOPS!:)
> Addenda

Yes, should read 3.
> pp 7

Yes, SML (or SMR) - SMB is a hangover from the test drafts, I thought
I'd caught them all! (Was Salvo Missile BATTERY, SMB).
> pp 19

Able Spacehand Funk is hiding again....;)
> There are quite a few discrepancies between the SSD and the

Have double-checked these, and in all cases the SSD is correct - they
were assembled from the design worksheets, whereas the text box was pasted and
modified from one ship to the next (which is where I think the errors crept
in).
> pp 17

SSD correct.
> pp 25
SSD correct.

> pp 33

SSD correct.
> pp36

SSD correct.
> Tibet class Light Cruiser

SSD correct.
> tim jones

From: Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@S...>

Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:31:12 +0100

Subject: RE: FLEET BOOK (REVIEWED)

On Tuesday, May 05, 1998 1:04 PM, Ground Zero Games
> [SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com] wrote:

> Not really phased out - just comments on how not to let them unbalance

Sorry to give the wrong impression, yes phased out in spirit only.

> >No ECM or MT missiles.

> For ECM, see comments above. MT missiles can still be used as per

Apologies for writing unclearly, what I meant was that the pre-designed
ships don't have ECM or MT missiles (IIRC)

> The crew levels on the ships are incredibly low, compared to say the

> Yes, as explained in the background section.

I confess I only skimmed the background section it, as you say there's a lot
in here.

> Have double-checked these, and in all cases the SSD is correct - they

Thanks for the prompt clarification.

From: Aaron Teske <ateske@H...>

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 13:35:17 -0400

Subject: Re: FLEET BOOK (REVIEWED)

Actually, two other mishaps that I noticed -- apart from Able Spacehand
Funk ^_^ -- are that the NPV for the NAC Ticonderoga class DD seems to
be held over from the Arapaho corvette (both are 41, when the Tico was listed
at 100 in the Draft Jon sent out for proofing), and that the text blurb for
the ESU Rostov class BDN is the same as that of the Mancuria. Jon, do you
have a different blurb for the Rostov?  I'm kinda curious to see it. ^_^
And everyone else may want to keep the Tico's cost in mind; I do like the NAC
fleet more'n the others, but giving them destroyers that cost less than
half of what they should isn't a nice way to get them to win. ^_-