[FT] Full Thrust-based WW2 Naval

Someone out there was developing these... Any progress?
From - Fri Sep 28 10:39:09 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
        by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13068;
        Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:22:48 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
        by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with SMTP id
f8J0E4b41553;
        Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
        (envelope-from owner-gzg-l)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 18 Sep
2001 17:13:58 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
        by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) id f8J0Du041532
        for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
        (envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:9WAKcB1CezgXMwhCdIptCFL20yXst5It@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52] (may be forged))
        by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id
f8J0Dss41527
        for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:13:54
-0700 (PDT)
        (envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk
[195.92.195.175])
        by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id
f8J0DrP31340
        for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:13:53 -0700
(PDT)
        (envelope-from bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk)
Received: from modem-16.panther.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.192.16]
helo=inty) by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0)
        id 15jUzu-0004SE-00
        for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:13:50 +0100
Message-ID: <001301c140a0$6bab0680$10c087d9@inty>
From: "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <00a501c14098$fa896700$be51073e@pc-185149>
Subject: Re: FT-Torpedo fighters
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:17:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00003dee
Status: RO
Content-Length: 622
Lines: 24

[quoted original message omitted]

> NeoMatrix wrote:

> Someone out there was developing these... Any progress ?

It may have been me, or I remember whipping something off quickly for
consideration of the list and exploring how it could be improved. I still do
not have something that I would be really proud of (a professional writer
giving helpful hints to a group of amatuer scriptwriters emphasised that you
never show your garbage to anyone besides your editor). Be that as it may, I
have figured out a scheme
for the big guns, area anti-aircraft fire (shooting at fighters that are
not attacking you), armor, movement, antishipping attacks by aircraft,

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:40:22 -0400, Richard and Emily Bell
> <rlbell@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> NeoMatrix wrote:

I have done considerable work on a Russo-Japanese War version.

I'm not 100% happy with it. I was using beam weapon ideas for guns, but naval
guns don't have linear probabilities. I've figured away around that, though.

In the end, it doesn't look a LOT like FT. It's only about 30% FT with another
30% FT inspired. For instance, hull boxes work ala FT. So do thresholds.
Critical systems, though, are similar to that used in FT but obviously
expanded. Movement is a fair bit different.

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Tue, 25 September 2001, "Bif Smith" wrote:

> Try a turreted K-gun, they don`t have the range vs dammage problem,

In fact, range versus damage is what I'm after. The problem is that beams are
totally linear. 1 die at the extreme range band, 2 dice the next range band
in, 3 dice one closer, etc.

First off, I changed the range bands to 6". I found that 12" was too "coarse".
I had 12" guns doing 6 dice at range band 1, 5 at two, etc. 6" guns were 3
dice at range band 1, 2 at two, etc.

As I did more research, I found that this isn't very accurate. The 6" guns
were actually very fast to fire. The amount of projectile energy in a 6" gun
versus a 12" gun over time at "standard" engagement ranges was about equal. Of
course, 12" guns had a much greater chance of penetrating armour.

I have three options:

1. keep the guns as they are and accept that it's not very accurate
historically. 2. change the guns. So that they don't have a linear drop off.
For instance, if I go to 9" range bands, I could do 8 (or 6 dice), 4, 2, and 1
for the 12" guns. 3. keep the linear progression but give the guns different
sized range bands. Since I doubt that I could keep each range band the same
size, this would mean some sort of look up on a sheet, which slows down the
game.

> Is it on a site? (wishing to be nosey <G>)

Nope, not yet. It's in a big Word file. I'm still working out some ideas. When
I come up with something, I'll post it.