> Mike Elliott wrote:
IMHO I would really miss the points system. It is very useful when converting
from other game systems, creating tech levels(lower costs as tech rises),
maintaining economies in campaign settings, as well as balance out alien
forces such as the Kra'Vak.
> Secondly, we have recognised the problem with beam weapons inbalance
single
> arc) and "turreted" (i.e. 2 or 3 arc):
Interesting. I do like the way batteries and arcs work right now with the
exception of the cost\mass of A batteries. If A batts were a little
more costly and maybe more massive, we might see more variation in ship
designs instead of almost exclusive use of A's.
I do like the idea of either declaring a battery as turreted or as a single
arc casemate\pivot mount. If C-batts are always turreted, this might
make conversions difficult when some low power systems might be single arc and
best represented by C-batt's effectiveness. Also, if a ship had a
turreted battery that was mounted such that only two opposing arcs were
available(like some old wet-navy ships) there would be no way to
represent this. I guess you could build them the same as turreted with one arc
missing on the design(just cheating yourself for accuracy). This is probably
realistic, since the battery is essentially the same as one mounted elsewhere
with a better "view".
> As fas a "fix" for FT II is concerned, I think the simplicity of the A
MASS C battery (turretted only) 1 B battery (casemate) 2 B battery (turret) 4
A battery (casemate) 4 A battery (turret) 8
The above was proposed for FT III. Reportedly to be an all mass based system.
This means that the engines and other systems will also have to be mass
bassed.
Something like this (round up at.5)?
Control 10%
Ship Structure 10% (partial streamlining, full 20%, none 8%) FTL 10% Engine
10% per thrust point (Cruisers x.50, Escorts x.25, Super
x1.5)
This would provide the following room (% of total mass) for weapons:
FTL Non-FTL FTL Tons
Escort Cruiser Capital | Escort Cruiser Capital 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 90 100 Thrust
1 67.5 65 60 77.5 75 70 7 13 20 24 30 36 42
48 54 60
2 65 60 50 75 70 60 7 12 18 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
3 62.5 55 40 72.5 65 50 6 11 17 16 20 24 28
32 36 40
4 60 50 30 70 60 40 6 10 15 12 15 18 21
24 27 30
5 57.5 45 20 67.5 55 30 6 9 14 8 10 12 14
16 18 20
6 55 40 10 65 50 20 6 7 12 4 5 6 7
8 9
10
7 52.5 35 0 62.5 45 10 5 7 11 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
8 50 30 -- 60 40 0 5 6 9 - - - -
- -
-
9 47.5 25 -- 57.5 35 --
10 45 20 -- 55 30 --
11 42.5 15 -- 52.5 25 --
12 40 10 -- 50 20 --
13 37.5 5 -- 47.5 15 --
14 35 0 -- 45 10 --
15 32.5 -- -- 42.5 5 --
16 30 -- -- 40 0 --
17 27.5 -- -- 37.5 -- --
18 25 -- -- 35 -- --
> Chun wrote:
> Well.... I am a new player of FT2, and here is my 2 cents for FT3...
> I cannot get More Thrust, because it is out of print in U.S., and the
> to reprint some of More Thrust staff therer.).
Actually, I think that the best idea would be to combine Full Thrust II with
More Thrust, add some interesting options, races, campaign rules and call it
Full Thrust III. That way we get to keep the game we all love, and we all buy
a new product helping keep GZG going.
Enjoy,
> Chun wrote:
I like this idea. My take was to produce a More Thrust 2nd Edition.
As a longtime Traveller fan, I'd really caution all here on the perils or
producing edition after edition (after edition, after...)
Can anyone tell me if FT III will be coming out soon and if so, what sort of
changes to the system are there (if any)?
Pete
If the current FB "tie-in" to FT3 is ever turned into FT3 there is
one little minor change I would like to see, say the minimum hull is 10% and
let people buy hull just like any other system. If you had 1 hull box take up
1 mass and cost exactly the same as it does now you could do the exact same
ships as is done currently, have added flexibility, and be much less annoying.
> If the current FB "tie-in" to FT3 is ever turned into FT3 there is
This is either extreme coincidence or something more sinister....... Have you
been secretly lurking on the playtest list again....? <grin>
Watch this space....
The biggest, most important and hardest to write addition for the third
edition is going to be the section on detection, EW, and targeting.
From: "CGS" <michael@carrickfergus.schoolzone.co.uk>
> The biggest, most important and hardest to write addition for the
Good point. Let's see, we have:
Sensors (normal) Sensors (civilian) Sensors (advanced) ECM Stealth Cloak
For Cloak rules, the ones I really like involve removing the model (leaving
a "datum" marker) and pre-plotting its movement while under cloak. It
can't
see anything else. One problem is that with area effect weapons - Plasma
balls - they should both make it visible and affect the model. Bummer.
Small vessels should always be fitted with "blip enhancers" so can appear as
larger ones, but then have the consequent disadvantage of detection at greater
range.
There should also be an option of "running silent" at minimum power (no
thrust, no FC, nothing apart from life support). As all sensors, not just
active ones, would be inoperative, this means plotting in advance again
-
the surpriser could be surprised.
Effects of nearby gas, asteroids etc should be shown. ie a ship can "dock"
> The biggest, most important and hardest to write addition for the third
Not really; there are already several versions out there of varying
complexity.
Since I haven't posted them for a while...
FT2.5 Sensor Rules These rules are designed to be as transparent as possible
to the existing FT2.5 system, while still providing almost exactly the same
information,
with basic sensors, as the FT/MT system.
The MT rules separate sensors and ECM into two different systems, but they are
essentially two components of the same general system: electronics. Detection
and deception both use electromagnetic fields in one way or another to
accomplish their goals.
EW Phase The Electronic Warfare phase takes place immediately after Step 5
(Move Ships) of the FT2.5 turn sequence.
Information Sensors provide information, while ECM acts to deprive the sensor
of that same commodity. Sensors can provide the following levels of
information: No Info(0): Ships are not detected at this level Bogey(1): This
gives the simple knowledge that something is out there, but no additional
information. The opposing admiral must give the total number of ships in range
to the sensing player, and place a marker at the approximate center of the
fleet. Size(2): The size class of all ships of the opposing fleet within range
is
revealed at this level of information. Using the old FT/MT system, it
would reveal whether the ship was an escort, cruiser, or capitol ship. As no
class system has been established for FT3 yet, feel free to experiment with
your own classes. For those not quite so adventurous, try the following:
Class 0 - 1-4 Mass; Fighters or missiles
Class 1 - 5-16 Mass; Light Escorts
Class 2 - 17-64 Mass; Heavy Escorts and Cruisers
Class 3 - 65-256 Mass; Capitols
Class 4 - 257+; the really big boys
Note that Class 0 contacts would almost exclusively represent fighter groups.
All(3): The specific class of vessel and its display sheet are revealed.
Electronics Systems As the system combines the functions of sensors and ECM,
calling it an electronics package makes more sense than sticking to the old
labels. Every ship is equipped with a Class 0 electronics suite as part of the
basic hull cost (which also conveniently makes redesigning the FB1 ships
unnecessary). More advanced suites are massed in exactly the same manner as
beam weapons:
Class 0 Electronics - Included with Hull (360°)
Class 1 Electronics - Mass 1 (360°)
Class 2 Electronics - Mass 2 (180°), +1 per extra 3 arcs
Class 3 Electronics - Mass 4 (60°), +1 per extra arc
Class 4 Electronics - Mass 8 (60°), +2 per extra arcÂ
Point Cost is Total Mass x 5
NOTE: This point cost "felt" right, but has not been tested for play balance!
Sensor Arcs The more astute may realize from the cost table above that sensors
in this system have arcs. It stands to reason that the more accurate and
sensitive the system, the more focussed it needs to be. So electronics suites
use the same arc system as beam batteries. However, with electronics it's
possible to downgrade performance if a wider range of arcs is needed.
Downgrading to a lower class gives the base arc for the lower class, but will
not be less than the existing arc for the sensor that is downgraded. For
example, if a class 3 electronics suite with four extra arcs (300°) were used
as a class 2 suite, its arc would remain the same instead of degrading to
180°.
Range Bands Electronics also use range bands the same as Beam weapons, except
that they are doubled.
Band 1 - 24"
Band 2 - 48"
Band 3 - 72"
Band 4 - 96"Â
How Electronics Work The Class 0 System inherent to all ships is the one that
will be used most, and thus acts a basis for the system. A Level 0 system has
the following performance: Class 0 Passive Range: 24" 48" 72" Information:
All(3) Size(2) Bogey(1)
Class 0 Active Range: 48" 72" 96" Information: All(3)* Size(2)* Bogey(1) * on
individual ships Ships may also use active mode. A ship receives one free
scanning attempt per FireCon as part of the Class 0 System when in active
mode. The scan reveals one more level of information for the target ship, but
usually also reveals the scanning ship. Ships with higher class systems retain
this "Class 0" ability regardless of how they employ their advanced suites.
Ships using active mode are far easier to detect. A ship using active sensors
is detectable out to double the normal range. So an active Class 0 system is
detectable to 144", and must reveal its size out to
96".
Advanced Electronics and ECM In passive mode, the class of the electronics
suite gives the additional number of range bands for each level of
information, but only for information levels equal to or less than their
class. Passive Sensor Ranges Type 24" 48" 72" 96" 120" 144" Class 0 All Size
Bogey None None None Class 1 All Size Bogey None None None Class 2 All All
Size Bogey None None Class 3 All All All Size Bogey None Class 4 All All All
All Size Bogey
Note: The Class 1 system adds the offensive/defensive capability though
its passive performance is still equivalent to the Class 0 system.
Active mode is where Electronics really comes into its own, but when used, as
with the Class 0 system, double the range at which information is given to
opposing ships. Thus, a ship using active mode would reveal its size to a
Class 2 system out to 144". A ship using active mode has a number of dice
equal to the class of its electronics suite to use during the turn. Any unused
dice at the end of the turn are lost. The dice, just like for beams weapons or
PDFs, must all be allocated before any are rolled. Dice may be used on the
ship itself, other friendly ships, or any detected enemy ships. For every 24"
of range to the ship being affected, deduct one die, similar to beam weapons.
So if an enemy ship were 30" away, and our ECM ship with a Class 2 suite
wanted to use both dice on it, the range would reduce the total to one die.
These dice are scored just like beam weapons, including re-rolls
on a natural 6, with the following possible results:
1 Hit - Increase/Decrease effective firing range by 6", OR
increase/decrease effective sensor range by 24", OR falsify Level 2
information by 1 size class*
2-3 Hits - Increase/Decrease effective firing range by 6" and treat as
+/-1
level screens (2 max), OR increase/decrease effective sensor range by
48",
OR falsify Level 2 information by 2 size classes*
4+ Hits - Increase/Decrease effective firing range by 12" and treat as
+/-1
level screens (2 max), OR increase/decrease effective sensor range by
96",
OR falsify Level 2 information by 3 size classes*
*Reported size class may only be altered by the ship mounting the electronics
suite.
On 6-Apr-00 at 03:35, CGS (michael@carrickfergus.schoolzone.co.uk)
wrote:
> The biggest, most important and hardest to write addition for the
AMEN. We are going through ittarations of that for the computer moderated
games we are playing. We have jumped into the suggested camp of detection at
80MU. We are still discussing mass range.
> There should also be an option of "running silent" at minimum
I don't see why passive sensors would not be operating.
> Probably the best way to simulate this is to have "detection
Nice and simple....(rummaging around for a calculator)...let's take the
cotangent of 15 degrees..divided by the square root...