I'm preparing a big FT scenario to run with my gaming group -- the first
time we'll have used the Fleet Book rules -- and I need some input.
The attackers are stock NSL ships -- my largest fleet. The defenders
are a mixture of NAC, ESU (maybe armed with a Heavy Beam Weapon or two; I
haven't
decided yet) and FSE -- my second largest fleet. Basically, the
defenders are going to need to get some refugee ships off the attacker's board
edge, and the attackers need to prevent this.
I mentioned the "escort" rules that I intend to use in a post a while back;
short form is that escorting ships will be able to interpose themselves
between their charge and a single attacking ship.
All-in-all, pretty straightforward. But...about 50% of the defending
force is FSE. Armed with lots and lots of SMLs. I have no experience gaming
with this weapon system, and I'm not sure if it is entirely suited for a
defending force. I have about half a dozen Trieste class DHs; I've been
considering replacing the SML launcher (with two salvos) with a class one
battery and three class twos (three arcs each). This would give a total of two
class ones and four class twos, and would seem to make it better suited for
escort duty. I don't want to redesign the entire FSE force, though.
Are the (inexperienced) defenders likely to have a problem? If nothing else,
they will probably be out of missiles after the third turn, and since there's
going to be close to a hundred ships on the table the game is likely to last
for a while. My players DO prefer relatively slow
velocities -- 12" is considered to be dangerously fast in one of our
games
-- and I'll be using asteroids to encourage this, so the SMLs should
have a good chance of hitting.
From: John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Date: Monday, January 01, 2001 04:30
Subject: [FT] Defending with SMLs
> I'm preparing a big FT scenario to run with my gaming group -- the
> Basically, the defenders are going to need to get some refugee ships
> I've been considering replacing the SML launchers with a class
> Are the (inexperienced) defenders likely to have a problem?
Make the change. Missiles require practice to to be handled properly at the
both the sending and receiving ends, and you will get erratic results until
your (inexperienced) players get some practice.
> (ESU) maybe armed with a Heavy Beam Weapon or two.
Ditto the Heavy Beam. Unless it is very simple, leave it out until they can
handle the basic kit well.
> My players DO prefer relatively slow velocities -- 12" is considered
With SMs in play, slow-moving NSL will be target drones. Asteriods
don't "encourage" low speeds amongst novice players; they enforce them,
brutally. Consider using a debris field instead.
> At 06:08 PM 1/1/01 -0000, you wrote:
Okay, I'm sold. I think that I will leave them in place on a few ships, just
to give them some exposure to the SML, and make sure that those ships are
assigned to people who know what they are doing.
I've got one guy who is uncanny at estimating distance on the tabletop; I'm
morbidly curious to see how well he's going to do when there's no
Geo-Hex
to assist him in his estimations.
> (ESU) maybe armed with a Heavy Beam Weapon or two.
I have some big B5 fans in the group, so the HBW -- I still think of it
as
the BREW, from the early discussions on this list -- would be very
popular. If I do include it, it will be mounted on two, maybe three, ships. No
more.
> My players DO prefer relatively slow velocities -- 12" is considered
They have played FT -- although it's been a while, and a refresher game
or
two before the big one is definately called for -- so I'm not too
concerned
about their manuvering skills. But this "debris field" intrigues me --
what is it (well, a field of debris, obviously), and how does it work in play?
But I've definately decided to run a smaller scenario or two before the big
one. A free for all, or the Babylon 5000 racing variant, would be fun.
***
Okay, I'm sold. I think that I will leave them in place on a few ships, just
to give them some exposure to the SML, and make sure that those ships are
assigned to people who know what they are doing.
I've got one guy who is uncanny at estimating distance on the tabletop; I'm
morbidly curious to see how well he's going to do when there's no
Geo-Hex
to assist him in his estimations.
***
***
> With SMs in play, slow-moving NSL will be target drones. Asteriods
They have played FT -- although it's been a while, and a refresher game
or
two before the big one is definately called for -- so I'm not too
concerned about their manuvering skills...
***
Well, it's still the case that the slower the speed, the exponentially more
effective the SM's. However, as long as there aren't TOO many, and the NSL's
tend on the large size, they'll be hurt rather than merely
expanding-clouds-of-gas (sound familiar?). It's the kind of thing that
works well on balancing the relative fragility of the FSE. Which they'll need
if, in this scenario, they are putting themselves 'in harm's way'. Tricky to
find the right balance, tho.
On the occasions my ESU weren't annihilated in the first couple of turns, I
found the FSE most satisfactorily effervescent.
***
...But this "debris field" intrigues me --
what is it (well, a field of debris, obviously), and how does it work in play?
***
Sounds dang familiar; and me without my books.
The_Beast
From: John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Date: Monday, January 01, 2001 07:19
Subject: Re: [FT] Defending with SMLs
> My players DO prefer relatively slow velocities -- 12" is considered
I strongly recommend this, or your scenario will be wasted.
> But this "debris field" intrigues me -- <snip> how does it work in
MT pg 9 Meteor Swarms And Debris
"May cover areas of... players' discretion and may be stationary on the table
(stationery if you're using a paper template like me) or moving... Any ship
that enters (or is hit by) such a field has 1D rolled for every full 6mu of
velocity with the actual score equalling the damage sustained."
You can of course set a "speed limit" through such a field, and discount the
first 6mu of velocity so that only ships travelling at 12mu per turn or faster
sustain damage.
Debris fields can occur artificially if a ship sustaines too much damage, but
that's worth another question to the list...
***
Debris fields can occur artificially if a ship sustaines too much damage, but
that's worth another question to the list...
***
I had both rock and ship-damage fields in mind, but figured one or the
other was 'remembered' from another game. At my age, you assume
hallucinations. ;->=
I WAS thinking that the ship-damage fields were strictly if a ship was
destroyed, but I'm heading out of the shop (old dinosaur, big iron
mainframe, not store-front ;->= ) shortly, and can look up at home.
Again, a spanking not an execution as in the case of the asteroids.
I did just recall that part of the 'slow going' equation is, of course, while
the NSL, running slow, make GOOD SM targets, FSE lose a lot of their
high-thrust advantage. As I said, tricky balance.
However, we'll be darn interested in the AAR, of course!
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> With SMs in play, slow-moving NSL will be target drones. Asteriods
About 1/3 of the NSL force is composed of BC class ships. For some
reason, I ended up with a lot of Richtofens and Maximillians, and these are
supplimented by the plastic Fortress Figures ships that I converted. But it
looks as though I have a total of 5 launchers on each side...enough to be
managable, I hope.
This is a bit odd, though: I've been converting the ships using Jared
Nobel's Excel spreadsheet -- I enter the data for the ship as it is in
the Fleet Book, and then change the weapon mix around. This has lead to a
truly obscene Foch Class SDN, which should be really nasty in play, but I've
run into a problem with the Jeanne D'Arc carrier. I've entered all the data,
and the mass is fine, but the point value comes out to 892 instead of the 955
given in the book. I need to do the calculations by hand, I suppose.
> At 08:36 PM 1/1/01 -0000, you wrote:
Oh, right, right...we've used those in the past. I'll have to come up with
some way to represent this on the board, but it sounds like a good idea.
> >With SMs in play, slow-moving NSL will be target drones. Asteriods
ie "this area has debris, a cloud of small asteroids, thick dust & gas, etc.
Ships which exceed 12mu per turn speed take 1d6 damage for each 3mu over the
speed limit." Vary the numbers to suit yourself, of course.
> Well, it's still the case that the slower the speed, the
Be aware that "too many" is defined as "enough to cause expanding clouds of
gas." The average missile salvo does 12.25 damage. Add the damage for all
the salvos together and subtract 2.8 damage per available PDS--it's a
bit less than that, actually, because if you Teske a salvo which only had one
or two missiles in it, you can't carry over the extra damage to another salvo.
Four or five salvos arriving simultaneously will cripple or kill just about
any ship, unless you have Fulton missiles ("1 damage per salvo") or the target
has lots of PDS and ADFC to help.
(Translation: one of my old-style Islamic Fed missile cruisers, 60
mass with five SMR, would expect to one-punch a Maria von Burgund.
This can be quite variable, though--I've killed a Szent Istvan with a
five-salvo strike).
Now, the trick is to put them on the target. If your battlefield is crowded,
your speeds are slow and your targets are NSL, then you shouldn't have too
much difficulty hitting something. Just make sure
that what you hit is something worthy of your attention--17 missiles
on a frigate qualifies as "overkill".
> John Crimmins wrote:
> This is a bit odd, though: I've been converting the ships using Jared
63 points? Sounds as if the spreadsheet only charges 2xMass for fighter
bays rather than 3xMass - IIRC some of the early spreadsheets had this
bug. (FB2 also says that KV and Phalon fighter bays cost 2xMass, which
is completely wrong - all bays cost 3xMass.)
Other explanations could be that you forgot to enter 21 Mass of equipment or
that you used the wrong TMF (TMF 250 instead of 280 should
give about this cost reduction) - but in both cases the spreadsheet
should've indicated that the Mass was too large or too small, so I don't think
these are very likely.
The best ship design spreadsheet I know of at the moment is Dean
Gundberg's, available from http://star_ranger.homestead.com/ . Based on
Jared's, but updated to include FB2 and I haven't found any bugs in the latest
version yet <g>
Regards,
If you wish to use FSE ships without using the Salvo Missiles (for
simplicity), you are welcome to use the PAU ships from the Full Thrust Ship
Registry (http://www.ftsr.org/ft/ft25/gov.asp#pau). The PAU ships I
designed use FSE hulls, but replace disposable ordinance weapons (missiles)
with beam weapons.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> > I've been considering replacing the SML launchers with a class
[snip]
> Nathan
> At 11:46 AM 1/2/01 +0100, you wrote:
Got it. I have yet to put a ship together without using somebody's program
-- spreadsheets, the old web-based builder and other such items -- so I
don't think that I would have caught it. And to think: I used to use a pencil
and paper to design my Car Wars vehicles....
> Other explanations could be that you forgot to enter 21 Mass of
Just downloaded it -- thanks. I *was* just going to use ESU stats for
my BFG ships, but I enjoyed rebuilding the FSE ships so much that I'm going to
create these guys from scratch.
> At 08:22 AM 1/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
If I'd known this yesterday...but I did enjoy making my versions, and it's
interesting to compare them with yours. My version of the Foch class looks
a bit different -- I posted the SSD at <