[FT]Star Trek rules?

Hi everybody, normally I am in deep lurker mode. But now a friend of mine
wants to do some Trek space combat games. I recommended FT. Are there any good
conversion rules somewhere on the net? I know there was a discussion about
trek energy fields on the list some while ago.
Any web-site?

Any help appreciated.

Alan Brain prolly qualifies as the man who's done the most converting to the
original series:
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ft/

I've a list of shipsthat was on the net, but I think has since disappeared,
for just about all the Galoob Micro Machines. It might be in the list
archives, but I'll do some hunting on my own disks.

Most of these are strictly FTII, with some FB translations, but few big rule
changes. You can make energy allocation, directional sheilds, sheild
reinforcement, etc., but where do you start getting into SFB complexity?

Well, the original SFB wasn't that complicated, but when you try to hang TOO
many special cases on it...

> Agis Neugebauer wrote:

> Hi everybody,

I would actually recommend FASA's Star Trek Starship Combat Simulator, or Lou
Zocchi's StarFleet Battle Manual. StarFleet Battles is an acquired taste, and
overly complicated.

If you must use FT, you must make some changes to reflect the Trek atmosphere.
One change is that no ship has all of the power that it needs to everything
that it wants to do, at any given time. The other change is that shields stop
damage. In some ways, Trek ships are best modelled by tweaking the Sa'Vasku
rules to reflect that each shields only cover one arc (but a ship will have
six shield generators, probably

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There does not seem to be a link off his main page, but try
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ft/index.htm

- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of
devans@uneb.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:00
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT]Star Trek rules?

Alan Brain prolly qualifies as the man who's done the most converting to the
original series:
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ft/

I've a list of shipsthat was on the net, but I think has since disappeared,
for just about all the Galoob Micro Machines. It might be in the list
archives, but I'll do some hunting on my own disks.

Most of these are strictly FTII, with some FB translations, but few big rule
changes. You can make energy allocation, directional sheilds, sheild
reinforcement, etc., but where do you start getting into SFB complexity?

Well, the original SFB wasn't that complicated, but when you try to hang TOO
many special cases on it...

The_Beast

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOzY+xNOVrCdNYgyBEQLBZQCbBnXZf45PgDWVOihuH3oqhfHKPSUAoOCM
W845rj6xw0NQJ8nSV+TSgkPb
=PWTe

> At 01:17 24/06/01 -0400, you wrote:

> I would actually recommend FASA's Star Trek Starship Combat Simulator,

The best way to deal with SFB is play Y160, way before all the other stuff
appears and weighs you down;)

Might also help to photocopy/type up only those rules sections/pages you
want to
use....
It might make SFB playable for fun again...

Donald Hosford

> Derek Fulton wrote:

> At 01:17 24/06/01 -0400, you wrote:

--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
...
> I would actually recommend FASA's Star Trek Starship

I like them both, especially the FASA game. SFB is VERY complex and is not so
much a game as a way of life.

> If you must use FT, you must make some changes to

This is true in FASA, not true in the Last unicorn RPG and not really that
true in SFB. Certainly it is NOT true in Lou Zochhi's game. There have been so
many variations on the theme, that whether you feel the need to do energy
allocation (Savasku rules) is up to you. I don't think you have to.

> The other change is

In the show, shields seem to be highly variable in effectiveness, but seem to
stop any potential damage at least for a while. SFB works like FT armor that
works against any damage. FASA works like a small amount of regenerating
armor, but lets damage through on a regular basis. There
is a weapon/defense archive which has some
shields that look good for Star Trek.

Frankly, as long as the Kra'vak are excluded (not in the ST universe),
screens, in combination with a little armor aren't bad as Star Trek shields.
Pulse torpedoes get a little damage through, but that's not that inconsistent
with what we see on screen.

It all depends on whether you want to get complicated or not. Beams (3's
usually), pulse torpedoes (for photon torpedoes) and possibly gravitic
movement would work pretty well. There's a decent set of rules for disruptors
on line, or again you can just use pulse torpedoes again. For romulans, SOME
kind of different weapon should be used. The simplest I thought of (but
haven't playtested) is "banked" pulse torpedoes. A type 2 plasma would be two
pulse torpedoes banked together with one to hit roll.

Anyway, good luck and let us know how it goes.

On 24-Jun-01 at 14:23, Richard and Emily Bell (rlbell@sympatico.ca)
wrote:
> Agis Neugebauer wrote:

This sounds like you are trying to re-create SFB.  In the original
series there were only ever two shields, forward and aft. Phasers work fine
as beams.  Photons work fine as p-torps.  Disruptors work fine as
beams also. Remember the most phasers we ever see fired are two. At most one
photon. I don't remember a ship firing more than one disruptor.

Plasmas would need work. Energy allocation is below the level of granularity
of FT. If you want complicated play SFB.

> But now a friend of mine wants to do some Trek space combat games.

I recently uploaded some conversions to FT for the FASA Trek ships, mainly the
Federation and Klingon ships that had minis produced.
http://starranger.homestead.com/Trek.html

Straight Fleet Book rules were used except I created Disruptors for the
Klingons (and got it reviewed by Oerjan for points balance):
        Disruptor - Mass 3, 2 arcs, +1 mass for a 3rd arc.  Cost is 3x
Mass. Fired as a Pulse Torp but instead of a damage roll, a fixed 2 points of
damage are inflicted. Screens have no effect, and if armoured, 1 point of
damage to the outer layer of armour and 1 point to the next layer (2nd layer
of armour or hull depending on design)

Someday I should get the Romulans done, and then I'm off to the SFB ships.
Also with Decipher now owning most of the Star Trek gaming rights and having
hired most of the people who were working on Trek for Last Unicorn Games, the
long awaited tactical ship combat game 'Engage!' has been bumped up in
priority and is supposedly being worked on.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> This [suggested FT-ST conversion] sounds like you are trying to

I take it you're referring to lines like "Forward shields buckling" and
the like? I can't remember any counter-examples, so I'll give you that.
Or can I -- wasn't there an episode in which Kirk tells Sulu to "keep
that good shield towards him," thereby implying that there are more than one,
with a directional limit?

These days, of course, the tactical officer (or whoever) usually just refers
to "shields", as though, despite the plural, there is only the
one -- which would agree with the shield displays seen in the second
movie (unless you think those dots each represent a single shield, in
which case there are something like two or three _dozen_! <g>

> Phasers work fine as beams. Photons work fine as p-torps. Disruptors

I agree about phasers and disruptors, although some differentiation gives the
game a better feel. The SFSFW idea of disruptors being
short-ranged but more powerful (e.g., a class b/3 disruptor has the
range of a class-2 beam, but one more die at each range band) worked
well. As regards

> At most one photon. I don't remember a ship firing more than

That's a bit iffy. The thing about photorps is that they have a high
rate of fire -- one every couple of seconds, or even faster. That
argues multiple tubes (not visible on screen) or a really rapid loading cycle.
I can remember several instances of ships having more than one tube (movie
ships in particular), and ISTR the Excelsior firing from both tubes during the
final fight with Chang's ship over Khitomer.

As for disruptors, any TOS episode which showed a Klingon BC firing showed
twin disruptor shots (one from each engine nacelle).

> Plasmas would need work. <

Nova cannons are sort-of large plasma torps (equivalent to the original
Romulan BoP weapon), but rather too long-ranged, I think. House rule
time, I guess.

Phil
----
"I think... I think I am! Therefore I am... I think?"
                                       -- The Moody Blues

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Phillip Atcliffe wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
[...]
> > Phasers work fine as beams. Photons work fine as p-torps. Disruptors

What about using Phalon pulse batteries as disruptors?

Just a random thought. No more posting for me; back to work...

Mk

> > At most one photon. I don't remember a ship firing more than

You shouldn't miss Dean's ST work on the Sci-Fi Cross overseries.  Good
stuff. He's also helped me with modeling ST:TNG ships too. See:

http://www.pcisys.net/~stanczyk/new_trek2.jpg

It's a work in progress. I finally have a good place to play with lots of
people to corrupt, er, introduce to FT so I need to finish them soon. I'm
working on a intro scenario based around the Klingon (un)civil war.

Mike

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dean Gundberg wrote:

> > But now a friend of mine wants to do some Trek space combat games.

> --- Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:

Interesting. The Warbird seems well armed, but it's
hard to tell what class it's in without mass/points.
The Enterprise D seems underarmed.

My FT Star Trek DN is currently the Excelsior class (about to be superceded by
the Sovereign) and it is about 265 mass and has 5 type 4 beams and 4 pulse
torpedoes. My Galaxy class has only 4 type 4 beams and lots of type 2 beams
(and some torpedoes).

The Warbird is supposed to be physically larger than
the E-D, but not, I think, more powerful. I always
got the impression they needed at least 2 to defeat
the Enterprise-D. With the Sovereign, I suspect they
would need 3.

I play Federation ships ALL THE TIME in FT, though my designs don't
necessarily reflect any historical or canon source. I'd be glad to show them
to you if you're interested. I've spec'd out ships from all kinds of sources
(FASA, SFB, Rawcliffe, and others) based on their physical size.

Phasers work fine
> as beams. Photons work fine as p-torps. Disruptors work fine as

I remember seeing three photon torpedoes fired in succession in one of the
movies.... but it seems to me that it was in First Contact (not an original
series....). I am disappointed with using disruptors as merely "beams". They
should be more powerful. I, for one, have the opinion that FT would benefit
from some of the SFB stuff. I like SFB, my two biggest complaints are the
layout of the rules (they are SCARY, I have a massive notebook of them) and
that freaking damage allocation chart! It takes to frickin long to roll all of
the damage. Otherwise, I much enjoy SFB. I think that it is fun to allocate
energy.

> David Griffin wrote:

> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>

--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
...
> I was actually referring to the series, where
Seems to me that only happens when ships are damaged or are trying to do
something beyond the call.

.
> Plasmas would need work

Just use PSB's.

> series....). I am disappointed with using disruptors as merely

In the FT to Trek conversions I'm doing, I use Beam 2's as Phasers, and Beam
3's to represent Disrupters. Works out well, and gives each race a nice
individual flavor. I hope to have them posted soon.

> benefit from some of the SFB stuff. I like SFB, my two biggest

The biggest problem with SFB for miniatures is it plays too slowly. People
playing with mini's like to "push lead" around, and don't want to wait a
millennia to do it. SFB would benefit by taking out the impulses, and
streamlining the turn phases somewhat. I think moving one ship at a time a la
Star Blazers Fleet Battles or Babylon 5 Wars may benefit the game. From what
I've been cobbling together, the SSD's, energy allocation, and all of that
could be preserved quite nicely. Its the impulses that need to go.

George

> On 25-Jun-01 at 18:26, stranger (stranger@cvn.net) wrote:

Pseudo-Scientific Bull?

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, David Griffin wrote:

> --- Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:
For those following along at home:
The Ent-D
Mass 160 NPV 556

> At 12:57 25/06/01 -0600, Jeremy Seeley wrote:
At
> > most one photon. I don't remember a ship firing more than one

They were the new quantum torpedos and I don't know about the 'E' but the
Enterprise-D carried two forward firing launchers in 'neck' they were
linear accelerators, each capable of launching up to 10 torpedos at a time
(because that's what they could fit in the launcher) read this in the ST:TNG
tech manual.

One thing I thought was scarry was that every rule in the book had to take
into account every other rule.

There is no concept of a "standard" way to handle things....The way
FT/ect.
does things makes the game flow much better, and faster. Something I like.

Ah...a better way to discribe things...

FT is "Compartmentalized" That is, every section only concerns itself with its
part of the game. Where as SFB every section is conserned with every other
section...makes things very messy.

Shows that the game was written by engineers or lawyers...

Donald Hosford

> stranger wrote:

> The biggest problem with SFB for miniatures is it plays too slowly.
People
> playing with mini's like to "push lead" around, and don't want to wait
From
> what I've been cobbling together, the SSD's, energy allocation, and

Please... I'm sure you're a bice guy and all that, but
> DO NOT EVER <<<

(You'll piss off important people, and the other ones might sue you:
<G>)

> Donald Hosford wrote:

> Shows that the game was written by engineers or lawyers...

Oh man! What was I thinking!  I'm sorry I lost my head!  :-)

Donald Hosford (BTW..Last I heard...Mr Cole IS an engineer of some sort...)

> Edward Lipsett wrote:

> Please...
<G>)
> Donald Hosford wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Edward Lipsett wrote:

> Please...
<G>)

Right! (I'm with the imprtant people 100%!)

Cheers,

Here are my feeble attempts at Federation Full Thrust designs (though remember
this is not so much an attempt to be accurate to the show, but rather an
attempt to build a fleet to use in our weekly games). Feel free to critique. I
have miniatures from different sources so for instance two enterprise D
miniatures in different sizes get different class names and statistics. The
two Sovereign Explorer stats are two possibilities for my new larger
Enterprise E miniature.

fed 1 is capitals, fed 2 is cruisers, and fed 3 is light ships.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed1.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed2.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed3.jpg

Watch out, these things are kinda big.

> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:

Thanks.

> The

I did too, except in a couple of cases (Voyager and the Defiant, though even
for these they are actually bigger ships in class then I would have made them
at first). Which ships do you find out of scale?

Remember the Repulse class and the Excelsior class are both excelsior minis,
but the Repulse is a battleship (because it's small) and the Excelsior is an
SDN because of it's size. Same with enterprise
D's (some are small -- micromachines, and some are
bigger -- rawcliffe). The small Enterprise E's have
been sovereign class battleships up to now. Now that I have a big sovereign
mini, I'll probably change the name of the battleship and use Sovereign for
the explorer class (in 300mass range).

> and converted and scratch built what wasn't

I'd like to see these scratchbuilds. I bought a bunch of scratchbuilds from a
guy on ebay and some of them are quite neat.

> all these

There's a guy in our group who has the Klingons spec'd like he likes them and
he plays them all the time. They aren't overarmed but they are VERY tough to
destroy.

> have

I'd like to see them when you're done.

David, I have many of the same models and reached many of the same conclusions
as to ship classes. ( Many of yours are superior and I'm making changes lol)
The only real differences are that I went by the size of the model in
determining it's class and converted and scratch built what wasn't
commercially available. I used all these originally for Starfleet Battles and
am no in the process of converting the races from that system over to Full
Thrust. I have the Feds and Klingons done, have the Kzinti about fifty percent
done. That just leaves the Romulan, Gorn, Hydran, and Lyran left to do for the
standard races and the Frax and Qaris from the simulator book.

Don

> Here are my feeble attempts at Federation Full Thrust

I recognized, or guessed, most of 'em, David, but where the heck did the
Wilkerson come from?

Oh, yeah, how did you justify the Osa? ;->=

> --- devans@uneb.edu wrote:

It was a scratchbuilt that I bought from the maker recently. It's in the FASA
game. The scratchbuilt is a nice likeness. There was never a miniature
produced. The Wilkerson has a mistake in the SSD, it's 75 mass but the point
cost is right. It's actually more of a light cruiser.

> Oh, yeah, how did you justify the Osa? ;->=

Well, the "fighters" you saw in the Dominion war seem pretty close in concept
and don't look like what we'd call fighters. There were also those mars
perimiter ships in Best of Two Worlds.

I use those little miniatures (actually fighter from the Superior line) as Fed
fighters when I step outside genre and field the Kiev carrier.

***
I use those little miniatures (actually fighter from the Superior line) as Fed
fighters when I step outside genre and field the Kiev carrier.
***

I was actually teasing about the use of 'Aquarian' fighters. They aren't
even Terran 'Federation'! ;->=

Thanks for sharing both the gallery and the ship design, though. Your boys
look like monsters, but maybe we can come up with some proper nasties for
'em.

> --- devans@uneb.edu wrote:
I have a LOT of the fighters Superior produced for all the different races. I
used them in that brief period long ago when we were experimenting with
carriers in SFB. I like them a lot. Never bought any of the Aquarian ships
though.

> Thanks for sharing both the gallery and the ship

I thought they were fairly general, though I do love the big gun and they're
heavily screened. That isn't much help against the kra'vak I can tell you. I
can beat the Kra'vak with my B5 Earthforce ships (as UN) but I have yet to win
a battle with my Feds against them. Also, if you notice, lots of my ships have
weak hulls, so if you can get past the crunchy exterior, they pop all too
quickly. If you use them, let me know how they do. What I do notice is that a
good sized Federation fleet can do nasty damage at range to an opponent who
has limited range on his weapons.

> > Thanks for sharing both the gallery and the ship

Also IIRC you play vector rules mainly. Some of those designs are very heavily
weighted with single arc weapons, front arc only (Andor Cruiser with 6 Pulse
Torps fwd) and would tough to fly in a cinematic game.

> David,

> I'll probably change the

> > I'd like to see them when you're done.

> --- Dean Gundberg <Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com> wrote:
...
> Also IIRC you play vector rules mainly. Some of
Quite true. Our group also doesn't require that each target of a pulse torpedo
have a separate fire control so a destroyer with beams and a pulse torp can
fire both. If we played cinematic, my arcs would probably be wider as they are
on some of the ships. Also, the FASA and TFG ships have rear weapons which
because of the rear arc rule of FT isn't very useful (and so I don't put them
on the ships).

Just a few more ships. These are just a few redone classics I did to try to
get the ships closer to the Star Fleet Technical manual. I don't know if
they're better, but they're more expensive.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/classic.jpg

And my Babylon 5 UN and regular UN:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/un.jpg

> And my Babylon 5 UN and regular UN:

> David Griffin wrote:

> Here are my feeble attempts at Federation Full Thrust

You asked for it <g>

> http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed1.jpg

Nimitz-class supercarrier:
Listed as TMF 234, NPV 995 (incl. standard/interceptor fighters)
These values would be true if the 6 PDSs are removed, but with all the systems
currently shown on the SSD the ship is TMF 243, NPV 1029 (incl.
fighters). (Also, should the "+" touching the second PDS from the left
be
there? <g>)

Galaxy SDN: Listed as TMF 250, NPV 856. These values would be true if the ADFC
is removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD the ship is TMF 252, NPV
866.

Dominion BDN: Listed as TMF 169, NPV 580. These values would be true if 1 PDS
was removed (leaving 4); with the systems currently shown on the SSD the ship
is TMF 170, NPV 584.

New Orleans BB: Listed as TMF 130, NPV 449. These values would be true if the
ADFC is removed, but with all the systems shown on the SSD the ship is TMF
132, NPV 459.

> http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed2.jpg

Kongo BC: Listed as TMF 115, NPV 400. These values would be true if 2 armour
or hull boxes are removed; with the systems etc. currently shown on the SSD
the ship is TMF 117, NPV 406.

Bonhomme Richard BC: Listed as TMF 108, NPV 376. TMF is correct, but the NPV
should be 378.

Nebula BC: Listed as TMF 115, NPV 401. With all the systems shown on the SSD
the ship is TMF 120, NPV 414; I'm not sure what went wrong here.

Voyager CH:
Legal design provided that what looks like two-layer Phalon-style armour
is
in fact single-layer Human armour. With the actual 2-layer armour layout
currently shown on the SSD, the NPV is 312.

Andor CH: Listed as TMF 87, NPV 302, but the ship shown on the SSD is TMF 90,
NPV 315.

Locknar CH:
Legal design, though if you want to min-max it it could equally well be
TMF 72, NPV 250.

Locknar II CH:
Legal design, though if you want to min-max it it could equally well be
TMF 84, NPV 292.

Intrepid CL:
SSD shows 2-layer Phalon-style armour, but the NPV says single-layer
Human-style. Apart from that the design is legal.

Defiant CE:
1 Mass unused, and the SSD shows 2-layer Phalon-style armour. The design
actually shown on the SSD is TMF 79, NPV 282.

> http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed3.jpg

Constellation science cruiser: Listed as TMF 60, NPV 245; the design as shown
is only TMF 57, NPV 231.

Remora DDE: Legal design, but the NPV is only 165.

Baker DD:
Legal design, but the NPV is only 191. Can be min-maxed down to TMF 54,
NPV 188.

Larson II DD: Listed as TMF 61, NPV 227. TMF is incorrect (should be 64), but
NPV is OK.

Wilkerson DH: Listed as TMF 27?!?, NPV 257. The design shown on the SSD is TMF
73, NPV 251.

Gagarin science destroyer: Listed as TMF 47, NPV 201. The design shown on the
SSD is TMF 49, NPV 205.

"Dolphin FH" (Sunfish): Legal design, but the NPV is only 81

"Dolphin FH" (Dolphin): Legal design, but the NPV is only 90

River FF: 1 Mass unused. The design on the SSD is only TMF 43, NPV 151 (can
be min-maxed down to TMF 42, NPV 148).

Osa II: Listed as TMF 10, NPV 36. Design shown on the SSD is TMF 11, NPV 41.

OSA IV: Design is illegal; a TMF 16 ship must have at least 2 hull boxes. With
2 hull boxes it would have TMF 17, NPV 64.

OSA V: Design is illegal; a TMF 17 ship must have at least 2 hull boxes. With
2 hull boxes it would have TMF 19, NPV 71.

I agree with Dean's comment about these designs being optimized for Vector
:-/ (F)-arc B5-1s aren't all that common in Cinematic...

Regards,

> David Griffin wrote:

> Just a few more ships. These are just a few

All OK <g>

> And my Babylon 5 UN and regular UN:

Poseidon CVN: Listed as TMF 350, NPV 1582 (incl. fighters). 3 mass are unused;
looks like
3 missing armour points. Again the armour is depicted as double-layer
Phalon-style armour rather than the Human-style armour actually paid
for.

Avenger CV and Terrier CVL: Armour depicted as Phalo. It shouldn't be.

Heavy Freighter: Listed as TMF 122, NPV 210. The design shown on the SSD is
TMF 128, NPV 228.

Heavy Tanker: Design is illegal. A TMF 85 ship must have at least 9 hull
boxes.

Majestic BC: Listed as TMF 102, NPV 350. These values would be correct if the
ADFC is

ripped out; the ship on the SSD has TMF 106, NPV 366.

Wright FF: Listed as TMF 30, NPV 106. This is probably an erroneous copy from
the Daring DH; the Wright as shown on the SSD is TMF 17, NPV 62.

Furies CE: Legal design, but... with 20 PDSs, I'd probably want to be able to
split

the fire to protect more than one friendly ship :-/

Sagittarius CH: Listed as TMF 88, NPV 301. 4 Mass are unused; looks like 4
armour or hull boxes. Also... should it be called a "missile cruiser" when it
doesn't have any missiles?

Omega CVB: Listed as TMF 170, NPV 600 (I assume this includes fighters, since
the costs of all the other carriers has so far). The design is legal, but
since the NPV *without* fighters is 596 the total NPV should be 716.

Hyperion CH: Listed as TMF 115, NPV 401. Legal design, but the NPV without
fighters is 399 (and with fighters it should be 459).

Nebula BB: Listed as TMF 110, NPV 380. These values would be correct if the
armour is stripped off; the design on the SSD is TMF 116, NPV 398.

Searcher Exploration ship:
Listed as TMF 138, NPV 499. Uses 1 Mass too many; looks like a lab/cargo
hold.

Hope Hospital ship: Listed as TMF 150, NPV 480. 11 Mass are unused; the design
on the SSD is

only TMF 132, NPV 366.

Later,

I did ask for it. We must have different spreadsheets, but I'll put them in
tonight and see where I went wrong. Fortunately, most aren't typically the
ships I play a lot.

By the way, my "double layer" armor is meant to be single layer armor, it's
just easier to put it in multiple rows sometimes. There is no game effect. We
don't allow mixed tech (well I don't use it in any of these ships anyway).

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

Should include fighters. Since I run everything through a spreadsheet (but
don't have excel so I had to make one up with Clarisworks), I'm not sure
what's going on, but I'll check them tonight. Perhaps I have an error in the
spreadsheet calculations somewhere. I tried to verify the spreadsheet by
running the book ships through and was successful doing that. Oh well.

Ok, here at work, I have a sort of xl clone and Fleet book designer 1.1 runs
on it and I get
yet a third figure for 264/929 including fighters.
You know it has no fire control, right and no weapons (except for the pds's).
Of course, that isn't my original value either, so I need to figure this out
at home.

The only carrier actually to see battle (carriers and star trek don't go
together well) is the Kiev.

> Galaxy SDN:

Don't understand this either but I'll check. I get the same thing you get on
the fleet book,
though curiously it's also 255/876.

> Dominion BDN:

ditto.

> New Orleans BB:

ditto.

> >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed2.jpg

ditto

> Bonhomme Richard BC:
Hmmm... me neither.

> Voyager CH:

single layer armor. Not intended to be phalon

> Andor CH:

I don't necessarily try to minmax down to the smallest possible size, as a few
points tends not to matter in our pick up games. Still, I'd like to have the
right points.

> Intrepid CL:

human armor

> Defiant CE:

human, not phalon

> >http://home.earthlink.net/~dwgriffin/fed3.jpg

Actually 75/257, the 27 is a typo (or more precisely
a forgot to modify it from some other ship) I've fixed this one after posting
my SSD's. Didn't notice it until then. I've played the ship once so far.

> Gagarin science destroyer:

right because it rounds up to 10%. That I DO need to add to the spreadsheet.

> OSA V:

Do most people PLAY cinematic? This group only plays vector, I haven't even
ever played a game using cinematic movement. I kind of think Vector movement
is what gives Full Thrust a unique feel to most other games.

I'll report tomorrow on my spreadsheet analysis. Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, if I recall an SFB Comittee list from some years back, it was
engineers, lawyers, and railroad managers.

All eminently professional. But detail oriented...

> ------------ Original Message -----------
<G>)
> Donald Hosford wrote: