Thanks for the warning - it it useful to know that these rules can
create such things. on the whole we have grown out of power gaming (30'th
b'day soon...eeeek!) but it can be fun to try and build what you consider to
be
optimum army lists (in this case ships) - knowing that doing so can
result in cheesey designs is useful warning.
Having had a chance to read the Fleet Book 1 I like the fact that the
different fleets have design principles - it adds flavour to the game.
Have any design principles been suggested or hinted at by GZG for the new
fleets
I wonder.....
Still, I've got some NAC and some NSL on order so they are covered at the
moment.
I'm itching to try this all out!
Ash
> One thing you have to be aware of is not adding a lot of "cheese"
On or about Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Ashley Culver typed:
> Having had a chance to read the Fleet Book 1 I like the fact that the
Have
> any design principles been suggested or hinted at by GZG for the new
Funny you should mention that, as I found a relevant page on the FTSR
yesterday: http://www.ftsr.org/ft/multiverse/nationaldesign.html (note
that Jon T's comments are pre-FB but still valid).
***
Thanks for the warning - it it useful to know that these rules can
create such things. on the whole we have grown out of power gaming (30'th
b'day
soon...eeeek!)
***
Howdy! I try to hold off on the newcomer welcome thing, unless I've other
comments, though I fail miserably. Glad to have you aboard!
As I've just passed the half century mark, you know I'm envious of your
youth. ;->= Working at a University as I do, surrounded by relative
children, it's nice to be on a list with some folks actually older than dirt,
er, me.
One of the illusional balance things is, as has been mentioned, when folks try
something new, and haven't adjusted to it. Do take the advice offered, but I'm
sure we'll be interested in your experiences, given that you'll be taking the
material new, altogether.
> Ash wrote:
> >The Fleet Book 1 has made vast inroads in the balancing of designs,
Namely by equipping them with massive power generators and very little else.
It is at least as much a problem with the SV game rules as with the
design rules though - the current
"not-quite-official-yet-but-sanctioned-by-Jon T." corrections are:
- SV Stinger range bands are 9" (not 12")
- Spicules draw power from the Defence pool (not Attack)
- Pod launchers draw power from the Repair pool (not Attack)
(Did I forget one? IIRC there were four...)
The reduced Stinger range in particular cuts down the long-range SV
snipers quite a lot.
> Thanks for the warning - it it useful to know that these rules can
Age doesn't mean anything at all in this respect. The oldest powergamer I
know (that I know the age of) is well into his fifties - and he's one of
the more extreme ones.
> but it can be fun to try and build what you consider to be optimum army
> lists (in this case ships) - knowing that doing so can result in
The main "cheese" risk with FB designs is if you go for big ships
exclusively while your opponents don't. Unless completely out-maneuvered
or
out-die-rolled, a single Mass 200 ship will beat two Mass 100 ships with
the same total cost. A fleet consisting exclusively of Mass 200+ ships,
or
of a single Mass 1000+ ship, has a significant advantage over a fleet
including both small and large ships.
The other balance problem is how many missiles/fighters you use. The FB
designs are created for a universe where it takes time to replace missiles
and fighters that have been expended/lost, so none of the fleets max out
completely on either of these - and as a result, PDS levels aren't all
that
high. In fleets created for one-off battles where there's no tomorrow
anyway you don't have to replace expendable ordnance, so you can bring a
fleet armed with nothing but fighters or missiles if you like - and if
you do the opposition needs a lot more PDS and ADFC than the Fleetbook designs
provide (unless they fill out their fleet with ESU Beijing/BEs or NSL
Krprz
Wilhelm/Es).
You should also be aware that a ship which is good in one of the two movement
systems (Cinematic and Vector) isn't necessarily any good in the
other - indeed, a ship optimized for Vector is usually dog meat in
Cinematic and vice versa! All Fleet Book designs are created for Cinematic
movement.
> Having had a chance to read the Fleet Book 1 I like the fact that the
Have
> any design principles been suggested or hinted at by GZG for the new
AFAIK there has been no such hints for the general public published by GZG,
no. Laserlight's ideas about the IF is the closest I'm aware of, but he's not
part of GZG (which is essentially the same as saying "he isn't Jon Tuffley"
<g>) and it remains to be seen if Jon takes up those ideas and designs.
> Roger Burton-West wrote:
> Funny you should mention that, as I found a relevant page on the FTSR
These comments are pre-FB1, cover only the FB1 fleets, and aren't
entirely
accurate even for FB1 - the design doctrine notes given for each fleet
in
FB1 are more up-to-date. Nothing official about the new fleets Ash is
asking about there.
Later,
> Having had a chance to read the Fleet Book 1 I like the fact that the
Have
> any design principles been suggested or hinted at by GZG for the new
Islamic Fed are 25% hull, armor about the same as the first hull row. Escorts
thrust 6 (usually without FTL), capitals thrust 4 (plus FTL).
Weapons are usually in Mass4 blocks (eg 2xBeam2 or 1 SMR--those two are
the
On Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:35 PM, Roger Burton West
> [SMTP:roger@firedrake.org] wrote:
FYI, the link at the bottom of that page needs updating, as I've changed
provider since then:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/oufleet.htm