[FT] OU & IC & FB3

9 posts ยท Jan 1 2001 to Jan 8 2001

From: Nathan <Nathan_at_Spring_Grove_UK@e...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:25:26 -0000

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

Here's my list of things I would expect in FB3

If memory serves there are four ranges of models requiring documentation as
per FB1.

UNSC - United Nations Space Command
IF - Islamic Federation
OU - Oceanic Union
OC - Outrim Coalition

Of these I would think only the UN and possibly the IF are ready for "Fleet
Booking". The OU desperately need some heavier models, or we have to conceed
that the figures in
question are only good for doing not-Space Above or
not-Fifth Element and are in fact designed with a different
scale in mind. Regards the OC, does ANYBODY have any information on what this
bloc is supposed to be, or are
they just not-Trek figures?

Regards the IC, RH and Dutch mentioned in previous postings, I presume that
these nations buy or build other blocs' designs since they have no native
ranges of their own.

On the new rules front, I was alarmed at the bulk of extra systems rules
brought in by FB2 (all the FB1 changes are fine, though I don't use all of
them). I would hope we
could avoid a TFG-like spiral of "weapons effectiveness
inflation" whereby players have to adopt the latest races and systems in order
to remain competitive.

For the UN, we have discussed various new heavy weapons systems and modular
hulls. These would be good additions if they are no more complex than any of
the rules in FT2.

Finally, just to throw a new idea into the FB3 pot, has anyone considered IF
suicide crews in the past? These would not need to roll a 6 to ram, but would
only be found on very small vessels since the IF wouldn't want to throw away
large numbers of trained hands who probably wouldn't volunteer en masse
anyway. The points value of such a vessel would be considerably raised, though
I don't have a clear enough picture of small vessel survivability to do the
math on this. If that question is insoluble, we might need to fall back on the
idea of a suicide fighter. La ilaha il'Allah!

That's quite a mixed bag of comments. I would suggest that anyone who wants to
reply on a particular point spawns a new subject.

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 07:03:52 EST

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:25:41 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
Well, I always like using up all the 'old basic' weapons before cluttering the
room with 'new ones'. <grin>

Seriously, I find that I so far just enjoy the basic weapons (FT/2nd)
but the Missiles we used in my only battle (so far) did seem 'deadly' so there
i am again. Ambivalent (but leaning towards innovative use of the current
stuff over the 'silver bullet syndrome'. (Unless we are talking
werewolves -  oops, wrong list. <grin>)

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:36:26 EST

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 08:47:13 -0800 Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
<snip>
> Maybe fix wave gun to make it scalable

Wave Gun?  Like the FT Nova Gun appears to be - a table sweeper ?

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:55:37 +1100

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

From: "Nathan" <Nathan_at_Spring_Grove_UK@email.msn.com>

> If memory serves there are four ranges of models requiring

Or that they use "Big 4" designs for their larger ships rather than
home-brewed ones, or that they only have small ships.
Though the light carrier at size approx 100 isn't that small. I prefer to
leave the question open until Nick at Eureka makes some
more OU designs - which he's been threatening to do for 12 months now.
Also the OU has a reputation for salvaging anything even remotely valuable, so
likely have 1s and 2s of nearly everything.

> Regards the OC, does ANYBODY have any

Good Question. Not as far as I know. No entry in the Unofficial GZG pedia
either. I have some ideas re designs - things which are specifically
anti-KV -
thrust 5 forex - but that's about all.

> Regards the IC, RH and Dutch mentioned in previous

IC - probably have the same capacity as OU.
Dutch - the dutch have historically always made their own designs, even
when it made little economic sense to do so. Many of the designs were rather
good.

> On the new rules front, I was alarmed at the bulk of extra

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:42:21 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

Alan Brain wrote (formatted post, BTW):

> Regards the OC, does ANYBODY have any

Why would thrust-5 be "specifically anti-KV"...?

Curious,

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:49:55 +1100

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> >Good Question. Not as far as I know. No entry in the Unofficial GZG

Play a few games with a Vandenburg as opposed to the more
normal Vandenburg-T using cinematic movement vs a KV ship,

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:59:02 -0500

Subject: RE: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

Incorrect. MD 5 gives only a turn of 2.
FB1, pg 5: "Odd-Numbered Thrust Factors:
It is permitted to design ships with odd-numbered
Thrust Factors; such drives operate just as for
even-numbered ones except that to determine the
thrust available for course change the thrust rating is halved (as normal) but
is rounded
DOWN, so that a ship with Thrust-5 is only
capible of 2 points of course change."

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/
-----

> -----Original Message-----

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:30:35 +1100

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>

> Incorrect. MD 5 gives only a turn of 2.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:40:43 +0100

Subject: Re: [FT] OU & IC & FB3

> Alan Brain wrote:

> Good Question. Not as far as I know. No entry in the Unofficial

[snip]

> Basically Thrust-5 gives a turn rate of 3,

As Brian pointed out, thrust-5 only gives you a turn rate of *2*... it
is very nearly the same as thrust-4, but more expensive. Thus my
confusion :-/

Regards,