[FT] Star Destroyer

8 posts ยท Jul 20 1999 to Jul 21 1999

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:41:01 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: [FT] Star Destroyer

Someone on the list was mentionning running a game with an Imperial Star
Destroyer. I was just wondering what was being used for stats.

A rough of what I have been thinking was:

12 fighter squadrons (the reference says 72 fighters) 8xclass 3 beams (the ref
says 8 heavy cannons). 2xshields

various "defensive" systems, PDS's and type 1 beams.

This makes for a rather large and impressive ship, and 12 squads of fighters
would give a little of the imagery from the movies of many fighters coming at
you.

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:29:13 -0700

Subject: Re: [FT] Star Destroyer

> Roger Books wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> 12 fighter squadrons (the reference says 72 fighters)

Presenting a slightly different view:

The 72 fighters can be broken down into 6 fighter squadrons
of 12 fighters each.   This is a traditional number for many
nations.   Since the fighters operate in a tacitical pair for
combat only one fighter is shown on the fighter base for each two in the
squadron. In other words, use 6 squadrons for 72 (individual) fighters. This
is the normal compliment of a fleet carrier in the FT rules.

Everything really rests on the size of the battle desired. Remember that the
star destroyers seem to be good only at shooting
at non-moving targets (asteroids), I do not recall any fighter
being lost to fire from a star destroyer.

Bye for now,

From: Dean Gundberg <dean.gundberg@n...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:08:50 -0500

Subject: RE: [FT] Star Destroyer

> Someone on the list was mentioning running a game with an

That could be me, ISDs are in my Sci-Fi Crossover game at GenCon

> A rough of what I have been thinking was:

Like John Leary, posted, I have 12 fighters per squadron but they go pop so
easily and have little pea-shooter guns so I treat each squadron of 12
just like a normal squadron of 6. Here are the stats for the classic Imperial
I Class of Star Destroyers (Victory class SDs are smaller, and there is a
version II for each with modified weapons layouts.)

Imperial I Class Star Destroyer Mass 300
Cost 1029 (+114 for fighters)
Average Hull (90) Armour 10 Points Thrust 3 FTL 4 Fire Controls Level 1
Screens
4 3-arc Class 3 Beam Batteries (2xF/FP/AP, 2xF/FS/AS)
4 3-arc Class 2 Beam Batteries (2xFP, 2xFS)
8 3-arc Ion Cannons (same mass, cost, arcs as a Class 2) (4xFP, 4xFS)
4 PDS 6 Fighter Bays (4 Normal, 1 Interceptor, 1 Attack)

The Ion Cannons and fighters use some special rules to reflect their abilities
but otherwise Fleet Book rules are used. The Ion Cannon rules were posted a
while ago when that topic was hot and should be in the archives. I've seen
several other conversions for the Star Destroyers to FT, all equally valid.
This is just my take on them for they type of game I want to run.

On the imagery of the masses of fighters attacking, I think I have that
handled. I just finished the detail painting on 24 bases of fighters for the
Imperials (thanks Brigade) The solar panels on the regular Ties are a bear to
detail but a micron pen saved me lots of time.

If you want my versions of the other Star Destroyers, just ask. After GenCon I
hope to find a place to put of the finalized ship control sheets I made for
the game.

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:26:55 -0400

Subject: RE: [FT] Star Destroyer

I will volunteer space on the Full Thrust Ship Registry
(http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/) for the SSD's.

-----
Brian Bell
brian_bell@dscc.dla.mil  or  brian_bell@usiva.com
Y2K Project
Universal Systems Inc. for DSCC-BEE
614.692.4794 Voice - 614.693.1503 Fax - 850-4794 DSN
-----

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

From: Chris Lowrey <clowrey@p...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:33:35 -0500

Subject: Re: [FT] Star Destroyer

> On the imagery of the masses of fighters attacking, I think I have that
Exactly what crossover games are you designing/running?  Sounds really
interesting.

From: Dean Gundberg <dean.gundberg@n...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:10:59 -0500

Subject: RE: [FT] Star Destroyer

> >On the imagery of the masses of fighters attacking, I think I have
After
> >GenCon I hope to find a place to put of the finalized ship

Just one big one that should have some visual appeal with ships people
recognize so people do a double take, maybe watch a bit and hopefully get
interested in Full Thrust.

Its the Star Wars Empire vs the combined might of couple Fleets of Star Trek
Federation ships, A couple fleets of Earthforce ships from B5, and a combined
fleet of a Battlestar and a SCVN from Space: Above and Beyond. All minis
(almost) are appropriate including the small White Stars a guy sells on the
net and almost 50 fighter groups (lots from GZG and the most of the rest from
Brigade). I picked up the decals available on the net for the Earthforce ships
(I put them on the minis this last weekend and they look great) and the decals
for the Gamescience Fed ships (which should go on this next weekend). It
should be a visual treat (and hopefully fun too). Next year I might add a Star
Blazers fleet;)

I'll take pictures so everyone can see the game. My wife is beginning to hate
summers, since all I seem to do is 'play with my spaceships' for months as I
get them ready for GenCon. Now if I can find a way to get to the GZG
ECC...

From: Jon Davis <davisje@n...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:17:18 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Star Destroyer

> Dean Gundberg wrote:

We'd love to have you come out and join us for the next GZG ECC, Dean. It is a
bit of a hike for you, but not insurmountable.

Shameless Plug mode on...

We've got a 6000 sq. ft. room this year and should have plenty of gaming
space and vendor space.  And what vendors!    :-)  What great gamers!
And what ridiculous quotes!

Shameless Plug mode off...

From: David <dluff@e...>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:36:37 -0400

Subject: Re: [FT] Star Destroyer

I can't wait.........count me in Jon.

> Jon Davis wrote:
for months
> > as I get them ready for GenCon. Now if I can find a way to get to
 It
> is a bit of a hike for you, but not insurmountable.