Here are some quick thoughts on these questions.
Just treating each squadron as a ship seems simple to me...how do you handle
haveing 28 ships on the table then? Whats a few more? The data sheet for a
squadron seems much simpler than the simplest ship's data sheet anyway.
Dogfights -- one turn only...that is if neither side wishes to match
direction/velocity with the other, or stop. If one wishes to, then the
dogfight continues. If both wish to, they both stop right there and continue
the dogfight.
Fighters attacking ships -- The fighters get to attack a ship, if, (1)
it is in range of the squadrons weapons, and (2) it is in the squadron's fire
arc (if important). Then make your normal attack rolls, ect.
(I never understood why fighters needed their own move segment, their own
attack segment, their own move system, ect. Seems much simpler to treat them
as very small ships -- Which is what they are anyway.)
Donald Hosford
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> G'day Donald,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
One of the nice things about FT is you can do what you want. So if that is the
way you and your friends like to play, do so!
The only thing that I caution you about is that writing orders takes much more
time than just moving a fighter group 24mu.
On dogfights, if you are writing orders for fighters, then both players would
need to write orders to place the fighters where they could dogfight. Why
would they loose thier momentum just because another fighter is near?
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald
Hosford
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 03:26
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [ft] Fighter Momentum Conservation (was:
[OT]Unpredictable
AI)
Here are some quick thoughts on these questions.
Just treating each squadron as a ship seems simple to me...how do you handle
haveing 28 ships on the table then? Whats a few more? The data sheet for a
squadron seems much simpler than the simplest ship's data sheet anyway.
Dogfights -- one turn only...that is if neither side wishes to match
direction/velocity with the other, or stop. If one wishes to, then
the dogfight continues. If both wish to, they both stop right there and
continue the dogfight.
Fighters attacking ships -- The fighters get to attack a ship, if,
(1) it is in range of the squadrons weapons, and (2) it is in the squadron's
fire arc (if important). Then make your normal attack rolls, ect.
(I never understood why fighters needed their own move segment, their own
attack segment, their own move system, ect. Seems much simpler to treat them
as very small ships -- Which is what they are anyway.)
> On 23-Jun-01 at 03:32, Donald Hosford (Hosford.Donald@acd.net) wrote:
It's often not just a few more. With 14 ships on a side it is quite
possible for 3 of those to be carriers with 15-20 fighter squadrons.
If you have to track fighters like ships your afternoon battle turns
into a multi-day battle. Also, you lose much of the flex built into
fighters. They stop being fighters and turn into small ships.:)
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> (I never understood why fighters needed their own move segment, their
Fighters have a weapon range of 6mu. If you treat them exactly like ships
(incl. pre-written orders), their chance of getting close enough to the
enemy to fire is... pretty minimal, like :-/
Regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
But what if you use regular movement, just don't require it to be
pre-written?
Cheers,
G'day,
> how do you handle having 28 ships on the table then?
By using one set of orders for multiple ships mainly.
> Whats a few more?
Unfortunately it can be a whole hell of a lot more than a few (before he
left town the guy who played the Free Orange would plonk 25 fighter groups on
the board for his fleet alone without batting an eyelid).
> The data sheet for a squadron seems much simpler
Why?
> Dogfights -- one turn only...that is if neither side wishes to match
Must have impressive braking systems then;)
> Fighters attacking ships -- The fighters get to attack a ship, if, (1)
it is in
> range of the squadrons weapons, and (2) it is in the squadron's fire
Fighters are gonna lobby for longer weapons ranges then, how often do your
normal ships get within 6"?;)
> (I never understood why fighters needed their own move segment, their
Are they though? I know naff all naval stuff (at least past about 1 AD) so I
may be speaking out of turn, but fighters of today don't act like little ships
do they? They have a flexibility to go places and do things you just don't see
other things do (at least not yet). In a funny kind of way the
current fighter rules kind of portray that flexibility while remaining fast
and simple to execute. If they didn't have their own sequence of doing things
then writing orders for them could get tedious, not writing orders but putting
their movement in the ship phase may lead them to being too reactive (though
the guys who dispensed with order writing for all ships
may disagree). There are flaws in the fighter rules, but fixing them and
still ending up with a simple and fast system has been problematic. However,
that shouldn't stop us all trying to come up with suggestions
;)
Cheers
> Brian Bell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Too true. Warp the game to suit your own needs! I love this aspect of
FT/ect.
> The only thing that I caution you about is that writing orders takes
Orders? We were supposed to be writing orders? Actually we never bothered
writting orders in any game. We would just move our units however we felt. In
FT we do keep track of velocity, but thats it.
> On dogfights, if you are writing orders for fighters, then both
One could ask why they didn't have it to begin with?
How about this idea:
Let each fighter squadron launch with it's carrier's velocity/vector,
and
just let it add/subtract/maneuver as needed.
> - ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That was the "Ring" option I mentioned earlier. At speeds over 24, the fighter
has a valid area of movement that is ringed shaped (because it cannot slow
down enough to stay still, but can apply that momentum to go directly aft).
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald
Hosford
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 03:21
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [ft] Fighter Momentum Conservation (was:
[OT]Unpredictable
AI)
How about this idea:
Let each fighter squadron launch with it's carrier's velocity/vector,
and
just let it add/subtract/maneuver as needed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Brian Bell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Of course you do realise this is utter nonsense for craft in vacuum -
but verym cinematic, which is almost an excuse;)
Cheers,