Time for my 2 cents worth on FT and its future.
A, B, C Beam Battery Balance
The Cs got better with anti-fighter capability from MT
Why should I mount 3 B batteries when for the same mass and less cost I
could mount 2 A batteries with equal short range power (6d6), more midrange
power (4d6 to 3d6), and a long range capability that the B does not have (2d6
to 0)? The best solution I have seen is Bs and Cs stay the same, the mass of a
single arc A battery stays at 3 but multiple arc A batteries have a mass of 4.
It is then very plausible for an escort have a single arc A while larger ships
must consider the tradeoffs of a larger A. The proposed casemate changes were
too mass intensive for me.
Point Systems To balance things out, revisions to the point cost of some
systems may be advisable. I like the challenge of designing a ship that has
multiple criteria the must be met, i.e. point cost and mass. I don't think
mass alone can do it, especially if campaign rules are added.
Core Rules Rewrite I don't think FT is broken. It could be tuned up in some
areas. Change isn't always good and neither is it always bad. I don't think
Jon and GZG will scrap everything and start over. I would have to see the
changes to make up my mind. Change from d6 to FMA, I don't see a huge need to
do this but presented correctly, it could work. I would like to see more
systems and races, many good examples have been on this list. Like in MT, the
new systems would be optional but should be balances so they could be dropped
in if needed.
Campaign Rules and Fleet Books I'll get them whenever they show up. I want to
see a full fleet of designs based on the same philosophy. The NSL page is a
good example of a fleet of ships all designed to integrate with each other
following specific battle doctrine
Rear Arc Fire I like the idea of weapons firing in the rear arc. Most (if not
all) popular universes (SW, ST, B5) all have rear arc fire. I understand how
the prohibition of rear arc fire changes tactics and how satisfying it is to
be in the rear arc of a capital ship and pound away, BUT with most beam
batteries 3 arc, ship design is generic like STARFIRE. I allow rear arc fire
for beam batteries, railguns and pulse torps, but at reduced levels, C bats
fire only as
anti-fighter, B as a C, A as a B, AA as a A, pulse torp and railguns at
-1 to
hit and damage. C bats and B bats can be 4 arc, A bats only up to 3 arc. This
makes the design of ships more challenging and related to tactics. Escorts
don't have the space to waste in the rear arc. Capital ships have to reduce
some of their forward firepower to get some coverage in the rear arc, thus
they are a little less dangerous head on. Do I try and cover the rear arc with
an A, and then not have it cover the front? If I have 2 A bats, are they FPA
FSA for weak side coverage and full front coverage or PFS PAS for broadsides
but weaker forward coverage? Racial and empire preferences would come into
play, full frontal attack or battle lines as in the age of sail.
Whew! 8-] Those are my thoughts, fire away.
> dgundberg@bcbsnd.com wrote:
> Core Rules Rewrite
Why? What wrong with d6s? I like the six-sider system. It's
simple. It works. It makes people happy (namely me.). Why do you want to make
me unhappy? You don't want to see me when I am unhappy. The
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
Ah, but I'll be unhappy if they don't go to FMA-style mechanics, and
considering where /I/ work, where I talk to NASA, the Marine Corps and
Coors every week or so, I could make your life difficult.:) Once or twice a
month I even talk to a nuclear reactor sites.
You /sure/ you don't think they need the FMA mechanics? :)
> Alexander Williams wrote:
The
> > math is simple: Mark + Unhappiness = WORLDWIDE DEATH AND
HA!!! That's nothing. I work for THE UWM TIMES. We've got control of everyone
from the Bavarian Illuminati to Mannheim Steamroller.
> You /sure/ you don't think they need the FMA mechanics? :)
Quite sure. Now graval down before me before I feed you to my killer brittney,
Nanny.
Later,
Alexander Williams:
> Once or twice a month I even talk to a nuclear reactor sites.
Ah, but do they talk back?
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 dgundberg@bcbsnd.com wrote:
> A, B, C Beam Battery Balance
Agreed. There is one more thing, though: Why should I mount anything but
3-arc weapons? The extra cost? That's nothing... (This applies to B
batteries as well as A ones. C batteries are so small anyway...)
> The best solution I have seen is Bs and Cs stay the same, the mass
I like the casemate idea (...not surprising; I've used a similar system for
quite a while...), but the proposed masses are too big IMO.
> Point Systems
criteria
> the must be met, i.e. point cost and mass. I don't think mass alone
Agreed. If mass is removed, differences in basic tech levels gets very
difficult to simulate - a powerful weapon _must_ be more massive than a
weaker, or restricted as to who can use it - or else campaign balance
goes out the window... However, if this other criteria is a points cost,
or a power supply need, or whatever, I don't mind - as long as it works.
(...not that that is always easy to accomplish...)
> Rear Arc Fire
popular
> universes (SW, ST, B5) all have rear arc fire. I understand how the
rear arc
> of a capital ship and pound away, BUT with most beam batteries 3 arc,
Yep. With effective restrictions - mass- or cost-wise, or in some other
way - as to what weapons can fire into which arc, you can easily allow
fire into the rear arc. Allowing all your weapons to fire into all four
arcs, however, makes the tactics extremely dull - you make sure you stay
at the optimum range, and that becomes easy (or at least far easier) when you
don't have to mind your own facing. As long as I have to choose between
firepower and arc coverage (...or, in other words, between
firepower and mobility) I'll have to mind tactics - or at least I have
to respond to the tactics of my enemies.
Many of these arc-restrictions depend on your background, though; in the
Renegade Legion or Honor Harrington universes, _all_ weapons are
single-arc; B5 ships have multi-arc weapons, but the heaviest ones seem
to be directed roughly along the main hull axis, and so on.
Regards,
> Dean Gundberg wrote:
I like using points as well.
> Rear Arc Fire
popular
> universes (SW, ST, B5) all have rear arc fire.
How about allowing firing out the rear whenever the ship is not applying
forward acceleration?
> Robert A. Crawford wrote:
You don't know fear until you call, say, the TVA Reactor and hear them say,
'yeah, we're having a little problem with our Alpha crashing and none of us
know UNIX...'
----------
From: "Mark A. Siefert" <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 9:21 PM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: FTIII
> Alexander Williams wrote:
The
> > math is simple: Mark + Unhappiness = WORLDWIDE DEATH AND
HA!!! That's nothing. I work for THE UWM TIMES. We've got control of everyone
from the Bavarian Illuminati to Mannheim Steamroller.
> You /sure/ you don't think they need the FMA mechanics? :)
Quite sure. Now graval down before me before I feed you to my killer brittney,
Nanny.
Later, Mark S. Ruler of the Undersea City of Kansas
Here's my 2 cents I don't send much, but I play Full Thrust. A few of us tried
the FMA variant that was out earlier. And the group didn't like it. One coment
was "This is not fun. Like
playing SFB. Complicates it with Bulls---."
So we stoped and went on with the rules as they are and we had a good time and
no more complaints. I was even told, "lets not do that FMA stuff again." Thats
my 2 cents
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.961212143726.2610A-100000@byse.nada.kth.se>
> Oerjan Ohlson writes:
> > To balance things out, revisions to the point cost of some systems
> difficult to simulate - a powerful weapon _must_ be more massive than
I don't see a need for a mass, so long as something is used as a multiplier.
Charge a flat point cost for everything, including hull boxes, and multiply by
a factor derived from the thrust. Or use the
number of hull-boxes as a multiplier. Or both. A more expensive
weapon will demand a more survivable platform, anyway, so there's
your mass-factor.
I think tech-levels are a red herring. If a superior technology can
shrink it all down... and make a smaller platform more survivable,
then the exact same ship in FT stat terms, same weapons, same hull-
boxes, same thrust, could be quite different "masses". But what is mass
relevent to?
...Only to an FT catholic...
Note that a 40 mass merchant is little different to a 20 mass escort. Now
check the point costs.
Date sent: 13-DEC-1996 10:09:05
> I don't see a need for a mass, so long as something is used as a
This would certainly solve my Klingon problem. The hulls have to be so big to
accommodate all the gubbins that they end up far TOO survivable. Why won't
they just DIE?
> I think tech-levels are a red herring. If a superior technology can
I remember my original proposal to reflect varying tech levels by shrinkage.
An old dreadnaught might end up as little more than a rather unmanouverable
escort.
> ...Only to an FT catholic...
Me?
> David Brewer wrote:
IMHO using mass adds to the flavor of designing ships. I really like the use
of both mass and points when building ships. The system is simple enough as it
is, why simplify this more? Taking out some of the details of ship design
could make this process a boring task.
> I think tech-levels are a red herring. If a superior technology can
Nah, tech levels can make the design process more interesting. I see this as
strictly optional.
> In a message dated 96-12-11 21:53:28 EST, Alex writes:
> << Mark A. Siefert wrote:
The
> > math is simple: Mark + Unhappiness = WORLDWIDE DEATH AND
> Ah, but I'll be unhappy if they don't go to FMA-style mechanics, and
> You /sure/ you don't think they need the FMA mechanics? :)
Jeez, just think about it. He could cut off the Marines' beer supply! Back
away sloowwly and don't tick him off or things could get ugly! :-)
Don
> Jeez, just think about it. He could cut off the Marines' beer supply!
Back
> away sloowwly and don't tick him off or things could get ugly! :-)
... and then I'll give them your address as determined by orbiting weather
satelites... they'll know where to find who to blame...
Just wanting to put in my vote for FTIII. I would have no problem
with a major re-write of the rules. What I would want to see in FTIII:
more races, a balanced point system for the Kravak and the Savasku, balanced
A-bats (and some new beam bats), the obligatory continuing timeline of
the FT universe, some new weapons and systems and optional rules. What I would
desperately like to see in FTIII: campaign rules (ship construction, ship
repair yards and repair ships, etc.)
James
you guy have far too much time on your hands:)
chris "babylon 5 now ON video" pratt valen10@flash.net
> Sprayform wrote:
> Bobby at 12:06 23/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
I want it, and I want it now. I can't wait any longer. I don't care if there
are spelling errers. I don't care if all of the pictures are finished yet. I
don't care if you sell me zeroxed copies of your originals through the mail. I
don't care if you haven't taken the beer and food stains off the masters. I'm
selfish and demanding.
I WANT FTIII NOW!!!!
> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Bobby Mock wrote:
> I WANT FTIII NOW!!!!
Relax... Relax.... Jon and the people involved in playtesting it are working
on it.
Later, Mark A. Siefert
"Joel, what chance do we have in a world that keeps presenting us with vivid
images of Hell?"
"Well there's personal liberty, strength of conviction... Those have been
known to work. Then there's the time the country rallies together to beat back
Hell. Like the time we as a nation said `no' to Yahoo Serious."
--Tom Servo and Joel Robinson
MST3K "Eegah"
"I really think you aught to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think
things over." - H.A.L. (from 2001)
> Bobby at 12:06 23/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
...Ok FT is ok (though only in association with MT) and FTII is accepted as
norm, but 'FTIII' sounds like a Pythonesk war cry!! I advocate the forming of
a FT3 pressure group whose mission is to convert all the wayward FTIII sinners
to the true light of FT3
FFFFFFFFF TTTTTTTT 333333333
FF TT 33 FF TT 33
FFFFFF TT 33
FF TT 33 FF TT 33
FF TT 33 33
FF TT 333333
Jon (top cat)
Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
made in
[prototype times]
'The future is now'