Hey there,
> First, it's the miniatures and not the games that make the
This may be true and I have no immediate answer for it. You seem to be coming
from the angle that GZG would develope this game. Certainly they could, but I
said in my original post I had planned to do it myself (ala your 'labour of
love') and had no plans to market this in any form other than a freely
available tool for networked game play (baring JT requesting that I do *not*
do it that way...he may want something entirely different if he wants anything
at all...)
I do not know if a computer game can canibalize the miniatures market. Has
something like this occured before? I would be interested if anyone has any
facts...links...whatever...
> Second, creating a computer game even for something as simple
I had started this thread with the idea that I would be developing the app for
free. And as for 3D rendered graphics...I'm shooting for 2D, functional and
ugly in the first revision (heheheh) art can come later. My priority is to get
something out that will let me play a networked game with the Full Thrust
rules and a minimum of hassle.
> Several people have done Play By E-mail games, me being one
The email interface has been mentioned to me several times today, and while I
know it works well, I'm looking for something a little more 'in yer face'. I
think that your points are certainly valid though. Again let me restate that
I'm not in any way attempting to replace the table top, nor do I wish to
adversly affect GZG's profit margins. I'm just a programmer who wants to make
a tool to simplify my own personal gaming. I brought my intentions to the list
because I'm looking for ways for the community and JT to benenfit from my
efforts. I'm not attempting to become a game publisher, nor am I writing a
Full Thrust Conversion intended to be marketed as such by anyone.
My apologies if the above sounds pissy, I assure you I'm not, I just want to
make sure my language is precise. *wink*
-L
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:53 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA16345;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:22:43 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5KLRU14425;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 12:21:22 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5KLLO14400
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:3flaVTHvxWPu0eIZTpR8KvXZ3nd+XSLO@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5KLKP14395
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:21:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from city.vancouver.bc.ca (gw.city.vancouver.bc.ca
[199.175.219.1])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5KLJf66544
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:21:19 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from strebe@intergate.bc.ca)
Received: by gw.city.vancouver.bc.ca id <115212>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000
12:37:15 -0800
Message-Id: <00Dec5.123715pst.115212@gw.city.vancouver.bc.ca>
From: "Dave Strebe" <strebe@intergate.bc.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Glenn Patterson" <farquar@intergate.bc.ca>
References: <F021B784A8C9D411A66F0002A52CA9360A50C2@nt-exc1.arepa.com>
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:37:15 -0800
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000748
Commander to Pilot>Delurk on 3... 1...2...3! Pilot to Commander>Delurk
aqquired sir! Commander to Guns>target Sky Guns to Commander>Sky targeted
Commander>FIRE
> [quoted text omitted]
Just to add my point of view.
I'm interested in some thing I can use over a Modem/LAN/PBEM etc.
I've tried FTMAP but don't seem to have the savy or patience to make it work.
So anything that would let me
-map star systems
-map planets
-allocate & track build points
-build ships
-assemble fleets
-track ships/fleets
-map battles
-handle/track damage to ships/fleets
-build/track ground forces
-etc
would be a great boon espicially if it was in a functional form and easily
used
> [quoted text omitted]
Commander to Pilot> Engage Relurker Pilot>Relurker engaged
[quoted original message omitted]
> Richard Bell wrote:
> I have some buggy code for two ships slugging it out toe to toe at
...provided that your hull is strong enough, of course. Eg., there's
not much point in putting screens on Fragile-hulled ships, while the
same Mass of armour works pretty OK unless you're fighting Aaron <g>
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA31050;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:07:55 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB66l6J27779;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 22:47:04 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB66l3h27758
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:qEbOex2uxeBBtw7xv8bLilPMbkKF+2ZN@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB66l2P27753
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:47:02
-0800 (PST)
Received: from best.micron.net (best.micron.net [204.229.122.199])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB66l1f06342
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:47:01 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from erix@micron.net)
Received: from 10.224.0.199 ([10.224.0.199]) by best.micron.net (Netscape
Messaging Server 4.1) with SMTP id G54W6D00.L2I for
<gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:47:01 -0700
Received: from yellow ( [206.207.108.226]) by with SMTP (MailShield
v1.5); Tue, 05 Dec 2000 23:47:01 -0700
Message-ID: <000901c05f50$55fed3c0$0200000a@yellow>
From: "Eric Fialkowski" <erix@micron.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <F021B784A8C9D411A66F0002A52CA9360A50B5@nt-exc1.arepa.com>
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:47:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-SMTP-HELO: yellow
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: erix@micron.net
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: [206.207.108.226]
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000764
> > Hooking it in with one of already online ship designers would work.
I like mine, but I guess I'm biased;)
http://netnow.micron.net/~ericski/jship/index.html
I'm slowly working on a pure-standalone version that will do human and
aliens. The tricky part is coming up with a generic ship representation. I
think I have it though.....
One of the most major improvements that I'd like to make is a graphical output
of the ship record sheet.
Re: FT for PC
Have you had a look at "Bridge Crew"? This could easily be adapted to FT.
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:04 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07539;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:59:28 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB67vrm29068;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 23:57:52 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB67vpw29045
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:3H5bvEqj03JsQ00zfOdZ7NGkvESJVAcj@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB67vnP29040
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:57:49
-0800 (PST)
Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB67vlf20566
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:57:48 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from aebrain@dynamite.com.au)
Received: from avis (isp877.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.71.115])
by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA12769
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:57:39 +1100
Message-ID: <007001c05f5a$8cb5e480$73478bca@avis>
From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006C6@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:59:36 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000766
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> The device describes seems interesting. As I read it the gun has
Remember that the barrels have a limited life, so can be made much thinner
than the usual. So thin in fact, that they're halfway between a magazine and
a conventional barrel. The total weight barrel+ammo is only slightly
higher
than ammo+magazine.
Some of the concept guns use more conventional barrels, and "fast load" sticks
of rounds embedded in propellant. But IMHO the disposable barrel is the way to
go. Mostly.
There are two areas where Metal Storm technology can do things other guns
can't: a) Rate of Fire Beyond Belief b) Multiple rounds hitting a target at
the same place.
a)'s good for mine clearance, air-to-ground firing, CIWS.
b)'s what currently most interests the US DoD, in Sniper and lightweight KE
Armour piercing applications.
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:04 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA09144;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 02:09:43 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB687aO29561;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 00:07:35 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB687Yh29538
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:07:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:h71mIev1N1GuTA6IiZsS1ZbZA2pgnL/0@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB687XP29532
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:07:33
-0800 (PST)
Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB687Uf22899
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:07:31 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from aebrain@dynamite.com.au)
Received: from avis (isp877.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.71.115])
by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA13879
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:07:22 +1100
Message-ID: <013e01c05f5b$e83194c0$73478bca@avis>
From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <OF58A7B611.D6EC7F3A-ON862569AC.00767BAD@uneb.edu>
Subject: Re: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:09:18 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000767
From: <devans@uneb.edu>
> I wonder how many have heard of Bridge Crew, which was created by an
> > Second, creating a computer game even for something as simple as
There are several aspects to FT that I enjoy (not necessarily ranked in
order): 1. It's a spaceship game 2. Played with live opponents 3. Turn based
so I can play one game in two hours or one turn in two weeks 4. I can tinker
with the rules to make it more "realistic" 5. The scale is squadrons, not
individual ships
6. Design-Your-Own ships--I'm sure I've spent more time designing than
playing
7. The artistic side of things--painting ships--is a pain to *do* but
is enjoyable to *have done*. 8. The rules are simple enough for one person to
remember (unlike, say, DBM, where my opponent and I were always stopping to
look up this factor or that exception). 9. Jon listens to what we say. He may
chuckle, or he may wonder what we're doing out of the psych ward, but he pays
attention.
10. Most important--The List. Would I still be playing this game if
not for the Listers? Maybe, maybe not. I was on the DBx list for a couple of
years, and I've played HoTT twice in the last two years,
DBA/DBM not at all even though I enjoy it. Part Great people on that
list--some of them :-)--but I think this list is better.
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15266;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:37:46 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6GYW145412;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 08:34:11 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6GYAU45377
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:3y8kUr2rjpeuNpKN34ihMap72YramN8n@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6GY8P45372
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:08
-0800 (PST)
Received: from gate.ggr.co.uk (gate.ggr.co.uk [193.128.25.10])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6GY7f06933
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:07 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from pg70201@glaxowellcome.co.uk)
Received: (uucp@localhost) by gate.ggr.co.uk; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:34:04 GMT
Received: from uk-stv-mhub1.ggr.co.uk(147.184.212.132) by
gb-stv-fw2.ggr.co.uk via smap (V4.2)
id xma019074; Wed, 6 Dec 00 16:32:07 GMT Received: from ukz590.ggr.co.uk
(ukz590.ggr.co.uk [147.184.226.247]) by mailhub.ggr.co.uk; Wed, 6 Dec 2000
16:31:22 GMT Received: from ukz568.ggr.co.uk (unverified) by ukz590.ggr.co.uk
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id
<B0011278177@ukz590.ggr.co.uk> for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>;
Wed, 06 Dec 2000 16:28:55 +0000
Received: by ukz568.ggr.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35)
id <VX4NWP9A>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:30:38 -0000
Message-Id: <7165E3A0BA56D411BE6700D0B77FC8AE7504B0@ukz808.ggr.co.uk>
From: "Grogan, Paul" <pg70201@glaxowellcome.co.uk>
To: "'GZG'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [OT]: New OGRE figures soon
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:32:50 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000077f
For those interested, and since it's been mentioned here before, the OGRE
miniatures are nearly ready.
As part of the Steve Jackson demo group, we got a bit of a sneak preview.
I've got pictures of a few of the new OGRE minis, which I will be uploading to
my website tonight, approx 19:00 GMT
Paul Grogan MiB Steve Jackson Games www.runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15208;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:37:31 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6GZ3645448;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 08:35:02 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6GZ1645427
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:35:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:+VvCt3+gRfexsgLf2L44ke+pwpYtx4e3@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6GYxP45419
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:59
-0800 (PST)
Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (root@proxy4.ba.best.com
[206.184.139.15])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6GYxf07022
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:59 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from gregwong@best.com)
Received: from [205.149.168.159] (gregwong.vip.best.com
[205.149.168.159])
by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id
IAA04840
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:34:41 -0800
(PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: gregwong@shell3.ba.best.com
Message-Id: <v04210102b6541a2d892f@[205.149.168.159]>
In-Reply-To:
<6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9AD09@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu> References:
<6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9AD09@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:33:12 -0800
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Greg Wong <gregwong@best.com>
Subject: [FT] How to PBEM?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000077e
I've never played Full Thrust by e-mail. What sort of rule
modifications do you need to make for PBEM? Moving the ships around using
plotted moves seems easy enough, but how do you handle fighters and fire
combat? Does someone have a website that lists these rule modifications?
Thanks.
--Greg
From - Wed Dec 06 17:42:13 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA17698;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:47:03 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB6GjWj45720;
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 6 Dec
2000 08:45:31 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB6GjT245697
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:GtaQ+UH+aQIj+33hFwhlKXDBLSloxzKX@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB6GjSP45692
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:45:28
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB6GjRf08738
for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:45:27 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
id <X54KGWFM>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:45:21 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D03E@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [OT] Wanted: one combat engineer that plays dirtside
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:45:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000780
Hi all,
Anyone got John Atkinson's current email addr? I've just DL'd a bunch of his
rules on combat engineering in DS2 and I want a bunch of clarifications on
what some of the terms he uses mean (he does not explain all of them) and on
some additional CE information (times to construct for many of the
obstacles/minefields). Anyone else who has military engineering field
experience is also encouraged to drop me a line.:)
Thomas.
Finally got my net connection back - !"#¤!#!¤%¤ ISP managed to crash
their user ID files so my passwords didn't work :-( It only took them
five days to get back up and send out new passwords...
> Richard Bell wrote:
> I have some buggy code for two ships slugging it out toe to toe at
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. The number of hull
boxes itself isn't very important; what *is* important - as long as the
ship is TMF 60 or larger - is what FBx calls the "hull strength", ie.
the ratio between the number of hull boxes and the TMF (or rather the ratio
between the number of hull boxes and the Mass eaten by your screens, but since
the screen Mass is a fixed%age of the TMF that's
pretty much the same thing :-/ ). The weaker your hull is (the lower %
of your TMF used for hull or armour boxes), the less use you'll get out of
your screens before they go down or the ship is destroyed.
Your test designs use 40% of TMF for hull boxes, which is definitely
"strong enough" - ie., for them screens are the natural choice as long
as your enemy uses beams or similar weapons (Pulsers, Stingers, PBLs
etc). For ships with Average hulls (25-35% of TMF) OTOH, screens and
armour are roughly equal, and below Average hull integrity the armour wins
almost every time.
Comparing the delay of *destruction* for screens to the delay of the *first
threshold* for armour is somewhat misleading as well. Part of the delay of
destruction for screens occurs after the ship has taken its 2nd and 3rd
thresholds, by which time it has usually lost quite a
few of its weapons as well - ie., getting an "extra" hull box of life
towards the end of the damage track isn't worth as much as getting an extra
box at its start. The more hull (not armour!) boxes and the stronger screens
the ship has, the more noticable this effect is.
In short, try replacing 20-40 hull boxes on each test SDN with beam
weapons, and watch the results change :-)
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:52 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA15571;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:51:43 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBHo5K24651;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 09:50:04 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBHo3L24630
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:xDDXsyguzU+y5ZCRxBy3H5xiucKuFYpE@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBHo1P24625
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:50:01
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange01.dscc.dla.mil (exchange01.dscc.dla.mil
[131.74.160.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBHo1f12948
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:50:01 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil)
Received: by exchange01.dscc.dla.mil with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19)
id <W6J8NRWJ>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:51 -0500
Message-ID:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006E7@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "Gzg-L (E-mail)" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000837
OK, I'm going to show my ignorance (again).
Does anyone know of a good chart (preferably on the web) of Military Rank
comparisons from different services and different countries?
For instance, the US Army rank of Colonel is equivalent to a Navy Captain. If
I am wrong, no flames please, I will accept gentile correction. This is also
not a discussion of merit or general quality, only equivalency of rank. (No
flame wars, please).
I did find http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm, but it only included the US
Army and Navy and only the commissioned officers.
> Richard Bell wrote:
> In the pure beam case, the armor does not even delay the first
Exactly :-) The average damage per beam die is:
No screen 2/3 + 0.2*2/3 = 4/5 ( = 0.8)
lvl-1 1/2 + 0.2*2/3 = 19/30 ( = 0.6333....)
lvl-2 1/3 + 0.2*2/3 = 14/30 ( = 0.4666....)
so the test SDN with no screens, strong hull and 20 pts of armour requires
twice as many dmg pts to reach the 1st threshold as the one
with strong hull and lvl-2 screens, but each die only inflicts
(4/5)/(14/30) = 24/14 = 1.714... times as much damage, not 2x as much.
> so the lvl-2 screened ship has the first threshold, but the screened
Spot on - for strong-hulled ships. But, as I outlined in the previous
post, quite often not if the hull is too weak.
> The other problem is that the screened ship probably still has at
The average time needed for 3 DCPs to repair a particular system is 2
turns, not 1 :-/ The average advantage in raw volume of fire (number of
dice thrown) remains with the armoured ship until either of
- all downed systems have been repaired, or
- the screened ship forces the armoured ship over the next threshold
before taking that threshold itself.
> What really skews things against the armored ship is that screens >can
More or less true, but it depends both on the size of the ship and on the size
of the battle.
On the size of the ship, since cruisers and light capitals - up to
about BDN size or so - often don't have enough DCPs left when the
screens go down to repair all they'd need to repair. SDNs and bigger, OTOH,
tend to have enough DCPs to get a 50% repair probability on at
least one system even after the 3rd threshold, and on 2-3 systems after
the 1st threshold.
On the size of the battle, due to the varying amounts of firepower the enemy
can concentrate against the ship. In a large battle the enemy can often throw
many times the ship's own firepower at it, so the screens should always have
DCP priority (unless the enemy primary weapons
ignore screens, of course). In a single-ship duel, the damage points
saved by the repaired screen aren't always worth as much as the damage points
that could've been inflicted on the enemy by the weapon the same DCPs could've
repaired instead. Of course this depends on what weapon it is, what the
tactical situation is etc. and so on, so it isn't really possible to give hard
guidelines for this situation.
> The simulation evolved as I realized mistakes were made. The first
<chuckle> Been there, done that...
> The second iteration forgot to have any ship attempt to repair damage
Some suggestions for the sixth iteration: :-)
- Go cost-for-cost, not mass-for-mass (unless your gaming group fights
equal-TMF battles rather than equal-points battles, but in that case
you'll have real problems with FB2). Armour is cheaper than screens, so
a mass-for-mass comparison automatically short-changes it.
- Vary the hull strengths. Armour and screen efficiencies depend on the
hull strengths in rather different ways, so knowing which is better for one
hull strength doesn't say much for another hull strength.
- Vary the engine sizes. Unless/until the simulator can take maneuvers
into account (which is rather difficult unless you make some very specific
assumptions) you'll only be able to compare ships with the same thrust rating
to one another, but the relation between the armour and screen efficiencies as
a function of the hull strength is different for ships with different engine
sizes.
- Compare ships with different amounts of passive defences and
different hulls strengths to one another, eg. to determine which hull
strengths are best for different engine sizes (it's not the same for
all thrust ratings), or to determine the hull/engine combinations for
which it isn't effective to carry *any* passive defences. (Some are
obvious of course - the ones that won't have any space left for weapons
if you put the passives in - but there are some others as well.)
Have fun ;-)
> I chose strong hulls on the basis of what turned out to be a small
If you look at the population of FB ships of TMF 60 and up (ie., the ones
which are large enough not to suffer from the screens' minimum Mass) instead
of just the SDNs, FB1 has a frequency of just over 20%
for strong hulls while Average hulls are almost 75% ;-)
The small sample size was the very reason I started collecting FBx ship
designs from the web, BTW. It's still only a small sample considering the huge
number of copies FT2 (and, I suspect, FBs) sold, but at least
1245 ships and 65 designers (latest count - it grows constantly) is a
wider selection than 111 ships from a single designer
:-)
Before someone asks where I found these designs: Some months back I posted a
list of web pages with FT ship designs, which (together with
Brian's ship registry at http://www.ftsr.org/) covers about 2/3 of my
design archive; that post should be in Jerry's archive somewhere.
Unfortunately I know that some of those pages have gone down
since then, but I haven't had time to update it :-(
Later,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:21 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu ([128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA20364;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:46:54 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBDHfpA76671;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Dec
2000 09:41:49 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBDHfiU76606
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:rPlQv58jdnY7bT45dgRoR6hP1CNxyxBf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBDHfeP76588
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:40
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o960.telia.com (d1o960.telia.com [195.252.60.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBDHfdf73907
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:39 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t2o960p74.telia.com [195.252.60.194])
by d1o960.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA04113
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:41:36 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012131741.SAA04113@d1o960.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [FT, SG] Tell the world, I've updated the page
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:42:03 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000087c
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> I'll play Oerjan for a moment (although I'm not worthy <s>)
Seems like Derek managed to update the page before I could check it <g> But
there are some other oddities:
Sydney CV: With the FB2 terminology hull integrity 39 is "Weak", not
"Fragile". I assume the FCS is for sensor purposes, since the ship has no
weapons which require FCS guidance?
Albatross CVE: Hull integrity 36 is "Average", not "Weak". The ship only uses
124 of its 126 Mass, due to Derek's design spreadsheet being
faulty. The Albatross's TMF is 126 so its thrust-4 engines are Mass
25.2 and its screens are Mass 6.3; they should be rounded down (to 25 and 6
respectively), but the spreadsheet rounds them *up* (to 26 and 7) instead.
IIRC (didn't have time to check very carefully) it also rounds the FTL size up
instead of to nearest, but for this ship those two give the same result.
????-class missile cruiser: Tech specs says that it has a single
FCS, which is wrong. The SSD shows 2, which isn't.
Later,
Oerjan Ohlson oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it, depends on what you put into
it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:21 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21772;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:54:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBDHjQm76762;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:45:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Dec
2000 09:45:25 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBDHjOw76741
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:xznJ4ZKhe40BJnvsPETKpvoxqIG82qD+@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBDHjMP76736
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:45:22
-0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.19])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBDHjLf74299
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:45:22 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz)
Received: from Al ([203.96.110.220]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP
id <20001213174515.RMKW1003258.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@Al>
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:45:15 +1300
Message-ID: <006f01c0652c$86cb2300$dc6e60cb@Bri>
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D146@host-253.bitheads.com>
Subject: Re: [DS2] Aerospace Q
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:45:46 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000087d
> Thomas R. S. Barclay wrote:
> What's up? Where'd I step off the path?
VTOLs (helicopters, Jetcopters, vehicles that go up and down) have a movement
rate and move like ground vehicles as well as up and down. Aerospace craft
(jets, deltas, etc) work as you describe.
> And on another note, anyone toyed with the idea of mounting LADs on
Yes. Have a look at the Aerospace page in the DSII section on my site. You'll
see a lot of options there, including aerospace specific GMS and such like.
> And as to the comment about my proposed vehicle design by capacity
You might want to check out my fractional vehicle size rules, which allow for
vehicles to be of any capacity, not just integral multiples of 5.