Howdy. I'm new to the list and new to the FT game having played two battles
with stuff from the FB. The players want a campaign so I volunteered to come
up with some rules and referee it. I've been working on some sort of sf
campaign for years and tried a couple SFB ones. I don't have any books yet but
with FT3 being promised(?) soon I was wondering if any release date has been
announced?
I loved Traveller for many years, designed many ships throughout all of Trav's
incarnations (except T4), and really liked TCS. I also like Imperium and Dark
Nebula and printed out the FT conversion rules. For my campaign I'm borrowing
from these and Fifth Frontier War: warp lines and weekly travel times (easier
on the bookkeeping), plotting in advance, admirals with plotting factors and
tactical skill (for initiative roll only), and simple economics (for the first
campaign anyway): primary world worth 100 pts, secondary world worth 20 pts.
The basis of the campaign is a civil war after the emperor is assassinated so
that all the players, being provincial leaders, are of equal tech and equal
forces. The one who controls at least 50% of the populous (primary=10,
secondary=2) is the winner and next emperor.
Both FT battles I've been in have seen the armored ships win and the screen
ships lose. People seem to prefer armor. Anyone done any analysis of armor vs
screens? I was thinking of adding a Meson battery as another weapon: size of
class 3 (A) but damage as class 2 (B) and it ignores armor. This a fair
weapon?
Later,
G'day Glen,
> Both FT battles I've been in have seen the armored ships win
Well I can assure that doesn't happen everytime. Down here we've got at least
one fleet from each of the 4 major nations (finally), though I must admitt
there's more NSL than anything else (more to do with the look of the minis
though I think). And we've seen quite a few battles now where the
screen based ships win - blasted ESU with their double %^$E$#@!
screens....
Heck even I've managed to win some games <the rest of you can pick yourself up
off the floor now thank you, no need to look quite so shocked!;) > and being
FSE I don't usually have screens or armour! As for the minor nation I'm
messing around with, their ships rely heavily on screens as I prefer them
(armour goes for sure, but a screen might just hang on when everything else
fails). But that's just my opinion, my husband Derek has a few ships which
have screens and armour, but then he's paranoid;)
In the end I think it comes down to what you like and how you like to command.
Hope that helps some.
Beth
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> In the end I think it comes down to what you like and how you like to
I did a few calculations regarding shields vs armour the other day. Came up
with some surprising results:
> From a purely Mass viewpoint, the break-even point is reached when the
It's greatly complicated by several problems: a) Screens can go down due to
internals. b) Opponents generally don't use all beams.
c) 3 mass of screens cost 12, vs 9 for 3 hull/armour (including the 1 pt
for each mass of structure, otherwise 9 vs 6)
What it boils down to is that for anything smaller than a light cruiser, use
armour not screens. For Heavy Cruisers up to Battlecruisers, use screen level
1. For anything larger, screen 2 is the way to go. The
greater the proportion of non-beams used by the enemy, the larger the
ship required before break-even is reached.
The more hull/armour your ships have, the better screens look. But then
again, the better weapons look too, as otherwise you have a ship which can
take it, but not dish it out.
> Beth Fulton wrote:
And who you fight. Islamic Fed ships use mostly SLM's, so shields aren't much
use; Alarishi ships are therefore designed with armor, not screens.