What about limiting Grazers to the larger sizes -
"Even the UN has not been able to miniaturise the grazer system limiting its
installition to larger vessels".
So there might not be a class-1 or even a class-2
grazer, they would start at class 2 or even 3.
This will start a lot of whining and a little confusion though.
I just want a big ass beam weapon for capital ships
that is a less cinematic than the Nova Cannon - which
does make a nice anti-fighter weapon, especially if
you have several ships with these 'fighter brooms'.
A lot of discussion on this list seems to be favouring the smaller ships at
the expense of the heavies. So here is a dissadent opinion.
At the moment big ships are more efficent than small ones, surely this is a
good thing to help combat mosquito fleets? Small ships should go 'pop' easily,
the more rows of hull boxes they have the better -
they are going to degrade very quickly if they start taking hits.
At the same time we don't want ridiculously large ships, if a fleet has just
one mass 500 ship then something is badly wrong.
You have heavies to form a solid line of battle, not particularly fast or
agile but capable of taking and dishing out damage wholesale. Then lighter
ships for other missions and to help defend the fleet against fighters and
other small ships.
If small ships go to near the heavies they may die
very quickly - unless the fleet is heavily engaged
with your own heavies.
This is what I think the game should be like, is it anything like this for
other people or are my biases overwhelming any natural inclinations in the FT
game itself?
> --- Michael Robert Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com> wrote:
Woo-Hoo!
> At the same time we don't want ridiculously large
Unless your setting has everyone with TMF 500 capitals. It's only problem when
one side shows up with 1 or 2 ships equal to the
other's 10-20. Or 50.
<snip description of battle>
> This is what I think the game should be like, is it
That is the way we see it also.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> This is what I think the game should be like, is it
Indeed, this is always as I've seen FT. I've always vaguely been of the
opinion that a small ship's conventional weapons (beams, phaser-1s,
whatever you're using the class-1 or 2 icons for on the SSDs...)
shouldn't be a serious threat to a big capital /full stop/. Your
conventional escorts should be trying to hold off the unconventional
ones, mounting P-Ts or, these days, graser-1s.
> Michael Robert Blair wrote:
> At the same time we don't want ridiculously large
Since the Fleet Book ship design system encourages just that - fleets
consisting of very few, extremely large ships - something appearently
*is*
badly wrong with it. My question to you then becomes: should we leave it
badly wrong in this way, or should we try to do something about it?
> You have heavies to form a solid line of battle, not
The problem is that with the current Fleet Book rules those "other missions"
rarely appear in gaming, and heavier ships are generally more help than
lighter ones when defending the fleet against fighters and light
ships :-(
Regards,
Perhaps a campain system of some kind?
(I think this thought came up before -- must check the archives.)
At least a campain system would force economic limits on big ships.
For "one off" battles, there is nothing to stop that sort of play. (Outside of
homebrew rules of course.)
Another thought just occured: Something someone said in history (I forget
who...) "You can't legistlate morality."
A prime example of this: The American illegalization of Booze in the
'20s-'30s.
This lead to the rise of illegal bars, "bootleg" booze. Of course the criminal
eliments organized themselves to supply the demand. What started as an attempt
to "dry out" the country, ended up giving us worse
criminals to deal with.
How does this relate? All of the reasons that a fleet command wouldn't build
such "uber ships"
mostly exist outside the scope of the FT game. (Perhaps St.Jon could create
another game to include those "natural factors" that would interface with his
other games?)
Deturmined players are going to go off and do what they like with it anyway. I
hope FT doesn't try to limit the players. ( I remember SFB staff saying "If
you are not playing the game the way we intended it, you are breaking
the"warenty". oy!)
Ok, dispite what I just said, some things can be done for those "one offs".
If you have reasonable players, the build system as is will work fine. If not,
you could tweek the hull costs, or simulate a campain...(Use some random
rolls, and tables?)
Or use pre-game agreements...
Just some thoughts.
Donald Hosford
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Michael Robert Blair wrote: