FT---boom-and-zoom tactics

How can players manage to keep ships on-table at high Thrust?
Seems mine are always going off the table in Cinematic--since I play
solo perhaps I am doing something wrong?

Space does not have an edge;)

> How can players manage to keep ships on-table at high Thrust?

Perhaps your 'mu's are too large; I know Oerjan mentions CM's and the like.
Perhaps you could move to anstroms?

The_Beast

> Mark & Staci Drake wrote:

a) use high-thrust ships -- thus capable of making 90 or 120 degree
turns b) use centimeters instead of inches to give yourself 2.5 times as much
room
c) use the floor, not the table ;-)

> Mark Drake wrote:

> How can players manage to keep ships on-table at high Thrust?

By using shorter measuring units and floating tables.

> How can players manage to keep ships

We adjust the miniatures' location to keep them in the playing area and sit
dice next to them on how far away they actually are. Some minor deviations to
their actual position probably occur, but not enough to matter when out of
weapon ranges.

We played a game the other night using 1/2" MU.
When the miniatures got close they started getting too close. And with SFB
miniatures having lots
of glued on do-hickeys (i.e., warp nacelles,
drone arms) it makes this person a little bit touchy because they are my
miniatures and
those do-hickeys are a ...royal pain... to
get reattached. A couple of my Klingon miniatures are now forever missing warp
nacelles
(the B-10 in particular).

The 1/2" or cm MU is a neat idea, but the miniatures
need to be tiny. It is difficult to use 1" MU for those
non-Fleet Action B5 miniatures as many are even
larger than the SFB ones; you almost need to use 2" MU for those. Then there's
the Galactic Knights SDNs. We have two in the store, I'm guessing
each are about 5-6" long.  Playing on the floor
would be better, but us older folks have a much harder time with that (also, I
wouldn't want to play on the floor of a game store; no matter
if it gets vacuumed every night...dang pig-sty-
raised gamers:D).

Glen

> Glen wrote:

> The 1/2" or cm MU is a neat idea, but the miniatures

I thought that, too, so I asked Oerjan about it, as I knew he used cm MUs. He
explained that he mounts his ships at different heights. The larger ships are
the tallest, then the medium sized ships, and then the small ships. It means
that two large capital ships can't be too close together, but it alleviates
some of the crowding.

I do agree with you that the miniatures are a bit big for centimetre scale. I
don't have a lot of space in our apartment, which is the reason
I hardly play FT anymore. Centimetre or half-inch scale would work best
for me, but the miniatures are just too darned big. I don't see this problem
of too little space ending soon (though rebasing my figures will help), which
is why I've been vaguely considering getting out of FT altogether.

The other problem with small mu's is that the measurements get more and more
fiddly. Personally, I'd rather float the board as long as all of the ships can
stay on, with 'off the board' indicating disengagement. It would
take a metagame/campaign to say whether and how they'd re-engage.

I admit this gets thin when A is in range of B, B is in range of C, and C is
in range of D, but A is further from D than the widest part of the
board...

The_Beast

> Glen Bailey wrote:

> The 1/2" or cm MU is a neat idea, but the miniatures need to be tiny.

I've used cm MU with Monday Knight Production's Terran "Super-Galactic
Dreadnoughts" without any problem <shrug>

Regards,

> The 1/2" or cm MU is a neat idea, but the miniatures

People still have fat fingers.:) And a tendency to grab a miniature in the
most dangerous method (okay, I'm paranoid about my
fiddly-bits-laden miniatures).  I want them to use the stand.

> I do agree with you that the miniatures are a bit big

You could use (oh no, he's going to say it)... counters, probably on a hex
map. SFB started that way. You won't have to give up FT. I wonder how much and
it it's worth it for GZG to create one or more sheets of counters for the FB
ships and also missile salvos and fighter squadrons. I know they have a
photocopyable page in one of the rule books (FT?) and I've done that onto
cardstock (which is still flimsy). The backside could have a black circle for
"boogey" sightings.

and from Oerjan:
> I've used cm MU with Monday Knight Production's

I can't conceive of not having problems unless your ships never got within 3"
of each other (sorry, 7.5 cm). In our one battle it got be a furball and we
had to remove some miniatures from the board to get others to fit (but we kept
track of their relative location to others so when we had room we put them
back into play). We've had close calls using 1" MU, but never had to remove
miniatures from play. We'll be staying with 1" MU, floating the playing area
and the miniatures when necessary.

Glen

> I've used cm MU with Monday Knight Production's Terran "Super-Galactic

Fair's fair; the SGD is a brick, but it's one piece. Not the same as the TFG
pieces, especially Kzin, which have lot's of small fiddly bits to break off.

On the other hand, they are difficult to transport or use in SFB without
breaking off, no matter what the 'mu's' used.

The_Beast

You could effectively create 'Fleet Scale' fleets by simply
redesignating the models as something larger - most of the Official
fleets are very similar in design style so just call an NSL destroyer a
Battleship - as long as it's the same for both sides, it shouldn't cause

a problem once you get used to it.

> agoodall@att.net wrote:

> I do agree with you that the miniatures are a bit big for centimetre

> Glen Bailey wrote:

> >I've used cm MU with Monday Knight Production's

The closest firing range in those games was 1.25mu, which with 1 mu = 1 cm is
identical to the distance from the centre of a GZG plastic hex base to
its edge :-/ And yes, it was one of the SGDs that was the target of that
salvo.

As Allan said, the main trick I use is to have flight stands of different
heights so smaller models can fit under the larger ones. Most of my models
also have quite heavy coatings of protective varnish so the paint doesn't
chip when the models bump into one another or fat-fingered players lift
them by the hull instead of by the flight stand. Of course it is also a matter
of familiarity; it does takes a few games to overcome your preconceptions <g>

The point about fragile SFB metal models is well taken. That's why I don't
use SFB models at all nowadays - some of them I can't even assemble
securely enough to paint (can't use superglue due to allergy...), much less
use in games :-(

Regards,

Yep, my first fleet was a NAC battlecruiser fleet -- Two Ticonderoga DDs
standing for cruisers and three Arapaho corvettes for DDs. Which just happened
to get me exactly what I needed to fight the example scenario from FT.

Memories...

nick

[quoted original message omitted]

> Tony wrote:

> You could effectively create 'Fleet Scale' fleets by simply

Actually, I'm in a very distinct minority in that I prefer cruiser actions in
FT. I feel they are more interesting, tactically.

I know I'm in a minority in this considering all the posts about
uber-dreadnoughts. There's something about the psyche of the (mostly
male) FT player that thinks bigger is better. I actually _prefer_ games
where many of the ships go "boom" pretty quickly. It means that you have to be
better at conserving your resources, and you have to be a lot smarter about
your order of fire in the combat phase.

(This is why I can't understand the popularity of simultaneous damage. It's
not like FT has a lot of tactical complexity as it is, and when we
add a weapon to increase that complexity -- such as the AMT -- some
people criticize it. One of the few _important_ decision points is
choosing which ship to fire and at what. Simulataneous damage eliminates most
of this.)

My personal style is to play a faster paced game with smaller craft. I have
used fighters, but they have been in the "Star Wars" mode of craft lifting
from a planet, or I had designed small "fighter tenders" for convoy protection
missions. In fact, convoy missions were my favourite (in spite of not having
enough freighter models). When the fighter imbalance became really noticable,
I stopped playing with fighters altogether.

> Actually, I'm in a very distinct minority in that I prefer cruiser

Slight disagreement; Glenn has already stated some preference for smaller
ships. I avoid scouts and corvettes, but likewise have only once played with a
super. Much prefer DD's through CA's.

Course, I bore easily and need quick games. ;->=

And, the original set up game in the book was cruiser and smaller...

The_Beast

Oh, by the way, I was envisioning 'a scoutship as a DD, a corvette as an CA'
inserted in the quote. Now THAT makes cm's comfortable...

The_Beast

> agoodall@att.net wrote:

Oh, I dunno about that. I prefer cruiser actions, too, but can ramp up
to battlecruiser and battleship units, and down to destroyer-sized
vessels. Rarely play with frigates or 'vettes or even super-d's, and
almost never play with battle-d's or scouts.

That is, when I get to play. ;-)

Mk