Hi. I'm also on the Matrix Gamer list MatrixGamer@egroups.com and we've been
discussing space games. I've telling them a little bit about Full Thrust being
a great table top game, but it doesn't have a easy to use campaign or
strategic game. A Matrix Game can provide a campaign or strategic outline.
Here's Chris Engle's (Inventor of Matrix Games) email to me:
> Could you write up a gloss of the Full Thrust game world and a brief
> PS: I've noticed that players don't want to make their own games till
So can some one write in reply with these details and any other nice stuff we
should consider? And I'll pass this on to the MG list.
Thanks!
> > Could you write up a gloss of the Full Thrust game world and
I think a good rule of thumb for building ships is 10 MASS per month.
Chris Engle's (Inventor of Matrix Games) email to me:
> David Reeves wrote:
> Chris Engle's (Inventor of Matrix Games) email to me:
I must say that this was a fairly short mail...
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I agree! here's Chris Engle's Matrix Game for Full Thrust after my.sig
Comments?
Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169
http://members.ncbi.com/AndrewMartin/
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
-><-
A FULL THRUST CAMPAIGN MATRIX GAME OUTLINE
Okay, there is a desire for a campaign game to be used with Full Thrust
- A standard miniatures/role play game. A Matrix Game for this purpose
needs to not alter ANYTHING about the standard game. Players want to play FT,
not have it redesigned out from under them. Also, the campaign
game needs to serve the purposes of the basic game - which is to play
battles. The campaign game should not suck energy away from this primary
purpose. As an aesthetic I want the game to have the potential to do
much more than just generate battle - but this should not be pressed
forward. I think it best that players be allowed to add such parts in as they
desire.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE FULL THRUST
I know nothing about this game. I don't play it but I've heard of it and from
that have gleaned that it is a straight forward ship battle game. So battle
games consist of moving ship markers around and firing weapons. It apparently
has some kind of point system (or production system) that covers building
ships. Beyond this it has a map and apparently 42 different factions to play
with!
Ship battle games often handle small actions well and slow down to a snails
pace when more than twenty ships are involved on a side. This is when only two
sides are involved. When many factions (six or more) are
pulled into a game - it becomes insane. Real life politics are lost.
Countries are considered to be monoliths - everyone agreeing to fight.
Which frees up the players to concentrate on bigger and bigger ship actions.
An arms race invariable begins and campaigns devolve into accounting exercises
devoid of interest.
I sound cynical here. I am. I ran a Star Fleet Battles MG campaign for a bunch
of gamers in the early 90's and saw this happen. So any game must overcome the
players moth like tendencies to fly into the flames of boredom. This is not
easy. Battle games do not lend themselves well to
campaigns - it is not a matter of multiplying turn lengths. Campaign
stories flow in a different way.
FIRST NARROW THE PLAYING FIELD
When tendencies are to complexity it is good to start off with a simple cast
of characters. So I suggest a "subsector" with two small powers (three solar
systems each) with two or three unalligned (disputed) solar systems (each with
a local power base).
Inside each "state" have several stereotyped characters. 1. The leader, 2. The
leader of the political opposition, 3. The industrialist, 4. and several
military leaders. This give room for political interaction without being to in
depth.
Have each solar system have several vital points that tactical (ie movement
inside a solar system) revolve around. 1. Shipyards (where all new ships are
built), 2. Mines (raw material collection points, 3. Factories (where raw
materials are processed into ship making products, 4. Communications
facilities, 5. Command posts, 6. Political capitals,
7. Cultural centers. This is abstract - but it shows the players what
they are fighting over. Also it shows what they lose if they are driven off.
So who cares about cultural centers? Hummm...You mean like Jerusalem? I wonder
how long a PM of Israel would stay in power (let alone stay alive) if he gave
away or lost the Western Wall? Lose any site and the leader suffers
politically.
Economically I was thinking that if one does not have the mines,
processing plants and shipyards communicating and functioning - then
ship production stops. Beyond this use the existing point system to build
ships. But don't get deeper into accounting (if you do it will take over the
game).
I would suggest setting up regular commercial shipping lines that run between
the star systems. These are privately owned ships that go back and forth along
the same route until war disrupts communicaitons. They can be ignored until
attacked and thus once again simplify economics (until it is needed to
generate battles). Commercial shipping also stands as a second voice vying for
control of ship building production.
Don't worry about what the ships are carrying - it is irrelevant!
CHARACTER GOALS
Each state will have a brief write up of culture, history and their goals.
Usually the goals are to expend and grow stronger. Only the unalligned systems
should have passive goals. Now both the leader and opposition share the states
goals they merely differ over methods. The
leaders favors war - the opposition probably favors peace and diplomacy
(just to be different). Neither are good or bad - they just want power.
If the leader can not harness the opposition and industrialist behind him then
his state appears weaker to the referee. As a leader has failures, the window
of opportunity arrises to split the state's factions and thus move a state
towards peace. (this gives a none
military way to win - and thus a reason to not kill them all). The goals
I think people will want to see...
THE STATE: Increase its power (militarily, politically, economically,
geographically, culturally etc.)
THE LEADER - The leader wants to accomplish the state's goal and remain
in power.
THE OPPOSITION - The opposition wants to accomplish the state's goal and
gain power.
THE INDUSTRIALIST - The industrialist wants to increase his ownership of
the economic infrastructure (mines, factories, communications, ship yards,
actual ships, and cultural centers). The state then needs to protect his
property!
THE MILITARY - The general wants to accomplish the state's goals but
gain reputation and rank in so doing. After all good generals make great
presidents!
WHAT SHOULD A CAMPAIGN LOOK LIKE?
The technology of FT dictates what the game should do. The game needs a
strategic level (star systems) and a tactical level (inside star systems).
Strategically since communications are only as fast as the fastest ship, the
game resembles Napoleonic sailing. One has to send out squadrons with
prewritten orders. Coordiantion between systems is hard but not impossible.
This lends itself well to area movement. It takes a certain number of days to
reach a system with action outside systems being very unlikely (space is
big!).
Tactically, radio communications work to make the game much more like WWII
carrier actions. Players need to find one another and fight actions. I'd
recommend using free movement inside systems to assure that campaign moves do
not bog down and thus divert attention from actions.
By making movement easier - players have to decide where they really
want to be and not just charge forward. This also allows players to us my MG
ideas about barriers without interfering with the game. Naturally, ships will
gather around vital places but this does not mean that they have to. A player
could try a subtle strategy.
I see games starting off with strategic moves but then centering on a tactical
situation. I'd recommend a month long Strategic turn (maybe two weeks when a
tactical action happens). and a one day turn for tactical actions.
WHAT ARE THE STORIES?
First the players will want to move ships and fight battles. The war story is
what brings people to the table. Then they will want to build new ships and
engage in the arms race. Next they will want tofish for less obvious
advantages (politics etc.) and lastly they will want to role play their
captain's life.
What I suggest is that the game be structured to give the players an argument
that can only be used to futher one of these goals. So strategically one would
get the following argument
POLITICS - The players make one argument about political happenings at
home or in another system. (see political MG rules for what one can do). The
players fight for control of the high political office, alliances and
economics.
BUILDING - This can be used to get ships started or by the industrialist
to gain control of the wealth or by anyone to set up new infrastructure. Also
it can be used to cause economic trouble for your enemy.
MILITARY - This is to move ships from system to system and to make big
strategic plans. It is also a place for competing military commanders to fight
it out over promotions.
CHARACTER - This allows the player to make up an event in their
character's life. This brings in all the character growth one needs and makes
people wnat their leaders to live.
Tactically players have to maintain control of solar system's vital resources
(the mines, factoris and ship yards) Rather than have everything done by
arguments I think it best to make some actions automatic.
FREE MOVE - Let players move anywhere they want to in the system.
Players can set up defense barriers which block movement (well actually cause
the free attacks noted below) but other wise they move anywhere. The side with
the most ships moves first. The mover can move as many ships as he wants to
but ships can only move once. Then the player with fewer ships move. They keep
on trading moves till one side is out of ships. Then the reamining ships move
(usually to places behind you! This will rapidly move through ship set up. On
the other hand for PBEMs it might be best to write an order where the ships
are to go to and just do it. Yea, that would be better. (I'd suggest setting
the ships on a map and showing their direction vector)
FREE ATTACK - I'd say anything a ship trys to go through a barrier that
deffender should get a free call to combat - no argument needed!
MILITARY - This allows players to fish for advantages, get extra moves
and cause battles to happen even when a barrier is not crossed. Unlike
strategic moves these actions focus on starting shooting rather than
positioning large bodies of troops.
BUILDING - This deals with repairing damage to ships rather than
building new ships.
CHARACTER - Allow very focused short term character growth arguments.
These might help a player deal with trouble by their leader's example.
GROUND COMBAT - I assume this is included in the game. Use arguments to
land and move troops and if you wish even do conflicts.
> Andrew Martin (on behalf of Chris Engle)
> FIRST NARROW THE PLAYING FIELD
> Commercial shipping also
If you put your production aboard those ships, it motivates you to protect
them. I'm toying with a system in which you get Red, Green and Blue resource
units; when you transport them to a production center, you get, say, 10MCr for
1, 30MCr for a pair (different colors) and 50MCr for a set of RGB. This will
encourage trade. The MCr have to be spent at that production center, which is
no problem unless you're trying to supply military units on another planet (eg
a colony). More details when I get around to it (don't hold your breath).
> THE STATE: Increase its power (militarily, politically,
Religious power too. Allahu akhbar!
Rather than have different political divisions, you might consider having a
"Glory Rating". I've seen this in, I think, Imperium? If your glory drops too
low, your military effort loses support. Set things up to encourage battles
(eg you get glory if you fight a battle at even odds and win, but you also get
glory if at worse than 1:1 and inflict damage).