The Full Thrust Tournament
I didn't do any miniatures gaming on Friday, so I'm not sure how things
went that day. I did spend a whole whack of money at the Geo-Hex booth,
though. Thankfully Canada Customs didn't stop us at the border, as I was
over my duty-free limit. I bought 22 packs of NSL infantry and three
VTOL troop carriers for SG2. I had intended to buy FT ships, but I'm still
considering which fleets I want to collect. Since SG2 is becoming my favourite
game, I bought a bunch of miniatures to complement my existing collection of
Living Steel 25mm figures. Next year I'll buy some NAC or FSE figures. The
resin Deimos grav tank was for sale at the booth. It looks VERY nice! If I
only had some money left over (and the Canadian dollar hadn't gone in the tank
just before we went down
south)...
Saturday morning was the Full Thrust tournament. I'd like to start off by
saying that Dean Gundberg did an excellent job of organizing and running the
event. Bryan Miller and I were referees, but Dean created the ship designs,
set up the tournament, got the prizes, and came down with the official
rulings. The popularity and smooth execution of the event is testimony to
Dean's preparation.
The format for the tournament is a good one and should even be made
semi-official (IMHO). Dean created a number of different styles of
fleets: beam fleets, carrier fleets, megabattery dreadnought fleets,
battlerider fleets, etc. Each player was free to choose any fleet. The
players were matched up randomly, and played a one-on-one battle on a
table half the usual size (5' x 4' or 6' x 4', I think). The games would take
no more than two hours. The game ended on a turn when a player destroyed enemy
ships equivalent to half the opposing fleet's total point value. The player
who destroyed more of his opponent's fleet was deemed the winner. As it turned
out, in all games the first person to destroy half of his opponent's fleet
turned out to be the winner.
We had 12 players join the event out of a possible 16. We needed 8 for the
second round, so the percentage of the opposing fleet destroyed was
calculated. The top 2 losing players would also get into the next
(quarter-final) round. I'm not sure what we would do if we had an odd
number of players (a random player would get a "by" into the next round? the
lone player would have to play a referee?). The method we chose worked well.
The only wrinkle is that we paired off the two "losing"
players that got into the quarter-finals, thus guaranteeing that one of
the players who lost round one would get into the semi-finals. For next
year, we might want to try a "seeding" system. The player who does the best in
round one plays the player who did the worst in round one, then the player who
did second best plays the player who did second worst, etc. This gives the
possibility of upset wins, and adds to the tension. This is a minor quibble,
however.
The games for the most part ended early. There were some interesting
things of note during the tournament. A beam-based superdreadnought
fleet won the tournament, but battlerider fleets and megabattery dreadnought
fleets were very popular. The megabattery fleet could be set up ahead of time
as having two AA megabatteries or one wave gun. Most chose the AAs, which
proved interesting as the AAs burned out with amazing regularity. Mark Siefert
gets the award for greatest comeback in the first round. He lost much of his
carrier fleet early on, resulting in people giving up on him, only to squeeze
out a win late in the game. The set up was such that his opponent had to
pretty much destroy Mark's carrier to win, something that came to him far to
late to do anything about it.
In the quarter-finals, two megabattery fleets squared off against each
other. In the semis, one of the players changed from a pulse torpedo fleet to
a batterider fleet, but ended up losing. In the finals, one of the players
swapped his megabattery fleet for a battlerider fleet, while the other
finalist stuck with his superdreadnought fleet.
The final game was a nasty one with both fleets fairly evenly matched. A
mistake in tactics early on put the superdreadnought fleet at a bit of a
disadvantage. It didn't look good for the SD fleet going into the final turn:
the SD and a damaged cruiser were all that was left (with the cruiser's death
giving the game to the battlerider) on the SD side. On the battlerider side,
there were two battleriders in reasonable shape and a battledreadnought
virtually untouched. At this point, the game ended in a slight bit of
controversy. The battlerider player was, shall we say, liberal with his
turning and moving. He had a tendency to turn his ships inaccurately, while
his ships tended not to move straight but to drift a bit. On the second last
turn he had placed the two battleriders near the edge of the table at a speed
of 18. Knowing the criticality of the next move and the player's penchant for
inaccurate movement, I measured the movement myself and determined that the
battleriders should slide off the table. At a speed of 18, there was no way
either ship should be able to stay on the table. Funny enough, when the player
moved his own ships, they miraculously hugged the table edge. With Dean and
the other player as witnesses, I used referee discretion and declared the
ships off the table, and thus classed as mission kills. The game went to the
SD player.
Congratulations to the mailing list's Sean Schoonmaker, winner of the 1998
GenCon Full Thrust tournament. Sean won a trophy, $50 worth of
stuff from the Geo-Hex booth, and a Superior Miniatures starship. In
fact, every player making it past the first round got one or two Superior
Miniatures starships and a $5 off certificate. Sean should also be
congratulated for excellent gamesmanship. Sean had a lot of fun
playing and kept things fun and non-serious for his opponents. Even
during the last game, when his opponent made some "irregular" moves, Sean
didn't complain. Sean's an excellent sport and I'd play against him or with
him any time.
After the tournament I played in the second of three linked SG2 adventures.
The victory conditions were particularly nasty for our side, but with a little
referee fudging we were able to eke out a tie. For anyone who played the NSL
in the third Ventron game, you can thank me and my fellow player for taking
out the two bunkers! It was a fun game, and I really enjoyed it. I went back
to the hotel for the final slot, too tired to play in the other game I was
going to join. On the other hand, the place was hopping in the miniatures area
with all the GZG tables running something or other. Although we only had 4
players for our SG2 game, the FT games looked full.
I'm new to full thrust although I've played DS2 and SG2 a bit. I'd be
interested in seeing the make up of some of the tournament fleets if
possible.. also would like to hear more about the linked SG2 game..i've ran a
couple of linked scenario's (WWII) and would like to compare notes.
Mark
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Allan Goodall wrote:
> and a battledreadnought virtually untouched. At this point, the game
While I have no love for these "creative measurement" guys, I find the concept
of "falling off the edge of space" patently ridiculous.
Oh well... I guess it could be called "selective realism". E.g. it's "cool"
that ships in FT can fly at unlimited speeds, but does anyone ever
use even three-digit speeds? Even if it would convey a significant
advantage (especially when combined with free pre-measurement)? No, it's
too much hassle (until someone really, *really*, REALLY wants to win).
Btw: I recently had time to read through all the MARS magzines I have. This is
probably old news for most of you, but there was an absolutely fabulous
article on FT in MARS#2, I recall, nicely illustrating the mindset of some
gamers. The guy had even built a weapon system around the
FTL-out-near-other-ships bug...
> You wrote:
> While I have no love for these "creative measurement" guys, I find the
I usually use a floating table unless the guy leaving is breaking off and I'm
willing to let him go.
> Oh well... I guess it could be called "selective realism". E.g. it's
Huh? Three digit speeds...100 inches on an 8' table puts you 28 inches off the
other side. What's the point in that? And what's that
about free pre-measurement? I assume that the distance between any two
points on the table (including points occupied by ships) is readily know. I've
even taken to marking the positions of capital ships as they will be if they
continue on the same course and speed as they were last turn. Which makes nice
aim points for SMLs, and is a mental aid to ship movement plotting.
> mindset of some gamers. The guy had even built a weapon system around
Only robot ships.
> While I have no love for these "creative measurement" guys, I find the
> concept of "falling off the edge of space" patently ridiculous.
True, but there were external reasons why we put this rule in place for the
tournament. First, we were under time constraints (4 rounds to complete in 8
hours) so we did not want long running battles. Second, some players tried to
have their damaged ships break off from the battle and run to keep them from
being destroyed (and thus having their points count against them). Thus we
ruled that a disengaging ship was the same as a kill and did not expect a
player to fly off the edge in the finals.
This is one area (and there are others) that we could have been more clear on
in the Tournament rules. Next year may have a floating table, at the least it
will be discussed. With the experience we gained from this year's tourney,
next year we will improve on these areas now that we have a better idea what
to expect.
> I assume that the distance between any two
> last turn. Which makes nice aim points for SMLs, and is a mental aid
A man after my own heart. The people I used to play with thought it was funny
when I put dice out there to mark all the possible locations of their
dreadnoughts. But the dreadnoughts usually took a beating.
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Huh? Three digit speeds. . .100 inches on an 8' table puts you 28
Forget the table. There is no table in space. The table is just a convenience
for the *players*.
> What's the point in that?
There's no shooting during movement in FT. Two ships, 40" away, facing head
on, with 40" speeds will not be able to shoot at each other (assuming
max cl-3 beams) even though the pass within a hair's breadth. There are
a number of uses for this.
Well, let's try this for size: Your vanilla sensor range is 72", IIRC. By
hitting three-digit-speeds, you can be on top of a well-known enemy
(space stations, docked ships, ships in orbit etc.) without giving them any
time to react.
More generally, "strike" type ships armed with close-in weaponry
(especially the one-shot variety) want to spend as little time in their
enemies' generally longer effective range as possible. Once your speed exceeds
the weapon ranges by a fair margin, you become a rather difficult beast to
hit.
A very simple example: You want to hit a station with sub-pack armed
strike ships. Assume the station has class-3 beams, max range 36". You
have thrust 8. What you DON'T want to do is start at the table edge with a
lame 10" speed or something. You start out 117" away at standstill, step on
the accelerator and full thrust until you're 37" (spd 32") away. All this time
he can't shoot at you. Then reduce accel to 4", move to 1" away (spd 36"),
fire and on your next turn hit the pedal again moving well out
of range before he gets another shot -- thus eliminating any advantage
he'd get from having longer-range guns. Take the range farther out and
the speeds much higher, and you're likely to largely bypass any defending
fleet. There's infinite room for a running start in space.
Ofcourse it's a bit harder to do with a moving target, but the basic principle
remains the same: The higher the pass speed, the less time he has to shoot at
you while jockey for position. I could imagine a
high-thrust, lots of class-1 beams ship built to do something like this.
It doesn't even have to work. Just possibility that it *might* work will
encourage someone to *try* to pull it off, resulting in a game about as fun as
having your teeth pulled ("My ship is looping around your neighbor's front
lawn for another attack pass").
A couple of weeks ago we tested the FB with a NAC vs. FSE fight. FSE
capitals notoriously lack class-3's so when the situation got tight, the
FSE players remembering the old golden rule of "all A-batts or death"
wanted to fly off-board and build enough speed so they could pass
through
the 24-36" range band without getting shot at. We discussed the issue
and finally convinced them not to try such a lame tactic. They ended up
winning anyway...
Or maybe your goal is to exit ships intact off the defender's table edge...
the higher the speeds get, the more glaring is FT's lack of shots
_en_passant_.
> And what's that
Why leave it at that? You could mark *all* the possible locations of
*all*
the ships. You could do statistical analysis on weapon fire exchange from each
of the possible position combinations. You could do that for all possibilities
two turns away. Three turns away. Four turns away. Five turns away (and take
Monday off work). Etc. ad nauseum. This is basically how chess computers work,
and they're pretty darn good these days. Why not use the same tactic to WIN?
I for one want to finish the game before midnight more than I want to win.
Therefore I don't do quite everything I legally could to maximize my
chances, playing "seat-of-pants" instead.
> >mindset of some gamers. The guy had even built a weapon system around
> the >FTL-out-near-other-ships bug...
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Have you read the article? The
proposed weapon system consisted of "missiles", essentially mass 2 (?) (robot)
ships with nothing but drives. You'd launch them and have them hit FTL in the
midst of a dense enemy formation.
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Congratulations to the mailing list's Sean Schoonmaker, winner of
Way to go Schoon! Congrats!
Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > What's the point in that?
Yes, but they'd involve taking advantage of rules. In RL (or what would pass
for), you could fire as you passed.
> Well, let's try this for size: Your vanilla sensor range is 72",
And I'd probably court martial the captain whose ship speed exceeded the
sphere of his own sensor capability. That's just plain stupid, unless you have
current recon from someone else.
> Ofcourse it's a bit harder to do with a moving target, but the basic
That's because of the incremental nature of the game. If things were
continuous instead of discrete turns, you'd modify course and fire on the fly
thus negating this 'ploy'.
> It doesn't even have to work. Just possibility that it *might* work
ROTFL
> Or maybe your goal is to exit ships intact off the defender's table
True enough.
> I for one want to finish the game before midnight more than I want
There can be a happy medium. The question is does it matter more if you win or
have fun? I know my answer:)
> You wrote:
> Why leave it at that? You could mark *all* the possible locations of
Classic reducto ad absurdum. It's fun, easy, and still was a fallacy last time
I checked.
Realistically, measuring two ships and putting down two dice during the
plotting phase isn't going to slow you down that much. Seems to me you're
looking to poke holes in the rules. Fine. If that gives you pleasure, so be
it. But people who play like that don't play with me. Since I'm usually the
one running the game, I can throw assholes out. If not, I throw myself out. I
deal with assholes at work, and I refuse
to do so on my spare time. Mini-maxing, rules-lawyering jackasses like
the members of this list frequently discuss come under the heading of "People
I don't permit at my gaming table". See also: Persons with little to no
comprehension of deoderant. Gaming is a social leisure activity. If I'm not
having fun through interacting with other people, there ain't much of a point
in continuing to do so.
> Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Have you read the article? The
Oooh. Now there's a fun game. NOT. Solution: FTL engines just don't work in
gravity well of star. Hence 99% of engagements this won't work. The 6" rule is
for engagements outside gravity well of star.
> Mikko wrote:
> > Huh? Three digit speeds. . .100 inches on an 8' table puts you 28
Sure. Use vector movement and do a Galilean transformation of the speeds
instead - assuming that both fleets have matched vectors reasonably.
I've reached speeds of 200+ in this way <shrug>
> > What's the point in that?
Worse still - 54".
> By
Yes. This is a valid strike tactic as long as you have unlimited thrust (ie,
no limits on reaction mass etc) used, or at least used as a threat, in several
military SF novels, eg Weber's Harrington series. The
Harrington battle - the defenders went out to meet the attackers in deep
space (at horrendous odds, too) rather than allow them to build up speed
for a high-speed missile strike against the orbital installations - is a
good example of fleets flying toward (and through) each other at high
speed as well - the entire battle lasted about two minutes, and most of
that time was spent on firing missiles (probably SMBs, which can hit in the
situation you described).
> Of course it's a bit harder to do with a moving target, but the basic
If your maximum ship-based sensor range is a puny 54 mu, it will be
rather difficult (not to say bloody impossible) to pull this one off, unless
you manage to keep a scout ship close to (within sensor range of) the enemies
to guide the strike in... without having it destroyed. If (as I assume)
planetary sensors have (much) longer ranges, the defenders could do this kind
of attacks against a mobile invader, but the opposite would be bloody hard.
> The higher the pass speed, the less time he
Again a valid SF tactic - Poul Anderson's "Time Lag" (in an antology
called "Space Dreadnoughts") describes such a battle, for example. And no, it
wasn't fun at all for the slow fleet. The other side did whatever they could
to win the war...
No, it doesn't make a very fun game - but I don't find it "cheesy". Ask
your enemy to explain how he could determine the position of your fleet
with enough accuracy to do a high-speed run <g>
> > And what's that
> > to ship movement plotting.
But Mikko, why do you think John does mark the destination points of the enemy
heavies? This is basically what any ship's tactical computers do anyway... so
why shouldn't the admiral have the same advantage?
Later,
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:38:07 -0400 (EDT), MFaircl201@aol.com wrote:
> I'm new to full thrust although I've played DS2 and SG2 a bit. I'd be
Dean is posting those. The neat thing about them is that while Dean did a good
job of keeping them relatively well balanced, he didn't HAVE to keep them TOO
well balanced. Since the players picked their own fleets, part of the skill of
the tournament was recognizing a good fleet from the record sheets.
> also would like to hear more about the linked SG2 game..i've ran a
You'd want to talk to someone who played the first and third scenarios. In the
second scenario, our mission was to either photograph or destroy three
bunkers. The scenario as written was unwinnable, so the ref changed the
criteria part way through. In the end we took out two bunkers, which was a
draw. Those two bunkers were destroyed in the third scenario, based on what
our group did.
This kind of scenario is tricky. It's one thing to have a balanced scenario
from the get-go, but it's much harder when the results of an earlier
scenario set up the current scenario. What happens if one side in the first
game does
pitifully bad? They could mess up so horribly that the follow-on
scenarios are impossible to win.
Of course, one way around this is to cheat. After all, the idea is to have a
good game. If the results from an earlier game are out of whack, give one side
a few more reinforcements, an extra minefield, or a tank or two. The fact is,
no one needs to know! You do have to make sure that the game plays quite a bit
different based on the results of a previous game. The players have to have
the fell (illusion?) that the earlier game makes a difference.
If someone can post the SG2 scenarios from GenCon that would be cool.
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:04:56 -0600, dean.gundberg@bcbsnd.com wrote:
> This is one area (and there are others) that we could have been more
Considering this was our first time, the tournament played reasonably well. I
have no problems keeping the table static (i.e. not floating). It tends to
keep speeds down to more managable levels and stops more arguments than it
causes (for instance, what if the fleets are spread out and you CAN'T float
the table because it would push the fleet on the other side of the table out
of bounds?). Sure, in space there are no speed or battlefield limits, but
there ARE limits on fuel that we don't worry about. I can live with a finite
battlefield as an abstraction of fuel usage.
It's something to consider, though, including the move to FT2.5 rules
and/or
vector movement (I like the idea of having an FT2 and an FTFB tournament,
actually).
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Which is exactly my point: The game's believability breaks down when you
encounter these "in real life this would be a really stupid thing to do, but
the rules let me get away with it and even benefit from it" things.
Let me offer an analogy.
It is technically possible to fly ships at any speed in FT. However, I claim
that the game's playability starts to seriously break down when speeds exceed
weapon ranges.
Likewise, you could technically play out the entire battle of Kursk using
Advanced Squad Leader. However, I don't think you can find a single sane
person thinking 200,000+ counters will not have impact on playability.
Except maybe Ãrjan.
[Pre-measuring]
> There can be a happy medium. The question is does it matter more if
Unfortunately, some people can only have fun by winning.
Yes, it is a question of drawing the line. I find the easiest line to define
is the most strict. Others may disagree, use whatever your group is
happy with -- just be prepared for the occasion when someone stretches
your practices to the utmost limit.
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Classic reducto ad absurdum. It's fun, easy, and still was a fallacy
It is fallacy only wrt "*must* lead to X", not wrt "CAN lead to X".
> Realistically, measuring two ships and putting down two dice during
> Since I'm usually the one running the game, I can throw assholes out.
> If not, I throw myself out. I deal with assholes at work, and I
Strange. Everytime I try to raise discussion on possible rules abuses,
eventually I get accused of actually using them in a game (I'll ignore the
deodorant bit). Aw shuck, I give up.
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Sure. Use vector movement and do a Galilean transformation of the
When I speak of FT without mentioning otherwise, I speak of vanilla FT as
written, which means cinematic movement among other things (and no fuel
limits). Vector movement does change things a bit, and the discussion should
then be about relative speeds.
> If your maximum ship-based sensor range is a puny 54 mu, it will be
Actually, it'll probably happen just the other way -- heavy sluggers
remain in close-ish contact while small, fast strike ships loop for
high-speed attack passes (which is one of the few ways to survive a FT
battle in small ships).
It's also relatively easy to predict the location of relatively slow
opponents -- and as I said, just *trying* to pull it off destroys much
of the fun value in the game.
> No, it doesn't make a very fun game - but I don't find it "cheesy".
I guess this is the heart of the argument: Is it more important to have a
fun game or a realistic simulation/high-strung competition?
> Ask
Actually, if you include strategic movement, absurdly high velocities are more
likely to become a *deterrant* to attack, especially with vector movement. It
easily becomes impossible to match vector in open space,
meaning that the only actual battles are high-speed attack passes
against space stations and such. It could soon become like playing Global
Thermonuclear War: "You shoot your ballistic missiles against which I can do
preciously little, roll damage. Then my missiles hit your cities, I roll
damage. We both die, end of game."
> But Mikko, why do you think John does mark the destination points of
My desktop computer could easily pre-calculate all the possible
positions of all the ships half a dozen "turns" in advance. Presumably the
tactical
computers of 22nd century are somewhat more advanced -- if that's your
reason for allowing pre-plotting, it is not a reason to stop at just a
few ships or just one turn ahead.
I don't think that John (over)does that -- I am concerned what he tells
to the player he might meet some day who wants to do that. How does he
explain that one is allowed to pre-calculate N ships M turns in advance
but not N+1 ships or M+1 turns in advance? Does he even have set limits
for M and N?
(A chess clock is one answer, but penalizes players who are simply
clumsy/slow/careful moving their ships)
> You wrote:
> Strange. Everytime I try to raise discussion on possible rules abuses,
Not you per se, but anyone who abuses rules, gets pitched. Building
the perfect air-tight rule system is impossible, especially when it's
as flexible as GZG products are supposed to be. So you exercise control at the
umpire and player level. That's the only 100% solution I can come up with.
> You wrote:
> I don't think that John (over)does that -- I am concerned what he
I reach across the table, smack him soundly, and institute a 1 minute plot
clock. If a turn is 15 seconds, he shouldn't have much more than
snap decision-making time anyway. I'll then spend 15 seconds plotting
two or three ships as they would be if unchanged, and plot my entire fleet
based on that in the next 15. I'm big on remaining in
formation--but then again, a lot of my opponents use a lot of fighters,
so if I don't keep the escorts doing the same thing my capitals are, I'm
doomed.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Actually, if you include strategic movement, absurdly high velocities
...Snip... JTL
Suggestion/possible solution:
Only allow firing to occur if the target ship has been identified as something
other than a 'blip' at the atart of the attacking ships
movement/turn.
Bye for now,
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Not you per se, but anyone who abuses rules, gets pitched. Building
> I can come up with.
In my experience the gaming fun value is much higher if everyone shares the
same "vision" of how the game should be played. As I've yet to meet a gamer
with significant telepathic ability, this can only be achieved if everyone
knows the rules and conventions beforehand.
That's why I take (some say perverse) pleasure in finding rule oddities and
loopholes and plugging them *before* they show up in a real game.
Sometimes it's a genuine loophole, sometimes I/we just don't quite share
the author's vision. And yes, that includes writing the amendments down
*exactly* and informing the players beforehand, instead of randomly whacking
people who cross some fuzzy line during a game (we can't usually spare an
umpire anyway, so objective calls during play are hard to achieve).