Maybe I've mentioned this before, but our experiments continue to be pretty
successful. Any chance that this sort of thing might become the standard?
We've been doing occasional experiments in my group with simultaneous fire.
Most people like it, though some don't. Basically what we do is the same as we
always have up to the time where the first ship would fire. We then allocate
dice to represent our weapons and lay it next to our target. We all do this at
once. When everyone is allocated, we resolve the fire in any order, just
noting the number of damage points on the ship SSD but not allocating damage.
Then at the end of the turn, we allocate damage, take our threshholds, do
repairs and go onto the next turn.
Threshholds tend to be more severe in this system, and so we sometimes only
use the number on the
appropriate line rather than the -1 per additional
threshhold indicated by the rules.
With large battles it gets a bit unwieldy, but then you can just use a dice to
indicate where ALL the fire from a particular ship is going, or perhaps a
counter indicating the ship. With small battles, things go fast. With
simultaneous fire, every ship gets a chance to fire too.
> On Thu, 10 May 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> With simultaneous
Which is why some of us don't like simultaneous fire. There isn't a whole lot
to FT. Choosing the order of fire among your ships and choosing targets
amongst the enemy is sometimes the only real strategic element you have in a
battle. Once you go to simultaneous fire, you lose that.
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
This is, I think, overstating the case. Maneuver and ship design, as well as
fleet composition are
still strategic/tactical factors. And choosing targets
is more tactical than strategic.
Further, consider what it looks like. Let's say you have 10 ships on each
side. One ship ends up waiting for everyone else to fire first. On the one
hand that means that apparently he waited till everyone had fired before he
fired, so he knows just who got destroyed and who NOT to waste his fire on. On
the second hand, he might be destroyed WELL before being able to fire. This
doesn't sound very plausible to me. And in this method, there is the tactical
consideration of guessing how much fire to allocate to various targets since
you DON'T know whether they will be destroyed by the others shooting at them.
It seems to me the tactical consideration you name
is the more artificial one -- the one least likely
to have a connection with a real situation. Guessing how much fire to allocate
seems more likely to happen in real life (if there is such a thing).
If you didn't like simultaneous fire, but wanted to model some kind of play
mechanism, you might roll a dice or two to get a number for each ship and the
ship would fire in that phase reflecting random chance. The side with
initiative could subtract 2 from their roll or something. Even that would seem
more likely to me than the current system.
Yes, the dice initiative system with it's alternating ship fire system is the
one in the rules, and we're pretty much all stuck with it. It's not a bad play
mechanic. It works, it's just not my personal choice.
In the last two outings, there was at least one player who adamantly refused
to play anything but
the normal initiative/fire alternating system, so
that's what we did. They claimed it totally transformed the game into a
completely new game. This too was an overstatement for effect. It does change
the feel of the game a bit, but not enough to transform it into a whole new
game (in my opinion anyway). FT is a great system, but no system is ever
exactly like you think it should be.
Hi,
> opinion anyway). FT is a great system, but no
Exactly right. Not even the ones you create yourself!
***
Further, consider what it looks like. Let's say you have 10 ships on each
side. One ship ends up waiting for everyone else to fire first. On the one
hand
***
On the one hand, you're talking about one out of twenty ships, focusing on the
unreality of one, in effect ignoring 95% of the ships in your discussion.
This IS overstating, but after you've repeated repeatedly, this kind of thing
glares out at one.
I repeat, if you want to play simultaneous, go ahead.
***
Yes, the dice initiative system with it's alternating ship fire system is the
one in the rules, and we're pretty much all stuck with it.
***
No, you're not.
I would argue the apparent unreality you've described is actually a balance
for the unreality of shooting at the end of the move. If you want
'real',
try phased movement and firing. *shudder*
But, you can adjust the rules to play as you wish. It's there in the rules.
It's probably the one rule, outside of 'have fun', that's inviolable.
If your friends don't want to do simultaneous, because that's not the way it's
in the book, not the way it's in the rules, have you considered new friends
for this game?
However, it sounds like some pretty much have a decided preference. It sounds
like you want to US to tell THEM they're wrong. No thanks.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
> This is, I think, overstating the case. Maneuver
Sorry, I understand it's tactical and not strategic. I was talking "strategy"
in the general term, such as in "game strategy".
I also meant that it was often the only "strategic" aspect while playing a
game. Obviously ship building has an effect.
Maneouvre, though, is an interesting point. Yes, it's the most important
strategic part of the game. But, you are conducting it blind. You don't know
what your opponent will do. A lot of it can be guess work. Will he break
right, or break left? Accelerate or decelerate or stand pat? Making the right
decision is very important. It's also a small part of the time spent playing
the game.
For me, after I write my orders, simultaneous fire takes away most of
the fun -- and thinking -- from the rest of the game turn.
> It seems to me the tactical consideration you name
Ummm... you're talking reality with regard to a spaceship combat game? Played
in two dimensions? Often without a campaign component? Often without using
vector movement? With artificial limitations to the vector movement (when
used) to keep the game playable?
Sorry, but it's a game. And it's, for me, a more interesting and fun game when
I have to make difficult decisions in the ship firing phase. Simultaneous fire
may make it less "gamey", but for me it also takes away some of the thinking
and tactics.
> If you didn't like simultaneous fire, but wanted to
<<snippage>> I like the system as it is.
> They claimed it totally
Having played simultaneously (in an e-mail game) I have to sort of agree
with your friend. No, it' snot a WHOLE new game as most of it is the same. But
it does transform it quite a bit. I've won and lost games based on picking the
right ship to fire at the right moment in the game turn. It adds excitement.
Knowing that every one of my ships is going to get to fire this turn,
regardless of what I do, takes away some of that excitement. The rules, as
they stand, force me to make difficult choices. I like that.
Simultaneous fire has been called "more realistic" but there is so much that
is UNREALISTIC in FT that it's like claiming chess would be more realistic if
you had to worry about feeding the knight's horse.
> FT is a great system, but no
Ok, once again, that was a bit harsh. Apologies to all.
> --- awg@sympatico.ca wrote:
... Making the right
> decision is very important. It's also a small part
Predicting your opponent's move is what gets you out of his fire arcs and him
into yours. I've seen it make or break a game a number of times. I always try
to start writing my orders for next turn as soon as possible, in any break in
the game (laughing, joking, bathroom breaks, etc.) so I don't hold up the
game, but if I didn't, it would consume a LOT more of the game than it does. I
don't know if other people take a lot of thought over their maneuvering or if
it's just me.
...
> Ummm... you're talking reality with regard to a
I think I said something like reality (whatever that is) indicating I realize
that it's a slippery concept. However, I do believe it's possible for one rule
to seem more plausible than another.
If the rules indicated players should do a little
dance and depending on the rating (1-10) given
by their fellow players, he earned a plus to his initiative, that would
definitely fall under the implausible category.
In the case of simulaneous fire, both rules are abstractions and both have
their advocates. I'm not implying that either is less realistic. I am saying
that I find simultaneous fire more plausible.
...
> <<snippage>> I like the system as it is.
Yes and you're not alone. My group is VERY VERY conservative with relation to
the rules. I'm frankly pretty discouraged since I prefer the variant.
...
> Having played simultaneously (in an e-mail game) I
I don't know how your email game worked, so I can't comment. To me it's pretty
broken for someone to be able to wait to see if his battleship destroys the
enemy cruiser before he decides whether to fire any of his other ships at it.
Part of the fun is not allocating enough to destroy that cruiser or
inadvertantly allocating massive overkill.
> Simultaneous fire has been called "more realistic"
Pretty good, but as I said, just because reality is a slippery concept in
space combat games doesn't mean that some rules don't "feel" more right or
more likely. This is of course a highly subjective concept. Most space games
I've played have simultaneous fire (tank games too) and I guess I've gotten
used to it. This sudden asynchronous fire feels very wrong to me.
> > FT is a great system, but no
Ft's greatest strength it seems to me is simplicity. Simplicity requires
sacrifices in terms of "reality" (again whatever that is). The interesting
thing about simultaneous fire is that it makes things MORE simple and faster
(unless you have so many ships that allocating fire requires you buy 10 extra
dice
packs!).
FT's second greatest strength is adaptability I think. Unfortunately I have
yet to experience that since my group is, as I said, quite conservative about
the
rules. No-one has introduced a new weapon or new
defense. I have suggested a few, but I get accused of trying to change the
game (our group's greatest cardinal sin). Oh well, it's still a great game. I
don't mean to imply it's a bad game without simultaneous fire.
> --- devans@uneb.edu wrote:
...
> Yes, the dice initiative system with it's
I have to play what the group wants to play. I'm stuck with it (most of the
time). In fact if just one person demands we play "by the rules" we pretty
much have to.
> I would argue the apparent unreality you've
Well, I'm not aching to go back to SFB 31 phase
move/fire. That deserves a shudder. I don't know
what I'd do to address this. Simultaneous fire probably. Maybe every ship
having an initiative and firing by reverse order of their initiative? Seems
complicated too. I don't want to complicate up the system. Since simultaneous
fire actually speeds things up, I tend to prefer it.
...
> If your friends don't want to do simultaneous,
It's not annoying enough to adopt this strategy.
> However, it sounds like some pretty much have a
It wouldn't matter to them what you guys said. But it matters to me.
> I have to play what the group wants to play. I'm
You mean your group decided that one veto overrules the majority? Interesting.
And you also have someone who insists on his own way when everyone else wants
to try a different option? Hm...
> Well, I'm not aching to go back to SFB 31 phase
How about having high, medium, and low initiative (or "skill") ships, which
fire simultaneously within their intiative class? How about rolling for
initiative for each ship or squadron? How about assigning each ship to a card
and drawing from the deck? How about do whatever you like? That *is* part of
the rules, by the way, and if y'all have a brilliant idea, maybe Jon'll
incorporate it into FB3. Which is due out Real Soon Now...certainly before
BDS--right, Jon?
> At 10:14 14/05/01 -0400, Laserlight wrote:
I don't know about anyone else but house rules and optional rules are just
addons which can only be used with the agreement of all players involved. I've
always considered demanding to play house rules the height of bad manners:)
But having said that you can always play optional and house
rules amongst those who AGREE to the house/optional rules and those that
don't ...... WELL?
Derek
Who once played a game at a modern micro armour competition at CANCON one year
against a bloke who had a WHOLE BOOK FULL OF HOUSE RULES which he insisted on
using during the competition. Still beat him though:)
LL, You are a trouble maker.
---
Brian Bell
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
...
> >You mean your group decided that one veto
We do when everyone agrees.
> From: Laserlight laserlight@quixnet.net
> LL,
You're welcome. <g> But I think FMASk is likely to hit the street before FB3
makes orbit.
All this talk about simul fire got my brain cooking ('bout time something
did...:) Has anyone tried playing a game with having each ship write down it's
target(s) at the same time as writing the movement orders? Then after all
ships have moved, you can only fire at the target(s) you wrote down.
If
a better target is in your arcs, too bad. If you wily target moved out of your
arcs, too bad. Fire could be resolved alternating, simultaneous, cards, dice
or ouija board (your preference).
I could see this adding to the tactical flavor of the game. Is it too much for
little gain? I personally don't see it as adding much to the speed of the
game, since you are concentrating on writing orders, you spend a couple of
extra seconds picking out targets. It does mean having to mark each ship on
the table so every player can clearly identify it, but everyone does that now
don't they?:)
Pros: More tatical flavor, especially when ships get in close. Increased
emphasis on movement orders.
More importance on multi-arc weapons.
Higher thrust ships gain some on being able to move in and out of arcs better.
The look on your opponents face when all the targets of his SDN aren't in arc
anymore....
Cons: More detailed order writing. More time involved in the order writing
process. Clear identification of ships. The sinking feeling when all the
targets of your SDN aren't in arc anymore...
Thoughts?
> In the case of simultaneous fire, both rules are
In my mind, I picture the ships firing throughout the turn, some earlier and
some later, while others fire constantly. I don't see them all moving through
space without firing, then stopping dead in their tracks and then firing
everything they have all at once. I like the initiative based fire rules as a
quick way of representing the liquid flow of battle and position without
adding the extra time and complexity of phased movement and firing.
> I don't know how your email game worked, so I can't
But in the flow of battle wouldn't that happen? Since some ships will be in a
better position first, I'd hope they would fire when at optimum range and then
the ships following would fire at their optimum range, a bit later. Thus if
their original target was gone, I'd hope they could move on to a secondary
target.
In PBeM games I have run with simultaneous fire, I've seen a DD with 10 damage
points destroyed with 42 points of overkill damage.
> Part of the fun is
I do understand this, I just personally find the decisions in initiative based
firing more interesting and tactically complex than calculating average damage
per weapon and then allocating it to target ships. The decision to fire the
torpedo DD nose to nose with the CA or the BB off to the side when you have to
weigh a bunch of possibilities like the DD might get destroyed if you wait to
fire, but it probably won't kill the CA while the BB probably would kill the
CA and save you any damage the CA would dish out but then the DD won't have a
decent target and if the DD does hurt the CA then the BB can split fire at
another target, etc, etc.
> Pretty good, but as I said, just because reality
True, but look back on how those systems do movement. Most that I can think of
off hand have phased movement and fire or have initiative based movement. FT
is different in that initiate is in the fire phase instead of movement.
> FT's second greatest strength is adaptability I think.
My suggestion is to introduce some thing new (possibly something you found on
the net that has been tested instead of a homebrew item at first) but let the
other players get to play the new stuff against you using vanilla FT ships. If
they see you aren't wanting the new gizmos to make you win but rather to
enrich the game and you are willing to let others field the flashy new items,
they might come around.
> --- Dean Gundberg <Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com> wrote:
...
> In my mind, I picture the ships firing throughout
If that's the case, it seems to be modelled poorly.
> ... I like
One thing we agree on is that we want a system that plays quickly and smoothly
without added complication. Perhaps we'll have to be satisfied with this level
of agreement.
> ...To me it's pretty broken for someone to
A ship might CHOOSE to wait, but that's not what is happening here. A player
would clearly like to fire everything first if he could arrange it. There's no
tactical choice of firing later (as in SFB's phased movement for example). And
no I'm not advocating phased movement.
> > Part of the fun is
To each his own.
...Most space games I've played have
> > simultaneous fire (tank games too) and I guess
Only SFB. What other phased movement games are you thinking of?
...
> My suggestion is to introduce some thing new
It's just not practical for this group. Perhaps the next group I play with
will be receptive, or perhaps things will change at some point in the future,
but I don't think it will fly. I have brought up things I've seen on the net
only to be accused of trying to change the game. The group dynamics seem
pretty delicate as they are with this group.
> homebrew item at first) but let
DavidG said:
> It's just not practical for this group. Perhaps
I'll assume your group has more than 2 others in addition to you. If so, next
session have a vanilla game (for the True Believers) and a playtest game (for
you and the other heretics). You can truthfully say that we're gathering ideas
for FB3 and members of the playtest team
asked you to try thus-and-such & report. But you do have to send the
after-action reports.
Almost all games that I have played are of the phased or staged movement type.
That is one side moves then the other side moves (as opposed to Full Thrust or
Robo Rally where orders are written (arranged), so everyone moves at the same
time without the ability to alter the movement in reaction to how the other
side moved).
Examples: Checkers Chess Stratego Risk Ogre Battletech Dirtside II Stargrunt
II
If you meant move-fire-move, then Ogre is this way with GEVs.
If you meant that movement is rotational based on some other factor (movement,
velocity, dexterity, etc.), I have played a number of these, but do not recall
what they were. Usually, they were based on inititive and attack speed.
[quoted original message omitted]
> > In my mind, I picture the ships firing throughout
And all ships firing at exactly the same time is better ;-)
As a game mechanic to simplify combat, firing is resolved at one time with one
set of ranges when a more 'realistic view' has the ships in constant motion
during the full turn with ranges constantly changing and ships firing
throughout the turn. From this point of view, simultaneous fire in my mind
moves it even farther from realism since some ships will want to fire that
turn, but unfortunately will be destroyed before they get the chance.
> > ...To me it's pretty broken for someone to
I believe there is a tactical choice if firing later. Finishing off ships
crippled with long range shots for example. I wouldn't want those ships for
fire early, their few points of damage wouldn't eliminate a ship early in the
fire phase but they could finish off a ship heavily damaged during that turn
so it won't show up next turn.
Firing early is good for getting rid of ships before they can fire at you and
firing your wad before your opponent can get rid of your ship. Firing late is
good for spreading fire where it is needed the most, especially for ships with
limited firepower if not in danger of destruction before they fire.
> > > Part of the fun is
Yup, ain't it great ;-)
> ...Most space games I've played have
I plan on putting up a table of turn information like this on my website
someday, but for now I'll have to go from memory (which is going) and I just
can't remember the turn sequence on a bunch of other games (space game
overload in my head). I know the list will let me know if I am wrong plus add
more if needed
SFB - Phased movement and phased fire
Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator - 3 phased movement and fire (?)
B5 Wars - Initiative Movement and simultaneous fire
Star Blazers FBS - Initiative movement and simultaneous fire
Starmada - Pre-plotted movement and simultaneous fire
Silent Death - Initiative movement and (?) fire
The Stars Our Decimation - Initiative movement and Initiative fire
> It's just not practical for this group. Perhaps
Sounds like they learned gaming from GW......
When I talk about phased movement, I meant that within a single game turn,
there were multiple movement phases each of which might or might not have
weapons fire associated with them. Only SFB came to mind, and though it seemed
more "realistic" it wasn't really worth it in terms of effort (at least I
didn't think so).
Maybe I should thank my lucky stars that FT isn't set up this way (ok you won
initiative, you fire ALL your ships and if I have any ships left I'll fire).
It might be appropriate to just concede
after the initiative roll ;-)
Maybe there's stuff I'm not remembering about the games I HAVE played (maybe
some of them use this strategy too and I'm just not remembering them). I've
played Starfire, Star Fleet Battles, FASA Starship Combat Simulator,
Starbattles, Interceptor, Silent Death, Battletech, Centurion, Fast Attack
Boats, Task Force's Battlewagon, and a few others.
Seems like most of those have pretty simple structure in the combat phase.
Like I said, maybe I am guilty of having a selective memory. How many of you
have played games where fire is
non-simultaneous and units are eliminated before
they fire in say space/sea battle/tank sorts of
games? What were they and how did it seem to work?
--- "bbell1@insight.rr.com" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
wrote:
> Almost all games that I have played are of the
Hi All,
we've tried several variations and currently use written
orders/simultaneous
move and training-based fire order.
training-based fire order uses crew quality to determine when the ship
fires. we like to use cards for sequence decks as the are simple to make and
also provide a record of who has done what without extra paper records.
Crew Quality Cards
------------ -----
Elite 4 Veteran 3 Regular 2 Trained 1
Untrained 1 (merchants/civilians - no military training)
the cards each have a number of them that correspond to the ship record
number. better crews will have more cards with their number. shuffle cards,
drawing one at a time. this determines fire order. if a ship has more than one
card, it may fire on any ONE of its card draw, not necessarily the first card
drawn.
therefore, higher quality crews tend to fire first. our system has a random
die roll for crew quality or a point system to purchase a particular crew
quality level, but I don't have my notes here at work....
once the ship has fired, we place the card next to/under the model to
know it's done its bit for that turn. cards are simple to make. use blank or
old business cards or cut 3x5" index cards in half. either solution is fast
and cheap.
I'll try to follow up with the point costs, etc when I get to feeling better.
Dave
> On 15 May 2001, at 10:15, David Griffin wrote:
The FASA game did have three movement phases in each turn, each movement phase
was followed by a shooting phase. Most weapons could only fire once per turn.
It did have the oddity that at the start of each firing phase the players
placed a counter marked 'fire' or 'no fire' face down next to the ships. These
were then all turned over. Ships with 'fire' counters could then fire at any
target. Bit of an odd half way house.
I can't remember whether fire and damage within a phase were resolved
simultaneously or in some sort of initiative order. I think it was probably
initiative order.
> Maybe there's stuff I'm not remembering about
Besides phased movement and combat, I think initiative based movement has to
be considered too. When one side is forced to move a ship first and the other
side can then move some ships out of arc of the first ship and others
to center-line their fire on the first ship, its effect as as least as
great as initiative fire where ships fire before others and destroy some
before they can fire.
Personally, I think ship movement has some delay and can not be changed too
quickly during battle and this is better represented by pre-plotting
while moving some ships after all others based on where they went is less
'realistic'. Targeting on the other hand has a better reaction time and thus
can be changed based on what has happened earlier that turn.
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, David Griffin wrote:
> I don't know how your email game worked, so I can't
That's usually the point that gets people to try simultaneous fire. For me,
simultaneous fire takes away some of the fun. It's also implausable in its own
right. Every ship essentially fires at the end of movement, as though they
fired volleys ala musketeers.
The problem with simultaneous fire is that all ships get to fire their weapons
regardless of the amount of firepower thrown at it. It's the exact opposite
problem than that introduced by the actual rules. Even if an entire fleet
fires at one lone destroyer during the turn, that destroyer gets to fire this
turn, at its full capability.
For me, that's just as implausable as the case you describe, but simultaneous
fire takes away a tactical aspect of the game that I like:
the tough, nailbiting, what-ship-do-I-fire-now,
gosh-I-hope-it-survives-this-volley, combat phase.
Enough people like simultaneous fire, though, that it's probably the
most common house rule. And it does make e-mail games a LOT faster.
I'm not sure what it does to game balance. I suspect that it makes very small
ships with very high initial speeds a much more deadly tactic than in standard
FT. In standard FT, a swarm of high speed frigates and destroyers with one
primary weapon system only get to fire one at a time. Larger ships, by
contrast, can fire up to as many firecons as they have. There's a limit to the
swarm of ships, though, as their opponent can usually pop a number of them
before they get to fire. In contrast, simultaneous fire still gives the bigger
ships their weakness (they can only target a number of ships equal to their
firecons), while the small ships can all fire unscathed. If they can get their
velocities up (and some players here play with VERY high speeds), I think
simultaneous fire
makes small-ship fleets MUCH more attractive.
Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does alter the play
balance. This might be what your player was talking about when he said it
greatly alters the game.
Oh, and simultaneous fire dulls the effects of threshold checks, as the
threshold checks only occur at the end of a turn. I think it would make
certain weapons, such as needle beams, over priced.
> This sudden asynchronous fire
I'll be honest, it took me a little while to get used to it, too. But the
first time I saw a player make a mistake in the order of choosing
his ships to fire, and I was able to capitalize on it (thus out-thinking
him), I was hooked.
> FT's second greatest strength is adaptability I think.
I can see both sides of this. I think they should be more open to new systems
and the like. I can also sympathize with them. Balancing the effect of new
weapons is a BIG deal. I've been on the list long enough to see incredibly
unbalanced weapons. This is a big part of what the playtest list does for new
fleet books. It's a lot harder than it
appears. Ask Oerjan. :-)
What you could try is getting them into building custom ships, mixing and
matching weapons from the various races. For the most part, we tried to
balance the point values of the weapons so that they can work in tandem. A
Phalon vapour shroud, for instance, could also be a Traveller style
sandcaster. Maybe they would be more open to that.
> > The
I've seen groups like this, though. My RPG group was like this. They were very
much sticklers. I would like to try other games or play with different house
rules, but they would have no part of it. I can sympathize with him.
And let's face it, they ARE somewhat open minded. They ARE playing FT, after
all!
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
...
> For me, that's just as implausable as the case you
What happens to me is you lose initiative in some critical section of the game
and though you were even up before, now your ships dies just because of that
initiative die. Oops, you fire first, gee I guess you killed my last ship with
your last ship before I had a chance to fire. I don't like luck to have THAT
great an impact. One lucky roll on the initiative dice can turn a winning
strategy into a crushing defeat, not because the strategy is bad, but just
because the opponent was luckier.
I prefer to lose because my tactics are bad rather than merely because my
opponent won initiative. Yes, the die rolls for fire make luck a persistent
factor in FT, but that one roll (initiative) has a MUCH larger effect (or can)
than those individual die rolls for weapons fire which tend to even out.
...I suspect
> that it makes very small ships with very high
Good point, but no I don't think that is what they were thinking. Small ships
don't come up that much. I play them sometimes, but not often and other than
me, I can't think of anyone who plays smaller than destroyer sized ships.
None of the recent games that I played non simultaneous had any ship smaller
than a destroyer and only 1 or 2 of those.
...
> I can see both sides of this. I think they should be
I'd like a little variety that I could introduce into my fleet design, but it
wouldn't have to be my own new custom weapon. There are probably plenty that
have been proposed on the list that have had a fair amount of playtesting
which would be known to not be too unbalancing. Something like AFHAWKS for
example. But it only seems to cause arguments and bad feelings and accusations
about changing the game when I bring them up so I've stopped bringing them up.
Arguments aren't fun.
I'd love to try the Earthforce Sourcebook heavy beam weapons. They don't
strike me as particularly overpowered, though you'd have to come up with a
point value for them. There are a number of potential neat ones in there like
the narn energy mine. Oh well it's still fun or I wouldn't still be playing.
> --- Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
...
> I've seen groups like this, though. My RPG group was
They DO seem to play one rule which I regard as
a house rule -- sensors. At least one player puts
sensors and ECM on her ships (which wasn't included in the Fleet Book I design
system so she gets the points from More Thrust) and is able to get away with
it. I think the book warns against using elements from both design systems,
but really sensors aren't unbalancing. It's a little annoying to constantly be
showing the scanner my SSD but it's a minor thing and I could counter by ECM
if it really bothered me.
> Oops, you fire first, gee
I'll be honest, I haven't seen that. I've seen a bad initiative die roll turn
a winning strategy into a tactical loss, but I haven't seen it throw the whole
game.
I'm curious, though, what you normally have for fleets. I've found that small
fleets centred around large ships are more at the mercy of the initiative die.
For pick up games, or meeting engagements, I normally play with rules similar
to what we came up with for the GenCon tournaments: a set number of points,
more cruisers than capital ships, and more escorts than cruisers.
Otherwise we play scenarios. The scenarios usually include the list of ships,
and sometimes the order of activation. I have set scenarios where one side
wins initiative for the whole game (to represent better training) or have a
modifier to the initiative roll.
If you play with a small number of ships per player, particularly big ships,
then that iniative roll does become much more important. In which case, you
could try alternating initiative every turn instead of rolling for it (I
suspect you'll answer with, "But they say that's changing the
game...").
> None of the recent games that I played non
You should give playing a scenario with a lot of small ships a try. I have
more fun doing that than playing with superdreadnoughts. A good, old
fashioned, single cruiser with bunch of destroyers and frigates guarding a
convoy scenario is a blast. Things pop more often, and the initiative die is
less of an "all or nothing".
It's, for me, the optimum level for FT. Sure, people tend to concentrate on
the big ships, but I have more fun with the cruisers and smaller. The game
goes by faster, the initiative roll is less important, and things "pop" far
more often. You don't get a lot of fighters, though, unless you're willing to
build your own ships, play with a an escort carrier, or allow a few fighters
to tag along (I have allowed the escorts to have fighter coverage, on the
assumption that there's a fleet carrier "over there" somewhere...).
> They DO seem to play one rule which I regard as
Well, since there are no sensor rules to go with the Fleet Books, yeah, that's
a house rule. I'd say it's even more of a house rule than simultaneous
movement.
> --- Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
...
> I'll be honest, I haven't seen that. I've seen a bad
There are some games where it's a big ship slugfest but VERY seldom. Usually
the destroyers and cruisers are incinerated leaving only the battered larger
ships. In the last occasion a large Kra'vak fleet was up against modified NAC,
a customized fleet heavy on pulse torpedoes, and a very generalized fleet with
all kinds of stuff. Well, it was a blood bath with all the smaller ships dead.
All that was left was the Kra'vak Superdreadnought (and not just an SDN, a
modified one with 6 type 5 railguns), a BDN from the latter human fleet and
the pulse torpedo battleship. The battleship had managed to spend a few turns
repairing and get into position to fire. He lost initiative and was destroyed
before getting a chance to fire.
So, they don't start out with just a few big ships but they sometimes end up
that way. It doesn't always happen, but often the smaller ships get picked off
before the fleets close.
> Otherwise we play scenarios. The scenarios usually
Are they on the net? Maybe a good scenario would help.
...
> You should give playing a scenario with a lot of
My force mix is typically BB's and smaller. Very typical for my UN force is 2
BB's, 2 CA's and a destroyer. That's 1500 points. I use the B5 earth ships so
that's 2 Omegas, 2 Hyperions, and a little Omega I call a Daring class
destroyer.
We do sometimes play Cruisers and below games too.
Personally, my preference is for Stargrunt / Dirtside type integrated
turns. This probably sounds stupid for space battles, and probably is in terms
of
realism (there's that word again :-), but I reckon it's more enjoyable
to
have each ship/squadron move and/or fire at the same point in the turn
sequence. It just seems more cohesive and more FUN. Off the top of my head,
this is how it might work in FT. First, write movement as normal. Then
alternate taking turns to fire + carry out movement, or move + fire, or
just move, with one ship, starting with the guy fielding the most ships.
Fighters
might be launched / move and/or attack / be recovered as part of their
baseship's turn, and the same sort of thing could work with SMs. Point
defence might work like it does in the original FT2 (pre FB) - just
before
the fighters/SMs attack. Just another idea into the melting pot.
Matthew Smith matt@smithdom.freeserve.co.uk
www.smithdom.freeserve.co.uk/mattft.htm
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day Matthew,
When I was mucking around with my Piquetised version of FT you could se
something like you mentioned. I'm not sure if you're familar with Piquet, but
it uses a deck of cards to determine what's happening (movement, changing
orders, reloading weapons etc), the only thing doesn't require a card is
firing which can happen any time the unit is loaded (in this case the ship is
locked on). I had it so all ships have to move on their current orders when a
ship move card comes up (regardless of which side turned up
the card), but firing was whenever you wanted - you could fire while
they moved or later when other things better suited you etc. On the flipside
you
had to reacquire lock-on to the target after each shot (as you see a lot
more fire in Piquet than FT so this balanced that problem).
Cheers
Beth
<PLUG>
try http://myshell.veriomail.com/mwbrown/scenario.htm written pre Fleet
Book 1, but still useful.
</PLUG>
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 02:10 15/05/01 -0700, David Griffin wrote:
> I prefer to lose because my tactics are bad rather
Unfortunately luck and also the ability to take advantage of a situation
once presented with it makes up a large part of winning battles (ie: games).
That's probably why we read and hear phrases like 'no plan survives contact
with the enemy', 'the winner is the one who makes the least mistakes and
capitalizes on those of his enemy'. After all people also refer to war as a
'Art':)
> At 02:10 15/05/01 -0700, David Griffin wrote:
> Derek Fulton wrote:
> refer to war as a 'Art' :)
War games, as opposed to some other type of games, are simulations of
"reality". Of course in the case of Full Thrust this reality is one that is a
guess on things might be in space. Many things can occur in real life battles,
e.g. a gust of wind blows arrows off target, or a glitch in a bombadiers
targetting equipment occurs. It is the random elements in games that simulate
these things. For initiative one can imagine that smoke from some console on
the flag ship delays the admiral from seeing an important change in enemy
position. The 'Art' in game design is to include these random elements without
making the outcome of the game based only on rolls of a die.
I played Silent Death a couple of time and did not like the extent to which
the outcome depended on the initiative rolls. Full Thrust is much better.
For games without random elements there is always Go, Chess, Checkers, etc.
Personally I think that Go is the best game ever. But I enjoy Full Thrust
also, and think it is the best spaceship combat game available.
Enjoy,
> At 05:05 16/05/01 -0700, Tom wrote:
I wasn't referring to game design:)
I'm normally a lucker on this list which I get in degist form, but I have to
speak up.
We been trying to allow all units to fire, without unbalancing the game. We
require that U after all movent is done, that U write down fire orders for
each ship listing targets and weapons firing, indepentant by player, not side.
It has brought some interesting fire up, as 2 different players each
targeted a destroyer & escort cruiser and gave them all batteries, and they
just vanished from heavy incoming fire, when both figured the other one would
target the battleship. :-)
On Tue, 15 May 2001 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT), David Griffin
> <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are they on the net? Maybe a good scenario would
No, I haven't put them on the net. My SG2 site has some SG2 scenarios, but my
FT site is kind of sparse.
Do your friends see the initiative issue being a problem? Have you discussed
it with them? I guess there's not much to do about it if they don't find it
that big a problem. But if some of them of them found it an issue, there are
ways around it:
1. Pick a side that always goes first. This can be scenario based, or the side
with the fewest ships, or some other basis. 2. Flip back and forth. One side
goes first on even numbered turns, the other side on odd numbered turns.
3. Give the side with the most destroyed ships a +1 to the die roll (you
want
a reason? fewer ships means it's easier to co-ordinate them! :-) ). So,
if one fleet lost 5 ships and the other lost 4 ships, the side that lost five
would add 5 to their roll, the other side would add 4. This actually gives you
a reason to fire at bigger ships instead of smaller ships. 4 a. Use a deck of
cards, one per ship. This changes things in a way you might find to be
worse... 4 b. Use two decks of cards, one per side. Each player flips up one
card. They can fire simultaneously, but only with those ships. 5. A
modification of 4 that I thought about. You have one card per ship per fire
control! So, an SDN with 5 fire controls would have 5 cards, and a cruiser
with 2 firecons would have 2 cards. When a card is drawn, the ship can fire
ALL weapons! If a second card is drawn, you ignore it.
Note that the 4 and 5 options take away the tactics that I like. On the other
hand, card draws can be exciting in their own right.
Just some suggestions...
There is the 'Art' of war - reflected via many mechanisms of the game(s)
- and there there is (for miniatures and certain well done board games)
the 'art' of the game pieces themselves.
On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:21:30 +1000 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 05:05 16/05/01 -0700, Tom wrote:
> --- steve@pugh.net wrote:
...
> The FASA game did have three movement phases in each
I waited to reply till I could consult my copy of the rules. Damage was
simultaneous within each phase. Of course if you didn't have a "fire" token
deployed you couldn't fire, but if both did, then fire was simultaneous. I
played this game a lot and was pretty sure I didn't remember an asynchronous
fire.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Aimee wrote:
> I do disagree about it being a 'house rule' - it is an optional rule
> included there.
The reason the sensors and ECM rules aren't in FB1 or FB2 is that they're
scheduled to get about as big a re-write as the ship design system
itself... it's just that they haven't yet been re-written :-/
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> May I ask your source for this info?
He's probably the poor demented soul who will be doing it... or checking if
someone else did it right;)
Cheers
Beth
> From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >The reason the sensors and ECM rules aren't in FB1 or FB2 is that
HINT: Have a squizz at the credits on FB1 and FB2.
Oejan's the Chief Number Cruncher for a bloke called Tuffley.
OO and I have had a number of disagreements over play balance in the past, and
no doubt will do so in the future. But when it comes to the numbers, he's the
man. And if he and I ever
do agree on anything - which happens, not often, but it happens,
then even John Tuffley (may his Tribe increase) listens.
A very good man to have on any design team, be it for games or things that go
woosh or bang. (I'm working on the woosh rather than the bang at the moment, a
space project and loving it!)
Anyway a number of options are being examined for the new sensor and ECM
rules, by a number of people spread throughout the world. I like simple. The
KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!). The thing is, not to break any
existing designs, keep it all play balanced, but most of all, make it fun.
I have no idea what JT's schedule is. I suspect he doesn't either.
The DS2/SG people have been waiting VERY patiently for Bugs Don't
Surf, but the FT crowd would really like to see either FB3 (with Islamic Fed,
OU, UN etc) or FT3. This is a huge amount of work for any small publisher,
artwork etc takes ages. So even when all the proposals by various people have
been brought forward, thrashed out, playtested, and JT's made the decision on
which (if any) to use either in whole or in part, it still can take a long
time.