FT: THEY CAME! THEY CAME!!!!!!

My FT/FB1/FB2 shipment just arrived, and I am pretty excited.  Jon
played dirty, though, and included a PICTORIAL ad for some new figs. Now I
have something else to drool over until I can afford it. Damn him.

2B^2

> On 2/7/02 4:21 PM, "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My FT/FB1/FB2 shipment just arrived, and I am pretty excited. Jon

Yes, he's bad like that ;-)

> At 04:46 7/02/02 -0800, you wrote:

Nic can do worse, pictures I can ignore. But SAMPLES......... Arrgh!!!

Cheers

> Derek Fulton wrote:

Free figs... oh, yeah, that's SO MEAN.....

Just a couple of observations from what I've had a chance to see so far:

Pics of fleets: The IJN hulls are causing a biochemical reaction in me that is
causing a reversion to my adolescent years, ie, the look REALLY KEWL...... I
mean really, folks. Damn. I can't afford them, but if you can, BUY THEM. Trust
me.

Rules: I've only started reading FT, and have peeked at the FB's. I have a
feeling I'm going to be a Vector fan, because the Cinematic rules as expounded
in FT leave me cold. Can't spin in place? Can't go backward?
 No
thanks.

Since I already have DSII, the layout of the books is easy to get into.

How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be changed later
in the FB's? Should I even bother trying to play until I've read all three?

2B^2

Brian Bilderback schrieb:
> How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going

> until I've read all three?

You don't have to read them completely, but you should read the rules chapter
of Fleet Book 1 before playing. There are some important changes in that one,
including the vector rules. FB2 is mainly relevant for alien fleets.

Greetings

> At 07:28 8/02/02 -0800, 2B^2 wrote:

> How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be changed

> later in the FB's? Should I even bother trying to play until I've read

> all three?

Read FB1

Cheers

> On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:28:36AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> that is causing a reversion to my adolescent years, ie, the look REALLY

> KEWL...... I mean really, folks. Damn. I can't afford them, but if

Oh, but ordering the IJN figures brings great luck and wealth! This
really works! I ordered a mega-fleet deal on the last day it was
available, and THE VERY NEXT DAY I got a cheque for some work I haven't even
done yet!

(Hmm... make.battleships.fast?)

> Rules: I've only started reading FT, and have peeked at the FB's. I

I'm a vector fan because I was a physicist before I was a space-game
fan...

> How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be changed

> later in the FB's? Should I even bother trying to play until I've read

The only thing for which you need FB2 to get started is the revised turn
sequence. Otherwise, most of FT applies; for FB1, the beam weapon designations
change, PTs and Needle Beams get new ranges, and the ADAF is replaced by an
ADFC which can direct regular PDSes (PDAFs) in
long-range fire. (There's new stuff in FB1 as well, of course, but those
are the things that get changed, as far as I can remember off the top of my
head.)

> I, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> >How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be

And everyone replied I should read FB 1.

So I will.

Anyone have a copy of More Thrust I can peek at?

2B^2

> On 8-Feb-02 at 11:55, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Rules: I've only started reading FT, and have peeked at the FB's. I

Vector is entirely too predictable. From an aesthetic viewpoint I like
vector better.  For enjoying the game Cinematic is _much_ better.

Just as an example most custom ship designs in vector use almost totally front
arc weapons. You alway know within 6 inches where your opponents are going to
be. Combine that with no terrain and I don't see much fun in playing, it's a
joust.

OTH I play FSE, maybe if I can convince my Kra'vak opponent (Hi Keith) I might
be able to hit him with salvo missiles.

> On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:28:36AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:

I started off with vector-only but have played more cinematic lately.
Vector (in my experience) tends to be "the fleets meet, there is much firing
and bloodshed for a turn or two, and the losers run off in the direction they
were headed while the winners try to turn around and pursue." Cinematic allows
somewhat sneakier maneuvering. Vector games
also tend to be shorter--1-2 turns after contact isn't all that unusal.
Of course, games with Islamic Fed ships tend to be fairly short anyway.

> How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be changed

> later in the FB's? Should I even bother trying to play until I've read

FB goes to six arcs instead of four, new design sequence, and minor
changes in the weapons (eg a C battery can fire in point-defence mode).

> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:

Interesting... the vector movement system has always reminded me of a
slow-motion swordfight from a Samurai movie (with Toshiro Mifune,
of course!). The two opposing fleets slash toward each other, clash
when they meet, and the follow-through takes them past and around
each other.

Cinematic movement is much more like an airplane-dogfighting style game.

> I, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> >How many rules that I'm reading about now in FT are going to be

> And everyone replied I should read FB 1. So I will.

Vector on FB1 had one quirk which was fixed in FB2, so you'll probably want to
read that bit, which is a paragraph or two in the first few pages. The rest of
FB2 is alien fleets and you don't need to deal with them yet.

> laserlight wrote:

The rest of FB2 is alien fleets and you don't need to deal with them yet.

Unless you want to apply their technology to other
(non-tuffleyverse)game
backgrounds, maybe?

2B^2

> At 12:47 8/02/02 -0500, Roger Books wrote:

> Vector is entirely too predictable. From an aesthetic viewpoint I like

It's all a matter of preference, although vector games do tend to be quicker,
bloodier, tense affairs.

Cheers

> Derek Fulton wrote:

I find that vector games tend to be slower in the movement phase due to more
thought and complexity of the movement. Larger fleet games are faster if they
use cinematic.

The reason vector games are bloodier is that more weapons are bearing on the
enemy at all times during the game.

> At 09:08 8/02/02 -0500, Jon wrote:

And this is a bad thing?:)

> Derek Fulton wrote:

> At 06:50 PM 2/9/02 +1100, Derek Fulton wrote:

It is when you're playing with non-FB ships.

Any ship design that's playing outside the movement it was designed for,

has a distinct disadvantage.

Cine ships have all this "dead" weight called Arcs when playing in Vector.
Reverse for Vector designed ships in Cine flight.

> At 06:50 PM 2/9/02 +1100, Derek Fulton wrote:

Bear in mind that *you* are the enemy...

> Jon Davis Wrote:

> I find that vector games tend to be slower in the movement phase

Both things to consider....

> The reason vector games are bloodier is that more weapons are

And this is bad because.....?

2B^2

> On 11-Feb-02 at 10:56, Brian Bilderback (bbilderback@hotmail.com) wrote:

Fly up, shoot, ships blow up, fly by.

I can trivially program my computer to fight vector. Tactics are
next to non-existant.  What fun is that?

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:00:19AM -0500, Roger Books wrote:

Decisions to make:

- for each of your ships, what range are you going to try to maintain
between it and the enemy?
- given that, what formation do you use?
- do you split your force and send some ships round the side?
- given the range you want to maintain, when do you start to turn away
from the enemy?

It's not trivial.

> At 11:00 11/02/02 -0500, Roger Books wrote:

Probably just as much fun as weaving around and trying to get into the aft arc
;)

Different horses for different courses.

Cheers

> >The reason vector games are bloodier is that more weapons are

Not "bad", just "bloodier". Note that "more weapons are bearing" applies to
his weapons as well as yours.

> Fly up, shoot, ships blow up, fly by.

Takes some subtlety. Often there's one turn's fire, then you're at point blank
range. The trick is to arrange things so he doesn't know whether you're going
to end up in front of or behind him on the second turn. If everything works
right, both sides end the second combat turn facing in the same direction, on
opposing vectors, with your ships right
behind his at half-pistol-shot range.

However, I grant that maneuvers are less sweeping, and tactics less visible,
than in cinematic.

> laserlight Wrote:

> Not "bad", just "bloodier". Note that "more weapons are bearing"
applies
> to his weapons as well as yours.

That's the risk you take.

> >Fly up, shoot, ships blow up, fly by.

> you're going to end up in front of or behind him on the second turn.
If
> everything works right, both sides end the second combat turn facing in

I just like the different movement options available in Vector. We'll see if I
turn out to be an ok player in either system.

2B^2