Hi all,
*De-Lurk*
Last night I played my first Full Thrust game :-)
We had 775 points each, ESU vs. an FSE/NSL mix, on a 6' x 4' table,
using Cinematic movement, 1mu = 1", fixed edges, in empty space. The ESU used
'official' minis, the NSL/FSE were represented by a mix of Phalons and
Sa'Vasku (just what I happened to have painted). The odd point values and mix
of ships were chosen to be quick and simple for beginners (just beams
and sub-packs), while being different enough designs to be interesting
(NSL
armour and FSE sub-packs vs. ESU screens):
ESU: 775 1 Nanuchka II Corvette 1 Novgorod Frigate 2 Volga Super Destroyers 1
Tibet Light Cruiser 1 Voroshilev Hvy Cruiser
FSE/NSL : 772
1 Ehrenhold Frigate 1 Ibiza Frigate 1 Waldburg Destroyer 1 San Miguel
Destroyer 1 Kronprinz Wilhelm Lt Cruiser 1 Markgraf Hvy Cruiser
We started at opposite corners of the board, both sides in loose clusters,
starting velocities about 8, facing directly at each other. I played the
ESU, my wife played the FSE/NSL.
We pretty much just flew directly towards each other, and then slowed down or
stopped in the middle to blast each other at close range. The game ended after
8 turns, with massive damage to both sides, but a definite win for the
NSL/FSE side. The ESU was wiped out, while the NSL/FSE had an almost
untouched Lt Cruiser and a couple of badly damaged but still combat worthy
smaller ships.
Some highlights from the battle:
- The Ibiza limping along with 1 damage point left, and a single-sub
pack as its only working weapon still managed to use it to destroy the
Nanuchka at
point-blank range (it doesn't need a fire-control - right?)
- My Voroshilev managing to get in the rear arc of the Markgraf, facing
directly at it, with inititive - *splat*
- The vast amounts of 4's my wife rolls when shooting at my screened
ships
:-)
- A badly damaged Volga ignoring its failing life-support for 4 turns
while
trying to fix a fire-control for a last shot
This took us about 3 hours to play - far longer than I expected (I had
estimated about an hour!) Maybe we are too careful measuring out movement,
or over-analyze our firing options? I'm sure games will get faster as we
get more experience with the system. Anyway, we both had a lot of fun. Next
time, I plan to to add in missiles/PDS, maybe using the UNSC rules to
see how we like them, as these are my wife's favourite mini designs from my
collection so far.
Steve Scothern
From: Stephen Scothern
> Last night I played my first Full Thrust game :-)
Congratulations!
> The Ibiza limping along with 1 damage point left, and a single-sub
Don't have my books with me but just about everything (except PDS) needs a
firecon.
> This took us about 3 hours to play
As you get more practice, you'll get faster. I usually play 1500-2500
points per side and get it done in 2-3 hours.
> Next time, I plan to to add in missiles/PDS, maybe using the UNSC rules
One thing to be aware of when you add new weapons is that they often take a
little practice to get used to. The first time you use salvo missiles, for
instance, you're likely to say "they suck!" because you're not used to getting
them to their target. You're just as likely to say "they
rock!",
because you guessed well, your opponent is not used to dodging them, and
consequently gets vaporized. Same thing applies to UN grasers, KraVak weapons,
and so forth.
From: Stephen Scothern
> Last night I played my first Full Thrust game :-)
Congratulations!
> The Ibiza limping along with 1 damage point left, and a single-sub
Don't have my books with me but just about everything (except PDS) needs a
firecon.
> This took us about 3 hours to play
As you get more practice, you'll get faster. I usually play 1500-2500
points per side and get it done in 2-3 hours.
> Next time, I plan to to add in missiles/PDS, maybe using the UNSC rules
One thing to be aware of when you add new weapons is that they often take a
little practice to get used to. The first time you use salvo missiles, for
instance, you're likely to say "they suck!" because you're not used to getting
them to their target. You're just as likely to say "they
rock!",
because you guessed well, your opponent is not used to dodging them, and
consequently gets vaporized. Same thing applies to UN grasers, KraVak weapons,
and so forth.
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:57:11PM -0400, Stephen Scothern wrote:
> Don't have my books with me but just about everything (except PDS)
needs a
> firecon.
This is one of those points where the books are unclear - Jon's said
that his intent was originally:
one firecon per ship target with pulse torps one firecon per ship target with
any other weapons one firecon per system target (with needle beams)
and the first of those is now deleted.
R
> On 4/28/05, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
needs a
> >firecon.
And once you get around to using missiles... one firecon to handle all missile
launches (still available to target one ship later in turn).
Pulse torps don't require a dedicated FC?
Fred
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:08:29AM -0700, Fred Schmidt wrote:
One FC per ship target, which can direct beams, pulse torps, SMPs,
and/or any other direct-fire weapons you may happen to have.
R
In a message dated 4/29/05 5:04:02 AM Central Daylight Time,
> roger@firedrake.org writes:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:08:29AM -0700, Fred Schmidt wrote:
One FC per ship target, which can direct beams, pulse torps, SMPs,
and/or any other direct-fire weapons you may happen to have.
R
I kind of look at it like (Logic/PSB/because) this:
Missiles like SM and MTM/HM need an "Area" solution for either the
seekers
or AI/Seeker systems to start in. I think of this as "Area Targeting."
Algorithm 1.
To the FC finding a ship as target is a function -- once the position
is "Known" so all the DF (Direct Fire) systems have the same input. I think of
this as "Position Targeting." In reality the place you are targeting is a
pinhead on the ship mini due to scale differences. Algorithm 2.
Needle Beams need a specific place on the target (which may differ even
within sister ships of the same class), hence a different algorithm
("Precision
Targeting"- Relatively more precise anyway) hence a different function.
Algorithm 3.
Algorithm 1 is a 'snapshot' (ACM - Air Combat Maneuvering - term not
photo) while the others are more 'number crunching intensive' with algorithm 3
requiring the computations much longer (exclusivity) then algorithm 2.
Gracias,
> Fred Schmidt wrote:
No, they don't. Although it does not specifically spell this out in the FB*
books, Jon did explicitly state it on the list at least once iirc.
Mk
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sylvester M. W."
<xveers@gmail.com>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
FT FAQ says
Do pulse torpedoes require a separate firecon per tube, or do they simply
require a dedicated firecon per target? A dedicated firecon per target. The
rules state that torpedoes (plural) require a single firecon:
engaging a target with Torpedoes requires the use of one Fire Control system,
which may not also be used to direct Beam Batteries that turn
this is from JT
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Tim Jones wrote:
Yes, that's correct for the rules as published, but the FT FAQ is very out of
date and takes no account of later statements.
R
> Tim Jones wrote:
IIRC this pre-dates the FB series, which is when the firecon restriction
was lifted. The FT FAQ has not been updated to reflect this (like so many
things on the web...and yep, I've got pages out there that I still need
to get around to updating myself... :-/ at least the ones that people
use
more frequently than not I try to keep regularly updated :-) ).
Mk
Roger Burton West wrote on 04/29/2005 08:28:09 AM:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Tim Jones wrote:
Back in May of 2000, the savant formerly known as OO stated:
"Does the Enhanced Pulse Torpedo require a Firecon? Yes, the Firecon ruling
for FT2 still applies, though Jon Tuffley states: I think for the FB2 rules we
should drop the firecon limitation for PTs and treat them just as any other
weapon system "
Since the P-torp is a human rather than alien weapon this change didn't
make it into FB2, but it is IMO a safe bet to consider it [OFFICIAL].
See:
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200005/msg00262.html
I can't find Jon's original quote on this, though I seem to recall having seen
this. Of course, it COULD have been in a private note to Oerjan, or on the
playtest list. I'm often dillusional, you know.
By the way, Indy, those of us who never got around to making pages think
you should beat yourself less for not keeping yours up-to-date. ;->=
The_Beast
thanks doug the changes mentioned in your URL were made to the FAQ in 2000
IIRC
Tim Jones wrote on 04/29/2005 09:44:37 AM:
> From: Tim Jones drkanukie@gmail.com
This is obsolete. Ptorps do NOT require a dedicated firecon--all direct
fire weapons (except needle beams) firing at one target may use a single FCS.
BTW, there have been roughly 100 emails re: FT3 on the Playtest List in the
last 24 hours. Progress is being made.
From: laserlight
> From: Stephen Scothern
Thanks! It was also my first ever miniatures game with fully painted minis
:-) And also my wifes first miniature wargame ever.
> Don't have my books with me but just about everything (except PDS)
needs a
> firecon.
OK, don't think this would have affected the final outcome much, but good to
know.
> >This took us about 3 hours to play
I would guess that the number of ships makes more difference than the number
of points? I wouldn't want to go below 4 or 5 ships, as I would think this
would limit the available tactics somewhat.
> >Next time, I plan to to add in missiles/PDS, maybe using the UNSC
Thanks for the tip - I will make sure we both bear this in mind, and
post an AAR when we finally get time to play another game.
Steve Scothern
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
[...]
> BTW, there have been roughly 100 emails re: FT3 on the Playtest List
That doesn't indicate progress. That indicates there's a lot of communication
occurring on the list, but doesn't *necessarily* mean "progress".
:-)
All the progress, Mk
> I would guess that the number of ships makes more difference than the
It depends. A game with 10 big ships will obviously take longer than a
game with 10 small ships--the small ships have fewer weapons, choices on
targeting, and systems to check on thresholds. And they die faster. On the
other hand, you're not going to have 10 small ships for the same points
hvalue, you're going to have, say, 30, so your order writing can take
longer--depends on whether you maneuver them as squadrons or not--and
physically moving the ships will certainly take longer.
> Dough wrote:
> Back in May of 2000, the savant formerly known as OO stated:
No, it was on this list sometime in 1999 - after FB1 was released but
before FB2. The change wasn't included in FB2 since P-torps are "human"
weapons and FB2 was all about "alien" tech, and, well... Jon probably didn't
intend that the next Full Thrust book would be delayed quite this
much :-/
Later,