Seeing that the list appears to have dried up....
Now that the Fleet book has reached the far corners of the earth, and assuming
that you play with 'Official' GZG forces, have the actual game stats provided
made you:
a) Wish you'd bought another fleet's ships b) Glad to be NAC c) Glad to be FSE
d) Glad to be NSL e) Glad to be ESU f) Hungry for the Fleet Book 2 g) None of
the above as you play DIRTSIDE II and wonder why you've opened an FT post h)
None of the above as you play STARGRUNT II and wonder why you've opened an FT
post I) None of the above as this was forwarded to you by someone who can't
use his address book properly
> Tron wrote:
And I got mine used for cheap too...
> Tron wrote:
J) 1) Just wondering how many will stay with FTII due to the eligant
simplicity of the rules.
Bye for now,
My choice would be "e" and "f". e) Glad to be ESU f) Hungry for the Fleet Book
2
That is, assuming FB 2 has them Kra'vak aliens....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Tron wrote:
> Now that the Fleet book has reached the far corners of the earth, and
Well seeing that I find myself currently locked in a bloody war with the
Kra'Vak, I'm thankful of my original decision to build an NSL fleet. It was a
tossup between NSL and NAC (I have a small NAC squadron), but imagine spending
all those billions of credits on shield research and technology and then
finding out it's usless against my opponent?
> f) Hungry for the Fleet Book 2
definately... (though to be honest the stuff guys come up here on this list is
just as good as anything that'll be in there.)
> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, John Leary wrote:
i'll drink to that!
i've not actually seen ft1.3 (as i will continue to call it :-) ie the
fleet book, but from what i've read i'm wary of it. it sounds like the design
system has been overhauled to get rid of some of the daft bits,
like the escort-cruiser-capital splits, but it also sounds like a lot of
the other stuff has made balanced games where pure tactics are important much
harder; you have to spend more time thinking about how your weapons match up
againts the opponent's defences and vice versa.
i like ft1.1 where, basically, everyone had beams and that was it.
occasionally you'd get torpedoes or fighters. basically, you have symmetry
with your opponent's fleet, so it just comes down to tactics.
Tom
> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Los wrote:
my interpretation of the welcome + small-print message on this list is
that there is a good chance that there will be a certain amount of overlap
between the two...
Tom
> Thomas the unbeliever <g> wrote:
> i've not actually seen ft1.3 (as i will continue to call it :-)
OK. But convince Jon Tuffley that it *is* FT1.3 and not FT2.5 first... I'll
believe more in the author's opinion about FT generations than in
your :-)
> ie the
And the total dominance of the A battery and MT missiles, and the extreme
usefulness of screens for huge capital ships. While none of the changes were
necessary for players who design ships without thinking about optimizing their
designs, they were desperately needed for those who do just that (or, at
least, for their regular opponents <g>).
> but it also sounds like a lot of
Well... it is a lot easier to get balanced battles in FT2.5 than in More
Thrust. The main imbalance comes if one side uses fighters/salvo
missiles and the other forgets his point defence at home, but this was just as
true in FT2 (and, I believe, in FT1). Even more true in FT2, in fact,
since the use of C/Class-1 batteries against fighters has been
formalized
and the FB point defence is more powerful than FT2/MT PDAF/ADAF
(especially ADAF).
As for the elegance of FT2.5, well... I consider them more elegant than FT2.
But of course I'm biased <g>
Regards,
> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, John Leary wrote:
Tom - I think you'll find your fears are groundless if you take a look
at
the FB. If you still want to use all-beam fleets, or any other style of
fleet you want, you can. Sure, the four fleets that we give specs for in
the FB all all deliberately different from each other - there wouldn't
have been a lot of point otherwise, but this shouldn't restrict you or anyone
from playing the kind of game YOU want with the rules. This isn't a "you can
only use the designs we've published" type of system.... <grin>.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
well, i wanted canonical, i got canonical (of course, the esteemed - er,
eminent, er, highly respected - mr tuffley is not exactly impartial on
this matter ;-).
> >On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, John Leary wrote:
<snip expressions of fear and other symptoms of ignorance>
> Tom - I think you'll find your fears are groundless if you take a look
grand. the only thing that still worries me a bit is salvo missiles; however,
i think that given some practice (and thorough reading of the utterances of
the wiser listizens) i could get used to them. play nac, deploy fighter
screens, jink like the dickens.
Tom
> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
not the first thomas to be burnt at the stake for his beliefs :-)
> > i've not actually seen ft1.3 (as i will continue to call it :-)
i know, i know. i'm just being contrary. sorry. anyway, i now have a
compromise - it is FT 1.2.5, or, for short, 2.5. you can say it;s FT
2.5,
and that you can add the 1 because it's the first game ever to be
published called full thrust. sorted! :-)
> > ie the
fair enough. i must say, i was partial to huge ships with a-batteries
and
l3 screens :-)
Tom
> f) Hungry for the Fleet Book 2
mmmmm. Fleeet.. Booook... with Kra'vak.... mmmmm.. Want..latest.. news... from
... GZG... mmm?
> f) Hungry for the Fleet Book 2
FB2 WILL have Kra'Vak, and Sa'Vasku, and Phalons, plus possibly some more
stuff. Likely release date is around April '99 (in time for a launch at Salute
in the UK).