If one wanted to make a full strategic campaign set in the Full Thrust
universe, what game would you use?
I'm currently examining one called Victory by Any Means Campaign Guide
http://www.vbamgames.com/products/
which looks quite good. However I have not actually played a game using it.
I did have fun back in 1977 with an out of print game called Star Empires
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/13415
but that game has some serious problems. Nothing that can't be fixed, but it
needs some play testing
and tweaking before it is playable. But while
I have a copy, it is almost impossible to find.
I suppose a game like Stellar Conquest could be adapted. However, it has a
very simplistic technology and economic model, and is also very out of print.
Any others?
I'd use a variant of Fifth Frontier War (or Pocket Empires). I have always
felt FT was Traveller lite
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> I'm currently examining one called
Roger seemed quite pleased by it, when last we heard. I have a copy and it
looks reasonable but I haven't actually quite gotten around to putting
together a campaign
> I'd use a variant of Fifth Frontier War (or Pocket Empires). I have
The Trillion Credit Squadron system has been reproduced in Power Projection
(not PP:Escort).
The economics are in Pocket Empires. I would think that a limited resource
campaign would be easier (i.e. fixed fleets with limited
repair/replacement/reinforcement) along the lines of a single subsector
or theater.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
I've been toying with the idea of using Dark Nebula as a basis for a campaign
game. I thought using 4 or more of the randomly placed geomorphic
(astromorphic?) maps would make it more interesting. The ship design could be
adapted from PP. Has anyone tried this?
> At 10:56 AM 4/22/2006, you wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> john tailby wrote:
> winner is the one with the most money (Kind of like playing acquire
> same? In our campaigns we have strategic speed proportional to main
Very good questions.
I see room for two types of strategic games.
One is the simplistic superficial kind who's basic focus is to generate
scenarios for Full Thrust games.
The other would be an in-depth economic, production,
and perhaps technological research game, where minor battles could be replaced
by a simplistic
non-miniatures combat resolution and only
major battles fought with miniatures.
Hi Nyrath,
I'm currently running a campaign using Stellar Conquest for the strategic side
of things. It seems to be working very well (we're up to turn
12/13,
having started in late December/January - I project that it will take
about a year to run to turn 44 and THE END).
Yes, the tech and economics are simple (we still haven't quite worked out the
time span of the strategic moves, though somewhere between three months and a
year seems to fit) but as the objective of the campaign is to provide table
top battles, this fits in fine.
One player has already discovered the error of not going for three hex FTL
movement early on (as the other three of us did) and I understand the Japanese
intend going to four hex movement this build phase (assuming he gets his
orders in before the cold death of the universe).
As player/umpire, I have taken a leaf from the 5th Frontier War book and
preplot my moves about three turns out. I borrowed Sean Schoonmaker's
system of Captain/Admiral ratings (posted to this list some years back)
and so have forced the other players to preplot a bit as well (which means I
can also move the game forward a couple of turns at a time if things are
quiet).
It depends on the depth of modeling you wish to go to. As my group are all
busy folks and game infrequently (and one is in another city), skating over
the nitty gritty of polical factions and intricate economic modeling suites us
fine as we want to push some lead around on the table top, and yet have the
illusion that there is something deeper going on behind the scenes.
For example, having created levels of expertise for my captains and admirals,
I also gave them names (and have encouraged the other players to do likewise),
and so suddenly my battle reports become a lot more
interesting when the famous Vitse-admiral Zhou, victor of the Battles of
1st and 2nd Dubhe, and his mighty 3rd Fleet are mentioned. And who can forget
the unfortunate Kapitan Zaneta Ma, commander of 4th Fleet, who led her command
straight into the jaws of a Kra'Vak Huntergroup at Spica, tried to turn and
run, and was then vapourised without firing a shot? Or Huntleader Da'Tah of
the 2nd Host of the Kra'Fas'Kon (thanks to Beth Fulton and Brian Bell for
notes on Kra'Vak language) who at Schedar was so intent on protecting his
precious fighters, that he allowed the Hu'mans to destroy the Heavy Destroyer
Ru'Na and pummel the Heavy Destroyer Doa'Tat before finishing them off like
the space lice they were? (The NSL admiral at Schedar, Vettinghoff, has had a
carrier postumously named after him by a grateful populace. NSL High Command
are convinced that it was the nasty ESU who wiped out the NSL ships at
Schedar. As no NSL ships have survived an encounter with the KV, this is an
understandable mistake, as the KV are the hidden fifth power in the campaign,
based right in the centre of the
map!)
In the end, it comes down to the time and effort you have to spend on a
campaign, and whether it is sustainable for your players. SC provides battles,
and, with minimal effort, a nice narrative flow. I can keep all the records in
a simple Excel workbook (which I can use to generate player reports) and every
few turns I add to my campaign log so at the end we will all have a story of
what happened. Works for me!:)
David
> From: Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@projectrho.com>
> David Billinghurst wrote:
For easily generating scenarios, this arrangement seems ideal.
Hi Nyrath,
> Did you use Stellar Conquest's economic system to allow the
Yes and yes (which also explains my fuzziness over the strategic move time
duration).
Every four turns I run a build phase, as per Stellar Conquest, where I tot up
the Industrial points generated by planetary population and industrialization
(ie factory units purchased), modified by whether a colony is on a mineral
rich world or not. This generates Industrial Points which can be spent on
Technology (Ship Speed as per SC, Weapons Research as per SC, and Tech
Research as per SC), Items (such as Colony Transports, Factorys, Robotic
Factories, Planetary Defence Units, Advanced Planetary
Defence Units, Planetary Shields - all as per SC and all dependant on
having the required tech research levels) or Ships.
With ships I was trying to strike a balance which gave players ALMOST the
ships they wanted (in numbers), without having runaway fleets.
Basically, they could either buy off the peg (FB1, the various Beta Fleets) or
design their own. As the players were starting new into FT, they tended to go
for off the peg, though the Japanese player has developed his own
Heavy Missile Cruisers (which first saw action at 2nd Dubne) - and as a
keen student of WWII Pacific Naval Warfare, his concepts tended to merge with
the 'feel' of the Japanese Beta Fleet.
Basically, I worked out that one Stellar Conquest Industrial Point equalled 63
Full Thrust points. The reasoning behind this is now a little fuzzy, though
went something along the lines that a SC Scout cost three IP and, given the
coarseness of the SC scale, this probably actually represented something like
a flight of nine FT scouts when it came to exploring a star system. As 50% of
the listed scouts in FB1 cost 21 points each, three of them equal 63 points or
1 IP.
Players started with 2000 Full Thrust points of ships (plus four Scout Troops
of 9 scouts) and could buy as many ships as they had IP every four turns
(during the production phase), which could include replacement scouts.
Obviously, with the attractions of tech development and colonists,
no-one to
date has gone for a complete ship build.
Also, as ship cost doesn't work out exactly in the 1 to 63 conversion, I have
allowed partial builds, though the partially built ship is not useable until
completed, but are notedon the player's turn report.
Planetary defence units are basically BDN type weapons platforms which can't
manoeuver or FTL, while Advanced Planetary Defence Units are SDN type weapons
platforms. This makes them beatable, but expensive to shift at near equal
numbers (as I think I'm about to discover at Cephei when 2nd Fleet goes in to
take out the NSL command post. I hadn't anticipated the NSL
player tossing a PDU into orbit so soon - darn, pre-plotted moves!).
I use the SC card system to determine basic star system composition. As I also
use Roger West's method for determining where in a system a battle takes
place, I tend to flesh out a star system when someone sends a scout troop or
fleet through it. I have been using Traveller Book 6: Scouts for the
additional info but what it boils down to is basically rolling 2d6 for the
number of orbits, then rolling 9 or less on 2d6 for the presence of gas
giants, then rolling 2d6 for the nummber of gas giants - 2, 3 = 1, 4, 5
= 2,
6,7 = 3, 8-10 = 4, 11,12 = 5. Then rolling 6 or less on 2d6 for the
presence of asteroid belts, then rolling 2d6 for the number of belts with
2-6 = 2, 7+ = 1, then comparing the total number of objects, including
the original planets generated by the card draw, with the total number of
orbits, and loosing gas giants and asteroid belts until they fit. Any other
orbits are occupied by rocky worlds of no value. I usually place asteroid
belts inside the orbits of gas giants if possible, though there may be no
scientific reason for this.
This is the location of a website Chris Harrod, the NSL player, has put up
about our game. The speculation pieces are all his:), though he has included
the full text of the rules we are using (please note the acknowlegements
before you reach for your lawyer:))
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/litesmth/fullthrust/index.html
I intend putting up the full game log once we're done.
Regards
Just thought I'd remind folks of some URL's with info on campaigns for FT,
including using SC. I don't THINK I'm repeating anything recently posted.
Chris Weuve's gaming page has links to a number of interesting items
http://www.kentaurus.com/games.htm
including discussions that have suggestions for Full Thrust, Imperium, SC and
Triplanetary under
http://www.kentaurus.com/variants.htm
and general thoughts on strategic/tactical mixes under
http://www.kentaurus.com/gameessays.htm
Also, I don't think David gave his website for the description of his battles;
this is yours, right? Might save some of Nyrath's questions.
;->=
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/litesmth/fullthrust/index.html
The_Beast
> David Billinghurst wrote:
> Yes and yes (which also explains my fuzziness over the strategic move
{ snip}
> This is the location of a website Chris Harrod, the NSL player, has
I tried using Justified Use of Military Power (JUMP), but found it
unsatisfactory, though simple.
For VBAM, you have to avoid the first edition. The second edition is much
better.
Thanks for the URLS, Doug, I'll check them out. Always happy to see what other
people are doing.
> Also, I don't think David gave his website for the description of his
;->=
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/litesmth/fullthrust/index.html
While I'd like to claim the cred, the website's by a friend of mine, Chris
Harrod, who is the NSL player in our Stellar Conquest campaign.
Regards