Hello all,
We're very pleased to announce that after a lot of excellent work by
Dean Gundberg and numerous other folks, a collected page of beta-test
stats and SSDs for almost ALL the new-design and other recently
released FULL THRUST ships is now up and available for public use!
Please take a look here:
http://fullthrust.star-ranger.com/
This is a fantastic resource for all FT players old and new, and
includes all the new-style NAC, NSL, FSE and ESU fleets, plus the
UNSC, Japanese, Israeli, Islamics and more! While the page has been put
together as an independent project by Dean (Star Ranger), it is fully
sanctioned and approved by GZG (wow, that sounds almost
GW-esque... <G>). Please be aware that some parts of the page are
still works-in-progress, and that all designs are subject to being
fiddled about with in the light of any playtest responses - feedback
is welcome, either to Dean or to us at GZG. But it's there, and it's
FREE - so please have a look, use what you want, and have fun!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lLoo
king over these new designs I am noticing that TMF factors are blowing way out
of the class ratings. For example, ESU Battledreadnought TMF = 180. Book
Battledreadnoughts use a range of
120-160.
Light Carrier TMF = 182. Book Light Carrier use a range of
120-180.
NSL Heavy Cruiser TNF = 92 Book Heavy Cruiser use a range of
60-90
Does this mean TMF ratings are being changed with the release of the new
book?
Vince
In a message dated 9/4/2008 3:33:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jon@gzg.com writes:
Hello all,
We're very pleased to announce that after a lot of excellent work by
Dean Gundberg and numerous other folks, a collected page of beta-test
stats and SSDs for almost ALL the new-design and other recently
released FULL THRUST ships is now up and available for public use!
Please take a look here:
http://fullthrust.star-ranger.com/
This is a fantastic resource for all FT players old and new, and
includes all the new-style NAC, NSL, FSE and ESU fleets, plus the
UNSC, Japanese, Israeli, Islamics and more! While the page has been put
together as an independent project by Dean (Star Ranger), it is fully
sanctioned and approved by GZG (wow, that sounds almost
GW-esque... <G>). Please be aware that some parts of the page are
still works-in-progress, and that all designs are subject to being
fiddled about with in the light of any playtest responses - feedback
is welcome, either to Dean or to us at GZG. But it's there, and it's
FREE - so please have a look, use what you want, and have fun!
Jon (GZG) www.gzg.com
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> We're very pleased to announce that after a lot of excellent work by
They look good!
One comment for Dean. In the NAC listings, I see several of the SSDs, starting
with the Renown, look "squished". The width and height settings for the images
look like they're wrong. I saw a similar issue on the FSE page, and probably
some of the other pages.
> One comment for Dean. In the NAC listings, I see several of the SSDs,
They are not squished as the height/width ratio is correct, but they are
resized so they fit on the page without messing up all of the formatting and
thus the quality of the image is down. Left-click on the SSD and it
will take you to a new window with the SSD at full size or you can
right-click an
copy the SSD image to paste it into your favorite image editor.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Dean Gundberg
> <Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com> wrote:
> They are not squished as the height/width ratio is correct, but they
Gotcha! That makes sense.
SOME of us figured that out a long time ago... ;->=
If I WERE to kvetch, it would be that he hadn't grouped the SSD's images in a
size that would print properly for either letter or A4 allowing RL
cutting-and-pasting, but that would just be markedly lazy. Which I are,
but don't necessarily advertise.
HUGE thanks to both Jon and Dean for getting this out there!
Dean, how can that site possibly be improved?!?!? Just beautiful!
Allan Goodall wrote on 09/04/2008 10:03:32 AM:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Dean Gundberg
Do fleet book designs follow the ratings? As the ratings no longer control
ships costs, I don't think they're more than guidelines now. Anyway, as for
new ships-expansion, newer is ALWAYS better!
Have you seen the new Space Marines codex, just to toss in a long missing Evil
Empire (tm) reference.
Anyway, now it seems to make more sense to give classes based on a number of
things, including varieties of weapons, hull strength, thrust, etc.
VinsFullThrust wrote on 09/04/2008 04:20:24 AM:
> Looking over these new designs I am noticing that TMF factors are
The_Beast
Thank you so much! I was just going to ask if there were any semi-
official stats for some of the new ships, especially the NSL fleet. This saves
me a considerable amount of time to get my fleets up and running.
Randy Wolfmeyer
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Hello all,
I've got a question about the NSL strikeboat Gepard class. I'm entering the
new ships into the Full Thrust Ship Creator (version 1.5). I see that the NPV
cost of the NSL strikeboat is 40 in what is posted, but FTSC comes up with 37.
My diagram looks the same, but the numbers are different. I figured I'd put
the CPV in the name or somewhere, hopefully get it printed onto the sheet that
way.
I know there are a ton of ship design programs and spreadsheets out there.
FTSC has crashed a few times, but I found it easy to use, and it can handle
fleets as well as ship designs, and prints out a nice picture. Any
recommendations for something better, where correctness (most important), ease
of use, and printing ability are all high?
Thanks,
In addition, I got 33 for the NPV of the Nymphe scoutship.
The text and diagram for the heavy destroyer don't match in Armor (text says 4
armor, picture shows 3). And FTSC shows rows of 4,3,3,3 where the diagram
shows 4,4,3,3.
> Andy Skinner wrote:
> I've got a question about the NSL strikeboat Gepard class. I'm
Sounds like FTSC 1.5 hasn't been updated for 3-, 5- and 6-row hulls. 3
hull
boxes (or less) = not enough boxes to have a 4-row hull = defaults to
3-row
hull = hull cost is 3 pts per hull box.
> The text and diagram for the heavy destroyer don't match in Armor (text
> says 4 armor, picture shows 3).
Good catch. The diagram is correct for the TMF, NPV and CPV shown; the text is
wrong.
> And FTSC shows rows of 4,3,3,3 where the diagram shows 4,4,3,3.
Sounds like FTSC 1.5 still uses the FB1 hull integrity levels (4+3+3+3 =
13, which is what you get if you round 30% of 42 to the nearest integer). That
rule was revoked in FB2 though; now you can give the ship any number of hull
boxes you like, except that you have to stay above 10% of TMF (rounded to
nearest integer). The Sachsen has 14 hull boxes, ie. 33.3% of its TMF.
Later,
> Andy wrote:
Oops, it is now fixed (ie the description now says 3 armour)