Four years without thrust

Hello,

It's been a while since I was last on this list, and probably somewhat longer
since I've actually played anything. Has anything particularly changed in the
world of Full Thrust in the last few years?

Looking at the GZG site, 'The Xeno Files' still seems to be the most recent
thing out. Is this true? Any rumours of new books, source materials or
miniature lines?

> It's been a while since I was last on this list, and probably

Welcome back!

> Has anything particularly changed in the world of Full Thrust in the

Jon came to ECC in February, and there's some hope that he will recuperate
sufficiently to come again. Probably not in 2005,
though--there's a lot of recuperating to do. <grin>

Either FMA Skirmish or Full Thrust 3 are likely to be the next book out. Outer
Rim Coalition, UN, Islamic Fed, Imperial Japanese, and perhaps New Israeli
stats will be in Fleet Book 3; tentative versions of some of these designs are
already available. In StarGrunt, there are some test rules up for the Phalon
Conglomerate.

> On Sunday 11 July 2004 17:39, Laserlight wrote:

Thanks :-)

> > Looking at the GZG site, 'The Xeno Files' still seems to be the

ECC = East Coast Convention? Somewhere a long way to the West of where I am
(if Google found the right one).

> Either FMA Skirmish

This was being talked about four years ago... (maybe longer)

> or Full Thrust 3 are likely to be the next book

Sounds interesting. Any talk about it including new tech, or will it just use
standard tech? (I assume these are still minor powers).

By FT 3 I assume you mean Fleet Book 3.

> tentative versions

I'd be interested if you have some links. I've noticed some models for the
minor fleets in Orcs Nest, but can't remember how long they've been around.

> In StarGrunt, there

I think I've managed to get together one game of DSII and exactly zero
Stargrunt games. Must try harder at some point. Never stopped
me from buying the rules though :-)

Thanks for the update!

> On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 11:00, Samuel Penn wrote:

> I'd be interested if you have some links. I've noticed some models

The UN ships can be found here:
http://star-ranger.com/UNSCpreview.htm

Don't know about the others, though.

> ECC = East Coast Convention ?

Lancaster Pennsylvania. There was previously also a West Coast Con but this
past year it was more of a Middle East Con.

> > Either FMA Skirmish

We have top men working on it.  :-)  Rumor has it that Jon is more or
less happy with the basic design and just needs to write it.

> > or Full Thrust 3 are likely to be the next book

UN (http://star-ranger.com/UNSCpreview.htm ) has grasers, anti-matter
torpedos and three-row hulls.  The Japanese will have some kind of
anime wavegun-ish weapon, plus a a horde of fighters and missiles.
The OutRim Coalition will have a EMP weapon to disable enemy ships. New Israel
may have stealth. The Islamic Fed will probably have standard weapons but will
make use of More Thrust missiles.

> By FT 3 I assume you mean Fleet Book 3.

FT3 would be Full Thrust version 3.

More news including mini pics at http://star-ranger.com/FullThrust.htm

Also BITS has produced Full-Thrust-for-Traveller.  News at
http://star-ranger.com/PowerProjection.htm , a review at
http://home.quixnet.net/%7Edeboe/trav/ppe_review.htm

> On 11 Jul 2004, at 18:22, Laserlight wrote:

> Also BITS has produced Full-Thrust-for-Traveller. News at

Main website at http://www.powerprojection.net/

Cheers,

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:00:24 +0100 Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> On Sunday 11 July 2004 17:39, Laserlight wrote:
<snip>
> Either FMA Skirmish

I think Jon is of the 'do it right the first time' mode more then the
"We'll fix that in the Nth+1 version" now that he has had the merry
madmen/women of the test list trying to fix SG 2 and DS 2 holes (or at
least perceived holes) plus test FMA Skirmish and FT 3.

> or Full Thrust 3 are likely to be the next book
Where are the NI stats for SG 2 or DS 2?

Gracias,

> On Sunday 11 July 2004 18:14, Eric wrote:

Those models look nice, thanks. I like the variable hull rows as well.

> On Sunday 11 July 2004 18:19, Laserlight wrote:

> > > or Full Thrust 3 are likely to be the next book

Definitely looks interesting (though the cloaking units in MT were always a
pain to use).

> > By FT 3 I assume you mean Fleet Book 3.

*Definitely* sounds interesting. I assume this is going to be a tidy up to
bring things in line with the Fleet Books?

Thanks very much for the info.

Probably time to get back to lurking...

> Definitely looks interesting (though the cloaking units in MT were

The way Noam envisioned it was not as cloaking, but as effectively reducing
the firer's range bands. For instance, if you're firing at a target 21mu away
and he has no stealth, you can hit him with a Beam 2; but if he has stealth 1,
you have count five inches as if it were six
inches, so you can't him him.  If he has stealth-2, you count 4 inches
as if it were 6, so that target which is 21 inches away on the table is
outside PTorp range but just inside B3 range.

> On 11 Jul 2004, at 22:34, Laserlight wrote:

> Definitely looks interesting (though the cloaking units in MT were

That's basically how we handled it in Power Projection. Sensor degradation is
modeled by increasing the effective line of sight of a target, so pushing it
out of range if it's bad enough. It's a very quick and effective mechanic that
avoids a load of complexity by having things like targeting and sensor lock
rolls...

In PP's case, nuke explosions make a target act as if it is 2MU (150,000 km)
further away. You can push a target into long range, or completely out of
range. You may have to be clever with the way that physical attacks are
handled. In PP we did this by shortening the movement that a missile salvo
could do in a turn.

Cheers,

Dom Mooney said:
> On 11 Jul 2004, at 22:34, Laserlight wrote:

I think I used something like that for one of my B5 conversions. Much prefer
this to the MT cloaking rules.

> That's basically how we handled it in Power Projection. Sensor

Yep, the nuke and sandcaster rules in PP were quite good.

No reason something similar couldn't be done with ECM pods as a form of
stealth technology (stick down a salvo of ECM 'bursts' which shield the ship
from attacks).

> Samuel Penn wrote:

> No reason something similar couldn't be done with ECM pods

How about an ECM mechanic somehow opposed by the target's fire control?
Allocate firecons to cracking it to partially or totally negate the effects.

> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Lachlan Atcliffe wrote:

> How about an ECM mechanic somehow opposed by the target's fire control?

> Allocate firecons to cracking it to partially or totally negate the

A substantial problem with the FC-as-anti-ECM mechanic is that it makes
multiple FCs vastly more valuable than they are now.

***
> How about an ECM mechanic somehow opposed by the target's fire control?

A substantial problem with the FC-as-anti-ECM mechanic is that it makes
multiple FCs vastly more valuable than they are now.
***

Am I the only one that sees this as a fairly complex approach, and that being
an even bigger problem? Using optional procedures often have a 'may unbalance'
codicle attached, but K.I.S.S. tends to trump other
considerations. An SFB-style EW auction scares me...

The_Beast

Simplicity is certainly a virtue.

Each level of ECM adds +6 MU to the effective range vs direct fire
weapons. Each extra firecon negates one level of ECM.

PSB wise, a ship with more firecons has enough computing power to "burn"
through jamming.

Advanced sensors are used for detail scans, not to burn through jamming.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies

> -----Original Message-----

IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.

3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.

4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.

5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.

6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message

Re: Stealth/ECM

> How about an ECM mechanic somehow opposed by the target's fire

I agree with this. The way I wrote the stealth mechanic, Enhanced and Superior
Sensors have countering effects vs. stealth, but not normal fire control.
Stealth also has an inherent limitation for ships that use it: Firecons must
be used in "passive mode" which limits outgoing fire from stealth ships to a
range of 24 MU. Stealth ships can still mount longer range weapons, but if
they fire at targets beyond 24 MU, firecon has to be active, and stealth is
negated.

Regardless of stealth or ECM mechanic, I think counters should _not_ be
the standard firecon. Use Enhanced sensors or ECCM as straight additions and
subtractions. Another range modification concept in the WDA is the Targeting
Lidar (whatever name you like), a 1 mass system that subtracts 2 MU from the
effective range of a target. Multiples of
them would be great at countering range-based stealth/ECM.

Noam Izenberg said:

> Regardless of stealth or ECM mechanic, I think counters should _not_

My StarWars conversions for FT allowed a TIE/fc fighter group to
target an enemy vessel with Lidar reducing the range for attackers.