[GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

18 posts ยท Jun 18 2006 to Oct 27 2006

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@g...>

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:24:21 +1000

Subject: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Hi Mark,

I got back home and dug out my scenario notes. They were pretty rough, so I
edited them into a standard format for printing on A4 paper. Then I realised
that while they would makes sense to a veteran Seastrike admiral, the whole
thing would be a bit obscure for anyone else, so I wrote some guidance notes
on how these scenarios are supposed to be used.

Anyway... I've put the document up as a.pdf file on my web space:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~rbryett/

Click on the Belt Wars link to download the file. Any comments would be
gratefully received, and I'll do my best to answer any questions. I'd love to
hear from anyone who playtests.

Best regards, Robert Bryett

> On 11/06/2006, at 3:33 AM, Mark & Staci Drake wrote:

> Hi Robert,

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:19:51 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Thanks, Robert! I believe I have your cards sitting somewhere on a server hard
drive, but don't think it had explanatory notes.

One of my great joys on the list was having my supposition that the SSD's of
FT were at least influenced, and I think inspired, by SeaStrike. My
other suppositions of the twelve point movement/fire rosette inspired by
the SFB-modified GameScience ship bases (flat wrong),and of the 'dead'
fire arc being related to Starfire (unknown, as it was a fan suggestion)
leaves
me at only batting three-thirty.

Isn't it wonderful how convergent evolution draws us into crazy conspiracy
theories? ;->=

The_Beast

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:36:42 -0600

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

My scenario cards (not sure if they are still on the net) were inspired by
GDW's Battleriders, which in turn were inspired by Sea Strike (I have a copy
about somewhere).

I'll send anyone a copy (Word) that asks.

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:01:53 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Hmmm... I'll have to dig the file out; may well be yours instead...

If so, now I'll have two!

The_Beast

Mr. Brown wrote on 06/18/2006 08:36:42 PM:

> My scenario cards (not sure if they are still on the net) were
***massive snippage***

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@g...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:57:20 +1000

Subject: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

I'm planning a reorganization of my rather lame personal web space. A few
months ago, I put up on that space a.pdf document containing notes on my "Belt
Wars" project to adapt the old Seastrike scenarios to FT2.5. I haven't done
anything with it for a while now, and I've never received any feedback (even
from those list members who requested that I write it up in the first place),
so I rather assume I might as well take it down. At the end of the month, say?

If anyone still wants a copy, they can get it here:

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:20:22 -0600

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

I did that years ago:) (actually a rework of SeaStrike and BattleRiders). I'll
forward the Word doc to you directly.

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:48:15 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Thanks, Robert! I didn't find a copy in my files, so I stuck in the folder
with Michael Brown's similar attempt.

One thing: he followed the attacker-defender format of Seastrike. I
think yours could be similarly divided. He didn't try to do a direct
translation of Seastrike's cards, if I recall correctly.

I'll remind you that Jon has already admitted he was inspired by Seastrike
when he created the FTII ship displays; you are hardly alone in your
admiration and fond memories.

Michael: did get your version moved to drawable cards, but without the
weird green. ;->= I never did get a game run using them randomly as
intended, but they did influence some initial game conditions the few times we
did something other than standard meeting engagements. Your work was not in
vain.

The_Beast

Robert wrote on 10/25/2006 06:57:20 PM:

> I'm planning a reorganization of my rather lame personal

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Michael: I just remembered when looking back at my copy. D13 ends with 'Select
another Attack Mission Card.' Typo, right?

The_Beast

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:16:10 -0600

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

I think that was an "enhancement" that was done for the web site (can't
remember whose). I think the intent was to mix things up a little more giving
both side the possibility of using Attacker missions and forces

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:18:12 -0600

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Doug (Beast), I'll send you the Word doc. I can't remember who hosted these on
the web with the randomizer interface. I think I did these over 10 years ago.

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:39:50 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Thanks, Michael!

Also noticed my 'He didn't try to do a direct translation of Seastrike's
cards, if I recall correctly.' should have had your '...adapted these from the
missions in Battle Rider (from GDW) which in turn had adapted their missions
from Sea Strike...'

While not wrong, I was inexact. ;->=

The_Beast

From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@g...>

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:13:07 +1000

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Seastrike did not have an "attacker-defender" format. The random
drawing of objectives, and the option of changing from primary to secondary
objective (where permitted) meant that either, both or neither player(s) could
be "the attacker" at different points in the game.

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:18:40 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Obviously, my fond memories are in error. ;->=

The_Beast

Robert wrote on 10/26/2006 09:13:07 AM:

> Seastrike did not have an "attacker-defender" format. The random

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:27:13 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Whoops; you mention WRG, which created a booklet for miniatures, right? I was
thinking of the same name, but a board game by Ariel.

I guess I'll have to dig both out before my brains blow up with the
confusion. ;->=

The_Beast

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:23:15 +0100

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

> Whoops; you mention WRG, which created a booklet for miniatures, right?
I
> was thinking of the same name, but a board game by Ariel.

WRG published the original version of Seastrike, in a card wallet
folder, but still with all the important components we remember - the
cards, the write-on ship counters, the islands, the clear range ruler
etc. It was supposed to be played with the counters, but of course
ship minis (1/2400 or so) could be substituted easily.

Later on, Ariel re-released it as a boxed version, but still the same
game; I don't recall there being any significant changes between the two apart
from packaging and a couple of economies of production: I think the islands
were now paper cutouts that you had to colour yourself (if you wanted to), and
the objectives were no longer supplied already in individual envelopes.

I never had the original WRG version, but a friend did, and we had

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:04:35 -0500

Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

Jon wrote on 10/27/2006 06:23:15 AM:

***snippage***
> Later on, Ariel re-released it as a boxed version, but

Roger; I still think there's a rules booklet similarly titled, but haven't
found it in the piles in the basement.

I did find the Ariel, and no, no attacker/defender, or as Battle Rider
has
it, red-intruder, blue-native.  It's Michael's fault; his set made such
an
impression, that it was what I was thinking of... ;->=

So the WRG ships were drawn with the military-style symbology?

The_Beast

From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:38:41 -0600

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

So it's all my fault!

My minor contribution in 11 years on the list

:)

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:46:12 -0500

Subject: RE: [GZG] [FT] Belt Wars (Was: Seastrike scenarios to Full Thrust???).

So, you like being praised with faint damnations? Nothing to be sheepish
about.

The_Beast

The Guilty Party wrote on 10/27/2006 07:38:41 AM:

> So it's all my fault!