As I have been watching these two threads, I've noticed what I consider to be
a disheartening effect to make the game more COMPLICATED. I see that there are
problems with mass vs points or with big ships vs small ships but I personally
like the game AS IT STANDS. I have DS II & SG II but I would rather play Full
Thrust based on it ease to play. If I want a complex game, I'll dig out my 50
pounds of Star Fleet Battles. The direction seems like Car Wars. It started
out as a fun, easy to play, yet extendable game, then it became "Car Fleet
Battles" with way too much stuff (optional rules, rules revisions, and such).
Let's not take FT there.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> As I have been watching these two threads, I've noticed what I consider
> + Eric Fialkowski +
I agree absolutely!
I like the immediacy of FT, and the fact that even non-gamer SF
fans (they do exist!) can pick it up very quickly.
I still enjoy coming up with ideas to extend the game, but in terms of house
rules and "let's try X for a change" rather than the "Car Fleet Battles" ( an
excellent phrase I hadn't heard before) syndrome with the possibility of
obvious mathematically optimum solutions.
I must admit I'm a bit leery of "FTIII" based on what I've heard so far.
> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Eric Fialkowski wrote:
> As I have been watching these two threads, I've noticed what I
I have a lot of misgivings about FTIII at the moment. This sounds rather like
a GW thing. There may (to some) be a problem with one small section of the
game that isn't exactly balanced. GW then turns around and changes the entire
system, forcing us to buy the new game. That is happening at the moment to
Epic. A game that is very good with only a few problems, so lets redesign it
from the ground up. FTIII for the moment just sounds like that. I realize that
I am about to get flamed in the worst way for comparing GZG to GW in this way,
but I am getting tired of this kind of nonsense. FT is just fine the way it
is, in fact it is great! All FT could possibly need (IMHO) "might" be a few
suggestions on how to balance out some of the things that a few people feel
are unbalanced (keeping in mind that not everybody feels they are). IMHO I
feel that a third expansion (kind of a "bit more thrust" or whatever) would be
much better. I would like to see a few suggestions to balance the "problems",
maybe some new tech systems, a few more alien races, and maybe some campaign
rules. I REALLY don't feel like being forced to buy a new rulebook so that I
can learn a new system to replace the one that works great the way it is.
<<SNIP>>
> mind that not everybody feels they are). IMHO I feel that a third
I agree, I want some new tech systems (you can add alot and still avoid SFB) I
would like to see the rest of the Sa'Vasku (you know, point values) and
especially see CAMPAIGN and STRATEGIC rules.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
Date sent: 9-DEC-1996 09:24:22
> As I have been watching these two threads, I've noticed what I consider
I must admit that when I play, I normally play the Core rules only. Even
though I have several variant rules knocking about, and MT, I play the basics,
simply because it is simple.
Having said that, FT is great because it is so adaptable. Easy to tinker with.
I think some of the variants are great fun. The only problem with them would
be if they became 'official' in any way. Then the core rules may become
diluted. As it stands, with no 'official' rules changes, all these ideas
floating around form a pool of take it or leave it ideas. Nothing wrong with
that. If anything it enriches rather than detracts from the original.
If GZG were ever to use any ideas as expansions, then I would certainly like
to see them clearly labeled as OPTIONAL. This doesn't really work, as the
Kra'Vak rules are labeled OPTIONAL, but are used extensively by people who
want to 'win'. The core rules are great, but does that mean there is no room
for improvement, or even random tinkering? So long as they remain
'unofficial', there should be no problem.
And last time I spoke to Jon (Saturday before last) he was still undecided as
to wither or not to rewrite or reprint, so drop him a line at his snailmail
address saying which you'd prefer. He may decide just to reprint afterall.
Date sent: 9-DEC-1996 09:40:14
> I have a lot of misgivings about FTIII at the moment. This sounds
"Yes, I concur. Wholehartedly and without reservation." "A simple 'Yes' would
have done number 1." "I didn't want there to be any chance at misunderstanding
Sir."
- William T. Riker and Captain Picard.
I think a rewrite "More Thrust 2", "Even More Thrust", "Vectored Thrust"
or
something would be much more desirable than a rewrite of FT itself. Perhaps
replacing MT, but NOT the core rules.
We don't want to cure the disease by killing the patient. At the end of the
day, it's only a slight cough anyway.
> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Eric Fialkowski wrote:
I know what you mean, and I feel the same way! The important thing,
however, is how you and your friends play the game -- unless someone in
your group is just dying to complicate things, then the additional optional
rules that come across this list don't really have an effect on the way that
the game is played. Remember, none of these ideas are "official", and you are
free to ignore any and all of them.
I think that one of the measures of success of a game system is how much it
inspires the players to fiddle with it. In this sense, Full Thrust is an
extremely successful game!
> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Chad Taylor wrote:
> I have a lot of misgivings about FTIII at the moment. This sounds
I agree, and IF this were the case I might not buy FTIII.
> IMHO I feel that a third
An excellent idea Chad.
Enjoy,
> Eric Fialkowski wrote:
By golly you're in luck! Just play FT as your manual reads. For those who like
to tinker with the rules, we love the game as well. I think FT will always
stay simple and fun as Jon intended it to be. I met Jon last GenCon and he
really likes to hear about our ideas and suggestions, but I really doubt he
would let the game turn into SFB or something.
> Chad Taylor wrote:
I agree with you 100%! Fixing known problems and adding optional expansion
stuff would be great, not an entire rewrite.
> At 10:47 AM 12/8/96 -0700, you wrote:
I'm of a dissenting opinion. As this list proves, there is lots of room for
extra rules in FT, such as dockyards, casements, new weapons, new fighters,
etc. I don't have a problem with a little more added complexity.
What I DO have a problem with is the "must upgrade at all costs" mentality
that I'm seeing vis a vis Full Thrust. If you like Full Thrust as it is, why
worry that the next version is more complex? Just play FT2 and don't bother
buying FT3. Why is everyone assuming that when FT3 comes out no one will want
to play FT2?
> At 11:37 PM 12/8/96 -0500, Chad wrote:
So who's forcing you? Seriously--and no flame intended--why is there
this feeling that once FT3 comes out everyone must ditch their old rules? No
one is going to come to your house and require that you only play one version
of FT.
It's not like there's been a tonne of published supporting material for FT
anyway, just the main rules and the one supplement. Why must this be an
either/or thing? Why can't the players, this list, and GZG support both
systems? Would everyone chuck their FT2 stuff if FT3 was released with a
different name? Or released with a different name by a different company?
Personally, I'd like to see Jon's next version of the game. I think there
could be some great ideas, and maybe even a better game than the original or
FT2. There are some "bugs" in the game that I'd like to see addressed. I don't
think the man who wrote FT2, DS2, or SG2 would convert Full Thrust into "The
Son of SFB."
> What I DO have a problem with is the "must upgrade at all costs"
mentality
> that I'm seeing vis a vis Full Thrust. If you like Full Thrust as it
Because what would prolly happen is that FT2 will go by the wayside for new
players. New people to FT won't be able to find FT2, but will find FT3. For
those FTers who have FT2 (or even FT1!) will be 'left behind' by FT3ers who
will prefer to play FT3 'because its *obviously* better and newer since its
replacing FT2'. This is in general. I think most of the people on this list
are discriminating enough to deal with the differences amongst
them-
selves. However, there is the problem that if FT3 comes out, FT2 will
disappear from the shelves. And if you're an FT2er and are trying to intro it
to new players, all they will be able to get is FT3. And if it's different
enough from FT2...
For the record I vote for FT2, with FT3 being expansion materials and maybe
some errata on the bugs in FT2. And anti-virii weapons. :-) Maybe
even
a better link between FT2 and DS2/SG2?
Mk
> On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:27:45 -0500, you wrote:
> At 11:37 PM 12/8/96 -0500, Chad wrote:
Sadly Alan, I have to say that the history of boargames, RPGs and miniatures
would tend to indicate otherwise.
One of the reasons for a rulebook is to provide a common platform for players
to come together to play a game. If the orthodoxy changes players have tended
to change with it, if only to get a game. The dreaded "toad" syndrome.
Examples given in this and other threads are ASL, SFB WRG ancients and RPG's
like traveller and D&D.
I'll bet everybody's wallet and bank account has a story to tell in this
regard.
GZG would be wiser to continue to offer öptions for "bugfixes" and players
should consider looking at house rules and some of the very good player
written alternatives which are already here on the 'net.
> On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Allan Goodall wrote:
> At 11:37 PM 12/8/96 -0500, Chad wrote:
No one
> is going to come to your house and require that you only play one
Inertia, that is what is forcing me. New players come into the group; what
rules will they be able to buy: the new edition. You go to a con; what system
will be used: the new edition. A new supplement is written; what edition will
it be written for: the new edition. The list goes on and the momentum builds
until the old edition is forgotten. In a short period of time the new edition
will become the currency of the day, regardless of whether or not it is better
than the preceding edition.
{snip}
I concur. I am loathe to expose myself to possible vitriolics in my hobby; but
some things must be said. On one hand as a business owner, I can understand
the need to continue to produce revenue, but I question the tactic of constant
revision. I have no numbers to support it, but I believe constant revision of
a rules set alienates the players. I completely support expansion modules.
I have gamed mostly historical miniatures and boardgames. I also play SciFi,
but until FT never ship games. DSII brought about a large collection of
infantry and vehicles which constantly gros. A FT collection is imminent. But,
the discussion of FTIII has caused some reservations...
There was a time when the group gamed Squadleader(both with figures and
without)...then came ASL. That did it for many of the players who were
suffering through collecting the earlier modules waiting for the Italians or
the Japanese. Almost to a man, six players dropped the system, and other WWII
rules were found.
Car Wars was also played by some of the group and others who didn't play
SL. Sets of rules were purchased by non-SciFi players. Almost every
player I knew would drop in for a game of it once in awhile. But as the
religious car wars players followed the constant modifications, the others of
us were left in the dust. Then, all of the players were left it in the
dust...too complicated. Only in the past year or so have a few begun playing
just the basics. But many avoid it.
40K was introduced to the group after it came back with me from a working
experience abroad. Noone had seen it; yet, it had immediate interest as a lark
from our more steady historical gaming. The system was flawed but good for a
game every once in awhile. Then, the systems metamorphosized
again and again. It went from a game where you could grab any vehicle or
figure and adapt to "Chapter Approved" and "Official."
Epic was played until it was modified. Now, most GW products are completely
avoided by all but two gamers that I know.
Empire, a Napoleonic set of rules, caught the same syndrome. It was dropped.
Now it looks like Command Decision has caught it; but it looked like it
would only go as far as CDII. Now; just when I have finally enticed the
WWII gamers back, we discovered CDIII might come out. There were already
grumbles about the having to alter the CD modules and scenarios for the CDII
change. Now there are also thoughts of dumping CD...
Interestingly, I was introduced to FT by two historical gamers (former Empire
players)who never would play SciFi. They collected fleets even before playing
it. They have even converted all the Napoleonic players I know (11) into FT.
These gentlemen are not online, but I am sure that they will be unhappy about
the possiblity of FTIII.
I have just this one group study, but I venture that there are other groups
and individuals who feel the same way.
In reply to Allan Goodall's message what I guess some people are worried
Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
I dread exposing it.
I'd /like/ to see FTIII be a complete rewrite; so complete a rewrite
that they go from the d6-intensive current system to FMA-style
multi-die-style adjudication. That would make it /much/ easier, in my
eyes, to interface DSII and SGII. In fact, that leads to a future
publication, if/when GZG feels it necessary or useful, where the
entire GZG wargame line comes out in one nicely bound book containing FTIII,
DSIII and SGIII, maybe with even an RPG system stuck in there using the same
FMA mechanics (gee, wouldn't it be nice if those were the rules I'm working
on).
Given the unpopularity of changing anything but the smallest fragment of FT
amongst this group, I have to sit back and wonder how its expected for GZG to
stay afloat. If you folks were in charge, there'd be neither the excellent
DSII nor SGII rules which are far and away superior to their predecessor. GZG
would have much less money than the already meager sum that they have at hand
now. A company has to sell new product to stay a company, and it cannot
survive on just a handfull of suppliments and a small miniatures line, even
with requirements as modest as GZG, not forever. Jon and Mike have
/never/, in my eyes, shown a mere hint of the GW mentality. Any
updates and new versions they produce, they do so because they feel its
necessary, not just to gouge the playing public out of a few more lousy bucks.
I think its vaguely insulting that most of the replies were implicitive of
just such a mindset and hope to my depths that I'm simply reading more
vehemance into them than is actually present.
So, my unpopular view; I'll go crawl back under my stone, now.
Enterprise 1701 ( a large local hobby store) has 10 copies of MT on the
shelf and they also have a complete internet store as well as a superb mail
order department. They carry a complete line of FT, DSII, and SGII supplies
including all rules and miniatures. Their phone in
> Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
:-)
Well, *I'm* not going to flame you for it. ;-) Everyone's entitled
to their opinions, whichever side of the fence they stand.
> I'd /like/ to see FTIII be a complete rewrite; so complete a rewrite
Well, I really can't talk about DS2 or SG2 'cause I haven't seen the rules or
anything for them around here (and I've looked, no avail). I would like to see
those rules and then see some kind of merger between the systems.
> Given the unpopularity of changing anything but the smallest fragment
Well, I dunno 'bout that. Again, not having seen the DS*/SG* rules I
can't comment on them directly. But FT2 seems to be a very good system in and
of its own right. This was what hooked me into the game from the word 'go'.
It's already now an excellent system.
But that's my $0.02 worth. :-)
> /never/, in my eyes, shown a mere hint of the GW mentality. Any
Oh, hey, I have nooooooo problems with expansions and updates and stuff! A lot
of things people have asked to see (campaign rules, fleet books,
scenarios, new races/tech/systems, etc) I'd love to see in an 'official'
capacity, and don't think anyone would have to rewrite the rules to
incorporate them. Nosirreebob.
> I think its vaguely insulting that most of the replies were
I *seriously* doubt anyone here was leveling insults or vehemence at Jon or
Mike or GZG. I think a *lot* of people are frustrated from past experiences
with other game systems that have gone from Good and Excellent to Unwieldy and
Ugly, and that's where the vehemence you're reading comes from. I think most
people were using drawing on those other systems as an analogy of what they
feared might happen to FT.
> So, my unpopular view; I'll go crawl back under my stone, now.
No, no, stay out in the light! Your skin's looking just a *little*
pale...
Mk
Hello Alex, I don't think your opinion stinks <grin>. And you are most correct
in assuming that GZG's needs to publish or perish (God, who would have thought
that applied to something fun like gaming!). I also agree that a more polished
version of FT would be interesting to see come about. One way that I can see
for a person to have his cake and eat it too is the idea of "BASIC" and
"ADVANCED" rule sets. FT II could be the basic version, while FT III could be
the Advanced version. As for Roleplaying rules, the market for the game would
possibly expand (depending on the rules I suspect), and get the company some
more income. In short, don't crawl under rocks (too damp, and the bugs tend to
make life difficult and uncomfortable), stick around and enjoy the sunshine
now and then...
Hal
> Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Alex Williams wrote:
> Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
No need for dread my friend. Don't be afraid about making your voice heard.
> I'd /like/ to see FTIII be a complete rewrite; so complete a rewrite
I don't know. The primary reason why I don't play the FMA games
very often is the fact that they are very difficult to organize and play. One
of primary selling points of FT is that it's any easy system to play and
learn. I'm not saying that DSII and SGII are not good games, they are.
However, I have an easier time teaching the FT rules than teaching any of the
FMA rules. Changing the entire system to corresponde
to the FMA system isn't necessary. In fact we might even lose some potential
players if we do this.
> Given the unpopularity of changing anything but the smallest fragment
There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." As far as I know, FT
doesn't need fixing. Sure the Kra'Vakk points system need
a little work and the Sa'Vasku need a points system. (As for beam weapons, I'm
quite comfortable with them. I don't know what everyone's problem is.) As long
as you have a good game system there will be demand for it. The free market
will take care of the rest. Sure, from time to time you may
want to reprint the rules with snazy new graphics and new
weapons/systems, ships, and scenarios, but changing the whole system?
That's a recicpe for disaster that could hurt GZG (and as a supporter of
"filthy" capitalism, I'd hate to see a company I like get hurt). In short:
Change isn't always good. (Despite what the overly optimistic will say.) This
is not a case of "evolve of die" because
there is no need for FT to eveolve. I like FT as is. There are
certain points where the rules can be corrected or clarified, but that can be
fixed with either another supplement or a reprint of the original rules.
> I think its vaguely insulting that most of the
What's wrong with vehemance? This is something we happen to love. To
paraphrase Berry Goldwater "Extremism in the defense of Full Thrust is no
vice."
> So, my unpopular view; I'll go crawl back under my stone, now.
Don't go under there, it's dark.
Later,
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 only
possibility for me to get some of these rule is FT3(if they decide to reprint
some of More Thrust staff therer.).
Thanks for listen:)
************************************************************************
*
*"To be or not to be that is the question."
*
*To be is infinite better then to be in the limbo flowing around...
*
*So..... Get a life... :)
*
> Chun Wang writes:
@:) I cannot get More Thrust, because it is out of print in U.S., and @:) the
only possibility for me to get some of these rule is FT3(if @:) they decide to
reprint some of More Thrust staff therer.).
I don't know whether MT is out of print or not but if it is unavailable, it
must have become so fairly recently because I purchased my copy (which had to
be ordered) early in the summer. So less than 9 months ago anyway. It did take
an awful long time to get
there - in fact I had given up on the store and was planning to buy a
copy somewhere less local but better stocked when they finally called me. In
any event I was able to get the book fairly recently so you
might try some other companies - the one you contacted may just be in
error.
> Ever stop to think...and forget to start again? wrote:
You should really try to find them; I got my copies from RYDER'S ONLINE
GAMES within a week on DSII, and a couple for SGII. I have been /very/
impressed with the systems therein.
It would really be almost impossible to merge the FT and DS/SG-II
systems; the former are based on multiple d6 resolution as has been used
in tactical wargaming for a coon's age, while DS/SG are based on the
"Full Metal Anorak" structure which uses the dice from d4 to d12 as
strength/difficulty levels, incorporating lots of opposed rolls which.
at first glance look as if they'd slow the system down a lot but, in actuality
give a far more interactive feel for very, very little given away in speed
(mainly because you end up rolling fewer dice).
> Well, I dunno 'bout that. Again, not having seen the DS*/SG* rules I
I'd say that FT could be significantly improved by going to the FMA structure,
if only because then the lines would be much easier to interface.
> Oh, hey, I have nooooooo problems with expansions and updates and
Campeign rules would likely require some similarity to the basic mechanics of
the basic system to really `fit' the system well; if GZG took FT to the FMA
system, they could write one set of campeign rules to
cover all three scales which, in terms of genericism, is a /huge/ win.
Likewise with the rest.
Basically, what I'd like to see is GZG making SG/DS/FT an /integrated/
wargaming system rather than three (really, two, since SG and DS already both
use the same mechanics) seperate lines. Support for all three
could then proceed apace; why have /just/ a fleet book when you could
have an entire Star Army book, with fleets, transports and ground
forces? Then there becomes that much /more/ material that can be
produced without having to worry about integrating dislike mechanics.
> I *seriously* doubt anyone here was leveling insults or vehemence at
FT will /never/ pull a GW; I think that's easily seen from any of the
activity we've seen here from their representatives. I'd /like/ to see
them bring things into coherence, however, so the lines as a whole can advance
and maybe bring some freelancers together in providing support, too.
> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Alex Williams wrote:
I think this may be more a problem with the teaching than the system; I
haven't had much problem teaching even some youngsters (hey, they have the
most micromachines) the basic resolution system of FMA DSII; in fact, they
usually catch me out if I've forgotten a rule and misquote it from the book.
The basic idea of the unit having a basic ability (rated by a die) plus an
extra die (in the case of SGII) vs a die of the same sort of rating, highest
wins. VERY little math involved, just comparing magnitudes. In SGII, all you
have to do is figure out if one die or two exceed the defending die (until you
get to that damage system; I'm still not real keen on all the mults, but its
better than other things I've worked with). FT tends to involve a lot more in
terms of die rollsfor me, but that aside, it'd be really nice, as I've said in
previous posts, if the entire GZG line used roughly similar mechanics so
suppliments could be put out for all three together to expand things.
Anyway, I've pretty much mined out my statements for the day while I'm here at
work.:)
> Allan Goodall wrote:
mentality
> that I'm seeing vis a vis Full Thrust. If you like Full Thrust as it
Right on target!:)
> Chun-Kai Wang wrote:
> to reprint some of More Thrust staff therer.).
Out of print? Have you tried contacting GZG for a copy?
Hello Chun, I may be mistaken, but I believe you can get More Thrust from
Crazy Egor, located in Rochester, New York. They ship world wide, so if you
desire the address, let me know...
I am somewhat in agreement with Alex, revision does not necessarily dictate
complication. Many points have been expressed and somewhat agreed upon within
this list community, such as a slight increase in larger beam weapon mass,
that would not overly complicate the game. As far as expansion, just say
'optional rules'. Personally, I would like to see expansion of the uses of
fire arcs to include defensive systems and perhaps something about crew
quality.
The minor point is that those who participate in this list may have an
opportunity to contribute to FTIII more so than many gamers. A friend of mine
designed one of the Kzinti ships in SFB (many, many moons ago) and got a real
kick out of seeing his work in print. I would think GZG would welcome the
input of customers who enjoy and use their products enough to participate in a
list, publish webpages, travel to conventions to run games, and so on.
The major point is that I would be more than willing to pony up another twenty
bucks to support my favorite game company. I suspect many of us would.
Comments?
For what its worth,
> What's wrong with vehemance? This is something we happen to
very nicely put :-)
Date sent: 11-DEC-1996 12:34:26
> Chun-Kai Wang wrote:
> I cannot get More Thrust, because it is out of print in U.S., and the
> Out of print? Have you tried contacting GZG for a copy?
Jon has less than 5 copies left. And that was two weeks ago.
> At 01:26 AM 12/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
No one
> is going to come to your house and require that you only play one
Hmm. I hadn't actually thought of the issue of new players coming into the
game, or playing at cons. I only play at cons once a year, and everyone I know
who is interested in FT has a copy or uses mine.
So, you've sort of convinced me. However I'd still like to see Jon's next
attempt at a Full Thrust type game. Oh, well. I'm out voted. Bring on the
rules supplement. However, I am COMPLETELY AGAINST a rewrite with new rules
added. I would like to see FT and MT put into one book, but without any
changes. Changes should be put into a new supplement. If I'm going to
re-buy
a game, it should have totally different mechanics. I don't want to get into
the situation where I have to re-buy Full Thrust just to get the two or
three pages of required erratta. I would snap up a rules supplement the day it
hit my local store's shelves, though.
My 2c worth:
I hope that FT III will be to FT II as FT II was to FT I. The change to 'no
rear arc weapons' made an enormous difference, without completely redefining
the rules.
FT II needs:
:: A-certain-Alien-race-which-shall-remain-nameless having the cleaners
put through its points.
:: A more balanced set of masses for Beams. eg 1,3,6. Or the
turret/barbette stuff I've seen floating around the list.
FT III would benefit saleswise from:
:: Seamless integration of all FT II and MT rules.
:: Standard Ship Designs for a Universe with 100 tonne scout vessels, 200
tonne trading vessels etc etc (without mentioning the word 'Traveller')
:: Standard Ship Designs for a Universe with 200,000 tonne Starships,
In a message dated 96-12-11 04:10:40 EST, aebrain@dynamite.com.au (Alan
> Brain) writes:
<<
FT II needs:
:: A-certain-Alien-race-which-shall-remain-nameless having the
cleaners put through its points.
> [quoted text omitted]
If SGII is any indicator, it seems likely that FT3 would have the points
system removed. I wouldn't like that a bit.
Regards, Stephen Gibson