Hello;
My name is Brian Thomas; I'm 21, and have been wargaming for about 3 years now
(help! I can't stop;). I, and my gaming group, are relatively new to Full
Thrust, having mostly done GW mini games, with some Clan War and B5 Wars
thrown in. With that in mind, a few questions have come up regarding FT.
1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo, interceptors)
Are they in FB2, or is More Thrust still in production?
(I
have FT and FB1)
2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played a 2000
and 3000 pts per side (2 players per side) game, and are leaning towards 2000
each person. What has people's experience been for 'ideal' size fleets?
3) Has anyone had any luck basing Superior minis on flight stands? Some of
them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
the destroyers and destroyer leaders seem possible.
(http://www.stellargames.com/sfwars-prices.htm)
4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely fleet
choice, using Superior minis)
6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from FT1?
Thank you for any help you can give,
> My name is Brian Thomas; I'm 21, and have been wargaming for about 3
Welcome aboard. I think that you'll like FT & you might even get used to our
strange little community.
> 1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo,
(I
> have FT and FB1)
Most of these rules were in More Thrust, but have now been replaced by FB2
(for advanced types) and FB1 (for movement & combat).
> 2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played a
Tourneys tend to use 1500 points, but anything in that ballpark
produces a pretty good game. Bigger games (3000+) are more
impressive, but take longer to play (not advised for the inexperienced).
> 3) Has anyone had any luck basing Superior minis on flight stands?
Some of
> them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
Large figures call for large stands. I use GW's large flight bases as the
basis for my biggies, adding a healthy dose of brass square stock.
> 4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
The official response is: Don't Ask! (or else the BDS folks will get out the
Narn Bats)
> 5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely
Good all around fleet.
> 6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
Huh?
> At 06:30 PM 08/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
(I
> have FT and FB1)
Ok. I've got the FB2 book on order, so that's fine.
> 2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played
Some of
> them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
I'll have to give that a try, when they arrive.
> 4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
Silly me:)
> 5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely
That's what I thought. I especially like the pulse torps.
> 6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
Homebuilt, using the ship construction rules.
> Schoon
Thanks,
Well, inspite of Schoon stealing my thunder:
***
My name is Brian Thomas; I'm 21, and have been wargaming for about 3 years now
(help! I can't stop;). I, and my gaming group, are relatively new to Full
Thrust, having mostly done GW mini games, with some Clan War and B5 Wars
thrown in. With that in mind, a few questions have come up regarding FT.
***
Howdy, neighbor! Greetings from Nebraska (Lincoln).
Three years ain't nuthin'. Wait til you find a gurl. That'll be the end of
yur gamin'. ;->=
Have you tried B5 Fleet Action yet? I'm still deciding myself.
I invite you to look at the list archives; everything I say'll be wrong.
http://www.warpfish.com/jhan/ft/
***
1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo, interceptors)
Are they in FB2, or is More Thrust still in production?
(I
have FT and FB1)
***
I was tripped up on this one; I think they're repeated/updated in FB2,
but I don't have a copy handy.
***
2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played a 2000
and 3000 pts per side (2 players per side) game, and are leaning towards 2000
each person. What has people's experience been for 'ideal' size fleets?
***
I tend towards a BIT smaller, but I know one can tire of those quickly.
***
3) Has anyone had any luck basing Superior minis on flight stands? Some of
them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
the destroyers and destroyer leaders seem possible.
(http://www.stellargames.com/sfwars-prices.htm)
***
I forget what the std Terran DD is called, but the DDL is Samurai, right? I
seem to recall there's a bulge in the std close to the balance point. Problem
with Superior is there's almost as much detail, and in the GDN's, more, on the
bottom than the top. Also, the Terran DD's are a bit thin for drilling hold
for posts. One of my many projects that will never be is to
make a 'cradle' stand, perhaps using blue/white tac to hold the ship on.
***
4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
***
*shhh* We must be grateful for the bounties we've received and let the
groppos have their Bugs Don't Surf. ;->=
***
5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely fleet
choice, using Superior minis)
***
I've flown ESU and NSL against them, and I've come to respect them. Others
claim them challenging. What higher praise, no?
***
6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from FT1?
***
Compared to the out-of-book fleets, they can be VERY unbalanced. Again,
I'll direct you to the archives, but I think you'll find that most folks would
say, either FB fleets must meet FB fleets, and DIY meet DIY, or FB
fleets against a really well-optimised DIYs can be used as a 'handicap'.
Jon's stated that the designs are supposed to represent ships that have uses
other than simple one off battles.
Someday, I hope Battlegroup Lincoln can get it's poop-in-a-group and
invite you and yours up for some heavy burning of ships in the ether...
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> At 08:53 PM 08/29/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Do you know Bill Brush (IIRC)? aka Rand? He runs a discussion list I'm on, and
lives in Lincoln.
> Three years ain't nuthin'. Wait til you find a gurl. That'll be the end
Ah, apparently I'm lucky (sortof). I'm engaged to a wonderful girl, whose
obssession with plants (herbs and orchids in particular) equals mine with
gaming, so we just don't comment on each other's faults;)
> Have you tried B5 Fleet Action yet? I'm still deciding myself.
Afraid not. We've just been doing B5 Wars, mostly Narn and Earth stuff
(Minbari looks a little nasty).
> I invite you to look at the list archives; everything I say'll be
I'm doing just that.
> ***
(I
> have FT and FB1)
Some of
> them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
Yes.
I
> seem to recall there's a bulge in the std close to the balance point.
I'll have to see. I've got a bundle of their MAATACs, for Epic 40K, and
they're nice models, so I'm looking forward to the ships.
> ***
But of course.
> ***
Others
> claim them challenging. What higher praise, no?
Sounds fair.
> ***
Yes, I get that impression. I'm somewhat torn on this point; I'd like to use
my own designs, but ensuring both rationality and fairness between everyone's
designs is problematic.
> Someday, I hope Battlegroup Lincoln can get it's poop-in-a-group and
I'm actually going to Lincoln for a Warhammer Fantasy tournament/email
list
get-together in October, so if I have free time I'll try and see what I
can do.
> The_Beast
***
Do you know Bill Brush (IIRC)? aka Rand? He runs a discussion list I'm on, and
lives in Lincoln.
I'm actually going to Lincoln for a Warhammer Fantasy tournament/email
list
get-together in October, so if I have free time I'll try and see what I
can do.
***
Yes indeed, know Bill well, though I've only done WHFB a couple times. I share
an interest in dwarfs, though I admit he's the meister.
Actually, he posted recently on this list. He mentioned textured styrene
sheets for spaceship game boards, though I'd quibble about the cost being
minimal. ;->=
As far as a tourney in Lincoln, I thought I kept up with activities, even if I
don't participate, in Lincoln. I guess I gotta get out more...
Anyway, hope we can work something out; I've had a dream for sometime doing
an ECC-Mid or Non-Coast. However, since we've lost the Spellbound of
old, we'd have difficulty finding a proper venue. Not to mention, my abyssmal
organizational skills couldn't even keep a simple campaign going here...
*sigh*
Still, I may get the basement cleaned out, really!
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
G'day guys,
> Three years ain't nuthin'. Wait til you find a gurl. That'll be the
I resent that comment!!!! Derek and spaceships are what got me into the whole
wargame shabang!;)
Cheers
Beth
> on 8/29/00 20:10, Brian Thomas at bthom37@eagle.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
> Hello;
Welcome to the support group for furthering this "addiction".
(snip)
> 2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played
I find running 1000-1500 points worth of ships my preferred fleet size
if using a mix of escorts, cruisers and heavier vessels.
(snip)
> 5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely
Nice all around fleet. The ships have some staying power, a fair number of
beam weapons and a fair mix on non-beam weapons. I issue I have with it
is
that it sometimes feels like a jack-of-all-trades, Master of None type
of fleet. Regardless though it's a lot of fun to run and
> 6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
I haven't found there to be a problem with DIY related to FB1. I've
heard/seen players occasionally getting caught flat footed by a
specialized design. Some of the specialized techs that are not really part of
the Tuffley Universe might be unbalancing to a small extent, but I haven't
heard of anything too gross. More of the balancing issues mentioned in the
past
seem to be issues with tactics and/or lack of use or modifications of
regular FT/FB1 rules that might benefit some weapons over others
(fighters come to mind here).
Then again I was involved in some of the play-testing so I might be a
bit
bias here. ;-)
--- Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> >My name is Brian Thomas; I'm 21, and have been
...
> >6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people
A Do It Yourself (DIY) fleet is only as good
as the person playing it. You can make a
lopsided fleet work if your opponent happens to be weak in that area. I
personally do not do specialty fleets, wishing to run a somewhat fast, general
purpose fleet.
Bye for now,
***
OK so I have a weakness for men with beards;)
***
You're killing me!
;->= indicates a FULL beard. Course, there's also the leer and wink...
*heh heh*
Anyway, time to close up shop. Nighty.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> I share an interest in dwarfs...
Just to prove you're both men of exceptional taste!!!!!
OK so I have a weakness for men with beards;)
Beth
> 1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo,
(I
> have FT and FB1)
[C]The advanced fighter types should be in FT1. I think, not having a
copy in front of me right now.
> 2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played a
[C]We tend to lean towards to 1500 or so points a piece, using fairly
standard FT1/2 fleets and stuff. Stiltman uses much much bigger fleets
but chops out huge amounts of the paperwork that is associated with big
fleets. (and large amounts of fighters) No real fleet size is ideal but around
1500-2000 seems to work for a small game of 3-4 people to be completed
in
2-3 hours.
On another note, our gaming group has decided to go with simulateanious damage
because this seems, IHMO, to even out the problems of the random cards and
speeds game play up by not having to roll several thresholds if it dies in
that turn anyway.
> 3) Has anyone had any luck basing Superior minis on flight stands?
Some of
> them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
[C]To base ships, I use a 1 and 1/4 inch washer with a 1/4 hole and find
some appropriatly sized nails. Paint black, and them on a piece of paper draw
out the forward position of the ship and the arcs, and then place the black
base with ship attached upon the paper, by the drawing and simply paint the
arcs on. Saves having to measure each time
> 4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
[C]Talk to Jon
> 5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most likely
[C]We usually run custom fleets.
> 6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
[C]See above, and no, if designs are kept within limits. Make sure that
nobody exploits the breakpoints like using 101 mass points just for the extra
crew factor and the like.
Comments marked
Hello Everyone:
As one who has suffered more than once at the hand of that oppresive war
mongering gentleman called Leary I can attest to his skillful use of fast
fleets.
As John stated, specialty fleets are only as good as the person building them
and playing them. If you build a specialty fleet and the opponent brings
another fleet (one which you had not considered) life can get more than
interesting for the Admiral, espeically if he survives to the court marshal.
> >My name is Brian Thomas; I'm 21, and have been wargaming for about 3
But you'll have to change your name because we've got a plethora of Brians
already.:)
> >2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played
And you can have quite an interesting match even at 500 points. I think the
NSL has a 150 mass ship that should be about 500 NPV; put that against a
couple of 200 point CE's and a DD.
> >4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
No, no, Jon said in FB2 that we can pester him about FT3. The
Bugs-Don't-Surf crowd doesn't take precendence over the Written Word.
You may, however, find it prudent to say something like "When is FB3 coming
out--and how much before that will BDS come out?"
> >6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
Design Your Own fleets _can_ be unbalancing if you take them against one
opponent only. If you fight them against FSE, NSL, ESU, NAC, KraVak and
Phalon, you'll have to be balanced or one of your opponents will massacre you.
> >1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo,
> [C]The advanced fighter types should be in FT1. I think, not having a
The fighter types were originally in MT. New costs and movement rules are in
FB1, and a repeat and revision of their abilities are in FB2.
> >2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played
> [C]We tend to lean towards to 1500 or so points a piece, using fairly
Corey's description of my habits with big fleets is actually pretty accurate.
My gaming group and I have taken a lot of additional steps (over and above the
basic rules) to make handling fleets a lot easier and simpler, and as a result
we have little trouble scaling our battles however big we want.
We
routinely play five- and ten-thousand point battles inside an hour or
two. Five is our usual size for a task force encounter, ten if it's considered
a major engagement.
A few of our ways of doing things that, IMO, make it easier to handle larger
fleets:
1. We don't fill out full display pages of all of our ships. Instead, we keep
a reference page(s) handy on what our ships are, and just jot down a list on a
piece of scratch paper of what their armor and hull strengths are at a given
time. This way, you don't feel any particular pressure to play the same ships
every time, because all you have to do is look up the ships and write a few
numbers down and you're there.
2. We use what we consider "simplified" fighter rules. In simple terms, we
consider the six-fighter-per-group amount to be an arbitrary figure for
the convenience of telling us how many counters to use in a given group. If
you fire into a pile of fighters, you tally up however many casualties you
inflict and take off a clean number of counters and mark down the remainder in
the one wounded group somewhere. No fighter morale rules, no "I have to stop
counting kills because I did six", no "I have two fighters in this group,
three in this one, one in this one, five in this one, etc". Just plop the
counters down and fire at them as if they were one big group.
3. We don't bother with move orders unless ship speeds, cloaking devices,
and/or placed weapons make it an issue that might become important. If
maneuvers aren't an issue on a given turn, we don't sweat it. (And on most
turns, they aren't.)
4. We use simultaneous damage. All the fighters and placed weapons hit,
threshold phase, all the ship-to-ship weapons hit, threshold phase, no
initiatives or anything else to muck things up.
There are a few issues that some people sometimes take with my playing, and
when I'm mixing it up with people outside my own group I generally just defer
on whatever they take issue with. Some people accuse me of overpowering
fighters with our way of doing things; my experience is that you do have to
adjust your designs a bit, but that fighters aren't unbalanced beyond that.
Fighter advantage is certainly helpful in my games, but doesn't win games by
itself against solid opposition.
> Brian Thomas wrote:
> 1) Where exactly are the advanced fighter rules? (ie, torpedo,
(I
> have FT and FB1)
The advanced fighter rules have been updated/reprinted in FB2. The
other advanced fighter rules - particularly the fighter morale rules -
have only been published in MT so far.
> 2) What sort of size fleet are people normally playing? We've played
Depends entirely on how many players you have, how much space you have,
and how much time you have. Most of our games are in the 1500-3000
points range.
> 5) What sort of success have people had with the NAC? (my most
We've had no success at all with them, except against other
specially-designed "dog" fleets :-/ The light units - up to CL size -
are good, but with the speeds we usually fly at we've found it too easy
to dodge single-arc P-torps mounted on thrust-4 ships for the larger
units to be very useful.
> 6) Just how unbalancing, if at all, have people found DIY fleets from
You mean F*B*1, I hope? FT1 is the first, long-since out-of-print
edition of Full Thrust. Published in 1991, IIRC A5 format, yellow cover.
IMO there are two areas which can cause imbalances (which can't be overcome by
using appropriate tactics and fleet mixes, that is).
The first one is the "genre-specific" systems (cloak from Star Trek
etc., Wave Guns and Nova Cannon from Anime, reflex fields from God knows
where) since they were pretty much ignored when the rest of the design rules
were remade from the bottom up in FB1 and weren't really designed to be
combined in the first place.
The second, and more important, are massed fighters. The fighter costs in FB1
were set and playtested assuming that the fighter morale rules are in use, so
when the fighter morale rules *aren't* used the fighters
are underpriced by about 2 points each (10-12 points per squadron). If
you don't use massed fighters this difference is usually too small to
notice, though - eg., in a 1500-pt fleet built around one FB1 light
carrier, the 40-50 points "underpricing" would only buy you an extra
corvette anyway... it's when you load up on soap-bubble carriers
(fragile hulls, minimal engines, fighter bays and nothing else) it matters.
> Greg Wong wrote:
> Hello. I have a few questions regarding the More Thrust fighter
The fighter morale rules are essential when you use massed fighters. The
others aren't; FB2 allows you to launch all your fighters at once which cuts
down the number of scrambles anyway, and the
> 2. Under the Fighter Group Morale rule, you roll a die to determine
No and no.
> 3. Under the Scrambling Fighter Group rule, if a carrier has plotted
FB2 removed the limit on how many fighters a ship can launch, so this question
is irrelevant nowadays.
> 4. Can a carrier use the Scrambler Fighter Group rule even if
Yes.
Regards,
> Laserlight wrote:
> >4) Will there be a FT 3d edition anytime soon, or a FB3?
No, Jon said that we can pester him about F*B*3 (minor powers). That's
something else entirely :-)
Regards,
> Beth wrote:
> To which The_Beast wrote:
Which reminds me, I saw a pic of The_Beast at this years GenCon on the
web:
http://gamingoutpost.com/vault/article.cfm/article.383
He is the one listed as 'Jerry Garcia' 3/4th of the way down
> On Wed, 30 August 2000, stiltman@teleport.com wrote:
> 4. We use simultaneous damage. All the fighters and placed weapons
*Shudder*
I agree that simultaneous damage does speed things up. However, IMO, it also
takes out the only real piece of tactics in the game. Yes, tactical
manoeuvring is important, but usually I find you have to make an educated
guess as to what your opponent will do. It's not often that big a deal to
figure out what you have to do movement wise. The big "tension" in the game,
for me, is choosing the right ship to fire in the right order.
In my Full Steam game (guess I'd better hurry up and finish it!), I speed up
play by creating two types of games: encounter games and battle games.
Encounter games have ships looking much like FT. Battle games half the number
of hull boxes on a ship, and double the distance moved. Guns do the same
damage as normal, but torpedoes (due to the way damage is calculated) do half
damage. Firing, by necessity of simulating the era, is not simultaneous.
Not sure this kind of thing would work with FT, and I'm not sure that I would
want to try and playtest it all (salvo missiles, in particular, would be
problematic). So, your way is probably the best for playing very large battles
in a short period of time. Personally, I'd just as soon scale down the ships
and fight with smaller ships than go with simultaneous damage.
But, of course, FT is such a good framework for a game that it lends itself to
these kinds of house rules.
In a message dated 8/29/00 8:13:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bthom37@eagle.cc.ukans.edu writes:
<< 3) Has anyone had any luck basing Superior minis on flight stands? Some of
them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
the destroyers and destroyer leaders seem possible.
(http://www.stellargames.com/sfwars-prices.htm) >>
I have Terran Fereration ships and I used an 'X' shaped squadron mounting base
from Star Blazers Fleet Battle system. I attached this piece across the
recessed portion of the lower hull. I then mounted the whole thing to a flight
stand.
Hope this helps. Matt
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
...
Prepair to 'Shudder' once again, Ha, Ha, Ha!
Not only do we do, simultaneous damage, but we
move by thrust value order (1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8).
To cause an 8.7 Shudder, I'll say we shoot in
reverse thrust order. (8/7, 6/5, 4/3, 2/1)
The shooting not only speeds up the game, but allows little ships to have a
shot or two.
We can also play very large fleets with this sequence. (10 to 20 thousand
point games
can be done in 1.5 to 2.5 hours._
Bye for now,
> In a message dated 8/29/00 8:13:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
Some of
> them would seem well-nigh impossible (Galactic Dreadnought-sized), but
> recessed
Don't forget pizza spiders.
- Sam
> On Wed, 30 August 2000, John Leary wrote:
> Not only do we do, simultaneous damage, but we
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, the worst combination is written movement and
simultaneous damage. What you're doing is different. You've taken away the
tension of which ship to fire first and replaced it with which ship to move
first, within a movement category.
One thing, though, how do you handle the SV? I'm guessing you don't. I could
see the SV having a big advantage in your system. By simply assigning at least
9 movement points, each SV ship would get to move after all your other ships.
Still, I can see this being a not bad system if you really want to speed
things up. Why the requirement of the reverse thrust order? Why not let
players decide which ships to move first?
I tried 'pizza spiders' first as a quick and delicious way to obtain stands
for the ships. only the delicious part worked, the 'pizza spider' (at least in
my area) are not sturdy enough to hold the wieght of a battleship from this
miniature line.
Matt
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
...
> Why not let players
> I tried 'pizza spiders' first as a quick and delicious way to
There are several types of pizza spiders so you have to make the rounds of
pizza deliverers. I've gotten at least 5 different types locally. Not all
places used them but I have yet to get the same type from more than one. The
size ranges I have seen go from a bit under 2" to over 3".
Pizza spiders can work for larger ships like the Starfleet Wars Terran Victory
class Super Galactic Dreadnought I have, you just have to use the larger pizza
spiders.
> On Thu, 31 August 2000, Earnotch@aol.com wrote:
> I tried 'pizza spiders' first as a quick and delicious way to obtain
Nope. But flip them over and you've got a neat base for fighters. I know a few
people who use them. I don't eat enough pizza for it to work for me, but I
have another method, modified from Dean Gundberg.
Since all ships move and then all ships fire, simultaneous damage is not a
problem and eases some of the card based random firing that we used before.
IMHO, simultaneous damage works if you still stick with the all move then all
fire system.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> One thing, though, how do you handle the SV? I'm guessing you don't. I
OTOH, if the SV always spend enough thrust to move after all others
they won't have *that* much power left for weapon fire :-7
Regards,