These designs are a thoroughly unofficial test of one set of stats for the
IJSF. If possible, they're even less official than the UNSC and ORC
previews already posted - while it's very likely that grasers and EMP
beams will survive in a form substantially similar to their present one, the
Hyperspatial Distortion Cannon may well change completely.
Anyway, for what it's worth:
http://ijsf.firedrake.org/
I like the multi-mode fighters. A simple, elegant way to handle them.
> the Hyperspatial Distortion Cannon may well change completely.
I have to wrap my brain around the moving through the wave mechanic. If I
understand correctly, moving through the wave area from behind means you avoid
all damage. Is "from behind" through the small edge of the trapezoid (towards
the origin of the shot)only?
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:47:57AM -0600, Eric wrote:
> I have to wrap my brain around the moving through the wave mechanic.
If I
> understand correctly, moving through the wave area from behind means
Not sure what you mean by "the small edge of the trapezoid". What matters is
position relative to the leading edge of the wave (the wavefront):
If your ship is in front of the wavefront before the wavefront moves, and
behind it afterwards, i.e. the moving wavefront crossed the ship's position,
it takes damage.
If your ship moves through the wavefront from front to back during the ship's
own movement phase, it takes damage.
If your ship moves through the wavefront from back to front during the ship's
movement phase but gets out of the way far enough not to get caught when the
wavefront moves, it does not take damage.
R
Woof....
Do you find yourself needing start and end ship movement markers, or it's
obvious which situation it is when you play this?
The_Beast
R wrote on 10/11/2005 11:58:59 AM:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:47:57AM -0600, Eric wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:21:28PM -0500, Doug Evans wrote:
In my test games it's been pretty clear. The only questions you need to answer
are:
"Does moving this ship take me through the wavefront from front to back?"
"Which ships does the movement of the wavefront cross?"
As we saw with the UF/AFP, trying to make things utterly clear often
makes them look more complex than they really are.
> If your ship is in front of the wavefront before the wavefront moves,
I think I get it now. A picture probably is worth 1000 words in this case.
I'm still struck by the lightness of these ships: in the era of KVs and even
prototypical UNSC (not to mention the beams galore from the NSL) the IJSF that
I've playtested haven't survived even a brush with other ships.
furthermore, the SMPs seem entirely close-in weapons,
useless when the ship is so much shiny chaff long before SMPs can get range.
are the IJSF in playtest _just_ about getting big
carrier and fighter groups out and the rest of the ships hang waaay back?
colour me confused....
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> These designs are a thoroughly unofficial test of
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> [quoted text omitted]
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
AND don't forget: Serenity releases 30 September! Trailer at apple.com!!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/serenity/trailer_2/index.html
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:52:42PM -0700, Inire wrote:
They need to do a lot of manoeuvreing. In the test games I've played and heard
about, they tend to manage to get in close; but please write up your results,
because we'd love to have them!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lApparently I missed
something.. What is "IJSF"
From: VinsFullThrust@aol.com
(in an RTF message that I *can* read)
> Apparently I missed something.. What is "IJSF"
Imperial Japanese Space Forces. Roger worked them up as soon as (before?) the
Japanese ships were produced but has mostly kept mum about them, partially
because they really need The Fighter Fix and partly for other reasons that, if
we told you, we'd have to...
Ok, but it needs a suitable translation, then transliteration(?) for Romanized
alphabet for proper initials...
The_Beast
gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu wrote on 10/11/2005 05:59:23 PM:
> From: VinsFullThrust@aol.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/11/2005 8:37:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
Imperial Japanese Space Forces. Roger worked them up as soon as (before?) the
Japanese ships were produced but has mostly kept mum about them, partially
because they really need The Fighter Fix and partly for other reasons that, if
we told you, we'd have to...
ohhh, so noone really likes my current layout for them?
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:39:18AM -0400, VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> ohhh, so noone really likes my current layout for them?
I didn't say that.
Mine just predate yours by several months - we didn't want to release
them earlier because of concerns over the HDC mechanic, which is largely
why they're still extra-unofficial. I at least am very interested in
comparisons between our two fleet design philosophies.
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:15:03PM -0500, Doug Evans wrote:
The problem is that Teikoku Kaigun, or Imperial Navy, is the term that
was used in WWII - and I really don't think we want to go there, for all
it was _also_ used before WWI in the era that a lot of the politics and
ship names seem to come from.
Uchuu no Kaigun would be "Space Navy", and that's probably the best bet for
the moment.
woahwoahWOAH! I've been using your ships in various versions almost
exclusively in the latest games I've been running; they make me proud to run a
Yamato that doesn't fold like a napkin as soon as something nasty
hoves into view...;-)
> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/11/2005 8:37:42 PM Eastern
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
AND don't forget: Serenity releases 30 September! Trailer at apple.com!!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/serenity/trailer_2/index.html
***
woahwoahWOAH! I've been using your ships in various versions almost
exclusively in the latest games I've been running; they make me proud to run a
Yamato that doesn't fold like a napkin as soon as something nasty
hoves into view...;-)
***
Jeff, I think that was an invite for AAR's. You know, those things I never
create because I'm incompetent about keeping a good group going...
The_Beast
its hard keeping people up and interested in something. As it is, I'm such a
ho' that I can't keep my group focused on FT for very long as I'm so ADHD
about games in general.
and as for AARs, I posted one (i think), but I could probably sum up the
relevant points to most of my IJSF meet anyone games pretty succintly.
not that i'll get around to it, mind. Okay maybe I
will...
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> ***
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> [quoted text omitted]
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
Seen Serenity yet?
http://www.serenitymovie.com
***
and as for AARs, I posted one (i think), but I could probably sum up the
relevant points to most of my IJSF meet anyone games pretty succintly.
***
Prolly my poor memory as to if you had, and I guess simply saying 'I played
'em' and hated/loved would at least give him SOME feedback.
Not everyone is as crit at OO/OA. ;->=
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 10/12/2005 5:13:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> roger@firedrake.org writes:
> ohhh, so noone really likes my current layout for them?
I didn't say that.
Mine just predate yours by several months - we didn't want to release
them earlier because of concerns over the HDC mechanic, which is largely
why they're still extra-unofficial. I at least am very interested in
comparisons between our two fleet design philosophies.
Roger
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l***
> Beast wrote:
Would Imperial Spaceforcenavy Ship produce an acronym that would offend?
...Ship of the Imperial Spaceforcenavy?
***
Why not just call it ISS for Imperial StarShip? Makes sense to me. and IMS for
Imperial Merchant Ship. KISS principle.
Ken
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Ok, not necessary for the ships, but, with the Fleet Books as the paradigm,
the romanized form of the original language for fleet designations just seemed
the way to go.
Fiddly-r-us. *ducking pending lawsuit*
The_Beast
> ***
> Ok, not necessary for the ships, but, with the Fleet Books as the
How boring. I'd much rather have names like [T]actical [U]rban
[R]ecover [D]rone or [T]actical [I]nterface [T]ransfer [S]ystem....
Damo, Damo, Damo, why did you think I wanted [T][U] extended? I'd SO hoped
someone would come up with a salacious acronym without realizing. You've SO
blown the whole scheme...
The_Beast
> > Ok, not necessary for the ships, but, with the Fleet