[GZG] FT Light: 5 is the new 6?

In Full Thrust 2nd Ed 1992, half the thrust rating rounded UP could be used
for changing course.

In Fleet Book 1 1998, it became half the thrust rounded DOWN.

Now in Full Thrust Light 2008, it's back to UP.

I don't have any strong opinion either way (unlike my other posting on FT
Light), but I'm curious as to why it changed. Synchronisation with the orbit
of Jupiter?

cheers,

> In Full Thrust 2nd Ed 1992, half the thrust rating

Mainly for simplification; going back to the original means that we no longer
have to have a special exception to the rule to cover
thrust-1 ships. It also makes odd-thrust ships a little more agile
again, which is probably a good thing.

In general, Simple = Good, provided "simple" does not become
"simplistic"....  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> cheers,

Hmm...this could be a lot of fun.

  Jason

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOnl
y...four pages? Must be something wrong! Isn't bigger = better? Â Printing it
now...

F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr.Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at
TexasBestGrok!

> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jason Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT Light: 5 is the new 6?
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 10:26 AM

Hmm...this could be a lot of fun.

  Jason

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Jason Weiser wrote:

I'm inclined to agree. It'll have a positive effect on ship designs. You

can turn 3 points with only a thrust of 5. Ships that pay the extra mass

for thrust 6 will likely become less common and creating more variation.

This will be good.

Man this would be funny if the irony wasn't so painful.  :-)

Back in the day when I was designing a fleet and attendant doctrine I was
going by the "round up" rule for turns, so I did what I considered the most
logical thing to do, which was give all my ships an odd thrust rating. When
asked about it I said truthfully that I did it to get the extra turn as my
doctrine was designed for maneuverability,
and lots of short-range firepower at the expense of no long-range
firepower.   I was then roundly criticized and castigated for being
"cheesy", etc, etc, etc.   Not needing any further headaches I pretty
much shelved my FT plans and moved on to other things.

Ah well, such is life.  :-)

Bill

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Michael Llaneza
> <maserati@speakeasy.net> wrote:
You
> can turn 3 points with only a thrust of 5. Ships that pay the extra

> On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Bill Brush wrote:

> Man this would be funny if the irony wasn't so painful. :-)

Consider yourself ahead of your time.

Sounds like powergaming to me. I'll bet you're one of those cheesy guys who
put weapons on your ships too.

People powergame in real life. At least, if they're smart they do. It only
becomes a problem in gaming if you have some weird lopsided design that
clearly is an artifact of the rules and has no real life viability.

> On 7/27/08, Bill Brush <bbrush@gmail.com> wrote:
You
> > can turn 3 points with only a thrust of 5. Ships that pay the extra

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
agree here. You used the system to your advantage. In real life, designers of
weapons are going to push the envelope and find the savings in weight and
component space if they can. All you did was find a way to
do this in the game and nothing kept your friends/opponents from doing
the same, so who are they to criticize.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

-Eli

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>

> Sounds like powergaming to me. I'll bet you're one of those cheesy
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:

Honestly it's pretty much par for the course. Take any sort of homebrew into a
gaming club or store to play the canon forces in any sort of "competitive"
game and 90% of the time you'll get a negative reaction unless the canon
forces just clean house with the homebrew. At this point I can't even say it
really surprises me. Most gamers don't want to "push the envelope" and that's
probably just as well as you will rapidly break games if you get into an arms
race. It does tend to make things a tad frustrating for those of us who are
habitually unsatisfied with stuff "out of the box."

After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the WWII Germans
"cheesy" because they have more heavily armored tanks, plus I played American
so the equipment is mediocre at best. Now I'm mostly retired from mini gaming,
so things are much easier since the computer never complains that I'm not
playing fair.

Bill

But you must remember that the payback would be when this Thrust-5 Drive
takes its Thresthold (or Needle Beam) hit. Then the Thrust-5 is halved
rounded-DOWN to Thrust-2 with just 1 point of Maneuverability.

Say Hello, HMS Sitting Duck.

-jerry
> ------------------------------
<072820082033.9184.488E2D2D000D666D000023E02207300033CFCDCFCD9A030A@comc
ast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> only becomes a problem in gaming if you have some weird lopsided

> > and lots of short-range firepower at the expense of no long-range

> > much shelved my FT plans and moved on to other things.
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >

> -------------- next part --------------
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/private/gzg-l/att
achments/20080728/fff184d3/attachment.htm
> ------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFun
ny thing is, I have had this very arguement thrown at me. I have been called
cheesy for picking Germans. I was called cheesy for picking the army with the
biggest baddest guns and troops. I was like "huh". The British player in our
group is constantly whining because he can't beat a Tiger and I've only
fielded one once. Most of the time I field Panzer III & IVs because I can
field moreo f them for the same points and they do the job. The other players
in the group keep telling him to just avoid my Tiger and force me to waste the
points if I field one.

-Eli

> After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the WWII

> Germans "cheesy" because they have more heavily armored tanks, plus I

> never complains that I'm not playing fair.

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:47 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:

Someone needs to get a grip. The Germans did have better armor, and if he
can't beat it then he needs to review historical tactics on how they beat
them. Tigers weren't the "I win" button.

Honestly I'd would (and have) just refuse to play with him any more. Life is
too short to put up with people who whine over a recreation activity. See my
previous comment about the computer not complaining about my tactics.

Bill

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Bill Brush <bbrush@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:

And then there's the "we didn't think of it, so we don't like being exposed to
it" attitude some groups tend to get. <shrug>

> After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the WWII
keep my opponents on their toes, and 2) remind them to NOT get fixated on the
thing. Over time, they have learned. Nowadays it's more trouble than what it's
worth to field a Tiger. But I'll still do it, because 3) it's also a tactical
challenge for the German to utilize properly.

Mk

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Honestly it's pretty much par for the course. Take any sort of

I would say most groups have a certain amount of stagnation and they dislike
being disturbed.

> After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the

No, I have not heard good things about FoW. From what little I've
seen it's more like a historical-ish game which subscribes to the
GW/40K business model of frequent updates, lots of books, and special
rules. In internet parlance it gets a TLDR from me.

> I have heard many people cry

This is the kind of thing I have heard, and these are the kinds of incidents
that would prevent me from ever playing it. I prefer games based on historical
forces and from what I understand with FoW those are a rarity. Honestly though
I have little patience with anyone who is going to complain about the person
across the table from them. Life is too short.

Bill

We can't get rid of him. He's a friend and kind of stuck with him. We simply
make fun of him and mock him for his whining. It works out for all parties. He
gets to whine and we get to make him feel like an ass for doing so and for not
listening to the countless times we have pointed out the obvious.

-Eli

> Someone needs to get a grip. The Germans did have better armor, and

> On 7/29/08, Bill Brush <bbrush@gmail.com> wrote:

> After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the WWII

Nah, you just need to play the Americans with historical levels of air support
and artillery, and then you'll get all sorts of accusations.

> On 7/29/08, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hah! Have you played Flames of War? I have heard many people cry

I will say as a caveat that it's not putting a heavy tank or heavy tank
destroyer on the field, it's the way some players want to field them. A full
strength Heavy Panzerjaeger Battalion is about 30 vehicles. I've seen more of
certain models on the table than were produced in reality. And King Tigers...
Don't get me started. But that was in Command Decision games.

> "cheese" cry in the groups I play with, but not very often. I hear it

If they are playing Western allies and they DON'T have a fighterbomber with 5"
rockets specifically for that reason, they have forgotten how that war was
fought historically.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 7/29/08, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

(now where IS that pesky "get John started" button hiding...  ;-) )

> > "cheese" cry in the groups I play with, but not very often. I hear

A lot of them have. A lot of them are re-learning.

Who said history doesn't teach? :-)

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't field my Tigers very often, ...

No sir. Just every Monday and Wednesday evening.;)

D.