_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWell, I've spent
the last couple of days reading some of the archives for this list, as well as
reading through all the rules for FT and DS in detail, and now I've got a few
questions for everybody if thats ok. But first up, I didn't mention last time
about me. I'm a computer science student in Dunedin, New Zealand. I'm also a
recently commissioned Territorial Force officer in the NZ army. Like I said,
I'm new to tabletop gaming in general. I said I had questions. In no
particular order: I havn't seen any reference to missiles (ie single shot
missiles as decribed in More Thrust) in any of the canon ship designs in
either of the fleet books. Only salvo missiles. In the desription of Salvo
missiles in FB1, it doesn't seem to be saying that the intention was to
replace the old style missiles, and yet they seem to have done so. Am I
missing something? In Fullthrust, are hangar bays and fighter bays effectively
the same thing, or or they distinct? ie if a ship were to carry interface
craft and fighters would it need seperate bays? Perhaps each fighter wing
needs it own bay? Or maybe a ship just needs a certain amount of mass
dedicated to space for bays and its all just one big hangar? I'm sorry but I
cant quite wrap my head around bays in general. Anyone care to clear things up
for me? One thing that I found unclear for Dirtside II was the rules for
infantry firing upon vehicles. Do they still need to test for effective fire
as described in the rules for infantry firefights? (It is a different
situation when you're firing a missile at a tank 3.6km away than when you're
enaging infantry at say 500m.) I'm guessing that IAVR shots are affected by
checks for effective fire. On that topic, do manpad LAD and mortars need to
make effectiveness checks as well?
Well I think thats all the queries I have about the rules for now. However,
I've still a couple more questions. I've only read the rules for Dirtside and
Full Thrust (ie the downloadable rules books) but can anyone suggest to me
whether Stargrunt or Dirtside would be better as ground combat rules to
interface with Full Thrust? This is the type of situation that most interests
me right now: Multi battle scenarios involving invasions of planets, including
the naval (space) battle to breach system defences followed by planetary
invasions. Before you jump on to suggest I should start small, well I will
obviously have to do so to start with. But I do also intend to write game
software with the purpose of from speeding the game (by doing calculations on
a nearby laptop say), to possibly computerising the whole thing. Before you
plan on killing me for potentially eliminating the need to buy models Jon, I
actually envisage (way down the track) the following type of setup: Colocated,
ceiling mounted camera and data projector pointed at the play area, both
connected to the game server. The server tracks the movements of play pieces
and can raise an alert if moves aren't valid. Visual information can be
overlayed on the play area, for example firing arcs, and combat can be
resolved quickly in response to orders entered by each player on their own
terminal (say a laptop). This is an entirely possible project, however large
it might be. What does the established playing community think of this idea?
(or of any less extreme version inbetween).
Finally, I've had no luck finding any locals who are into this, so if anyone
on this list is in or knows of anyone in my area who plays any GZG games I'd
like to get in touch.
Well, enough of my newbie enthusiasm, thanks all for your patience.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lG'day James,
> On 5/24/07, James Austin <james@queenstown.co.nz> wrote:
Fire away! (but of course Brendan already answered most of them :-) ).
But first up, I didn't mention last time about me. I'm a computer science
> student in Dunedin, New Zealand. I'm also a recently commissioned
You're not missing anything yet. The heavy missiles as outlined in MT are of
the 2nd edition Full Thrust rules, whereas the Fleetbooks are of edition
2.5(meant to be a bridge between the 2nd ed rules and the
to-be-published 3rd
edition rules; these are slowly being worked on as I type ;-) ). I
*think* the current publicly available beta test rules for the heavy missiles
can be found at the bottom of this page here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/laserlight/ft/if.htm
The heavy missile rules are currently being worked over in the playtest group
to try and get them to fit into the FT3 rules. They may or may not fully
resemble what is in the beta test rules right now.
In Fullthrust, are hangar bays and fighter bays effectively the same thing,
> or or they distinct? ie if a ship were to carry interface craft and
I think Brendan did this okay. Anything more I would add would be redundant.
One thing that I found unclear for Dirtside II was the rules for infantry
> firing upon vehicles. Do they still need to test for effective fire as
Wow, I've been looking at the playtest DS3 rules for so long, I've forgotten
how much of DS2 works! Let me look this one up (but if Oerjan pipes in and
contradicts *any*thing I say, go with his thoughts - of course, he's
nowhere near a computer at the moment, so it may not be until next week before
he
chimes in ;-) ).
But yes, you need to still test for effective fire if you want your infantry
unit to fire on a vehicle.
Man-packed mortars I would treat as 'standard' artillery. I could be
wrong in how to handle that, though; I've actually never played with
man-packed
mortars (or LADs).
Well I think thats all the queries I have about the rules for now. However,
> I've still a couple more questions.
As Brendan mentioned, you can do crossovers, but you need to decide on scale
for each if you want direct crossovers. Either SGII or DSII will work with FT
for crossover games. I know people who have run FT games at local conventions
with a boarding action SGII game immediately following the FT game (or
happening concurrent to the FT game; requires two gamemasters to work really
closely and well together, as events in one game might have effects in the
other).
Some years ago a few guys (Los, Magic, Kr'rt) who are infrequently here
(again, due to Work and Life) did a campaign game that involved FT, DSII and
SGII. They wrote up the "Rot Hafen" saga as a result of their gaming. The
original story webpages are gone, but others have salvaged them and reposted
(I grabbed my copy and put it into a word doc). If you want, you can read it
here:
http://www.cygnusx1.info/scifi/rothafen1.html
It's a pretty good story.
Before you jump on to suggest I should start small, well I will obviously
> have to do so to start with. But I do also intend to write game
Full Thrust has been more or less recreated (more or less ;-) ) into
FTJava, an online PBEM game. You can play 'live' from here:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/davisje/ftjava/index.html
I used to play a fair bit, but then Life and Work took over my time to the
point I haven't had any time to even look at the latest updates they've
made. :-(
Finally, I've had no luck finding any locals who are into this, so if anyone
> on this list is in or knows of anyone in my area who plays any GZG
Try here:
Hi James,
I'll take the DSII questions for you.:)
> Anyone care to clear
No. The test for effective fire boils down to determining how effective
*small arms fire against other infantry/soft targets* is. Each stand
that has an IAVR can fire it an enemy tank using normal anti-vehicle
firing rules.
> (It is a
Also no.
Ok. Now that I've said that, since it's not completely clear in the rules,
note that that is how my gaming group played it. Jon could certainly chime in
to override me with how he actually intended for it to be played.:)
Heh. And the best part is that Indy and I have played together and neither of
us may know how it works!:D
J
> Hi James,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/24/07, John
> Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Actually, in the example on page 34 it says that "all" the infantry units had
to check for effectiveness against targets, one of which is a tank. If that
example wasn't there, I would have echoed with your statement above.
Specifically:
"Having passed his FIRE EFFECTIVENESS check against his unit's Quality and
Confidence and determined that ALL of the elements may fire for effect, the
player activating unit A decides [...] that Team A3 will use an IAVR against
the vehicle (B3)."
Emphasis Jon's. ;-)
> (It is a
Jon has final arbitration rights on all posts. ;-)
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/24/07, John
> Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
We've been playing more DS3 than DS2 of late. ;-) Things be different
there.
Finished drawing up my vehicle stats for the weekend gaming fun yet? ;-)
Mk
Yeah, I will admit that it's been quite a while since I've actually played
DSII. I have one more vehicle to design for the weekend game. I then have to
put them onto cards, turn them into PDFs for you, and will send them. That
wont' happen until afternoon meetings are over though.
:)
Yup. Indy and I will be playing DS3 with Oerjan this weekend!
Looking forward to it.
J
> On 5/24/07, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> there.
;-)
> Mk _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list
DS3? Is that available in a playtest version?
Jason
> On 5/24/07, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
:)
> Yup. Indy and I will be playing DS3 with Oerjan this weekend!
;-)
> >
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/24/07, Jason
> Weiser <jason.weiser@gmail.com> wrote:
Not yet. It's still in 'alpha' mode more or less. But really advanced alpha
mode. :-)
Mk
Sorry, but not yet.
A small group of testers has been working on it for some time, but it's still
really rough (rough for a "finished game", for the most part, I
think it works quite well). It's not my call on when/if it will be
available. All I can say is that it's in progress, working very nicely despite
needing some sections hammered out, and it's not gonna be your fathers DS.:)
For what it's worth, if you manage to get to an ECC I always run a DS3 game.
John
> DS3? Is that available in a playtest version?
Sorry for replying late; I've been out of the country for a while...
> James Austin wrote:
> I havn't seen any reference to missiles (ie single shot missiles as
> old style missiles, and yet they seem to have done so. Am I missing
Others have pointed you at the publicly released beta-test version of
the heavy missiles. I'll just add that the "Mass and Points Cost Table" on
p.11
of FB1 has separate entries for Salvo Missiles and MT-style missiles,
and that the fact that none of the designs in FB1 are equipped with 'em
doesn't
mean they've been replaced - after all, the Needle Beam rules were
explicitly changed in FB1 but there are no Needle-armed FB1 ships either
:-)
> In Fullthrust, are hangar bays and fighter bays effectively the same
Yes.
> Perhaps each fighter wing needs it own bay?
Each fighter group (6 fighters) needs its own fighter bay.
> Or maybe a ship just needs a certain amount of mass dedicated to space
Fighter bays ~ the "Cobra Bays" on the B5 space station, specifically built to
to hold fighters and incapable of holding anything else Hangar bays ~ the
larger docking bays on the B5 space station, capable of holding multiple
fairly large ships but lacking equipment for servicing fighters
WRT DS: I play that IAVRs do need to make Fire Effectiveness tests (since the
example on p.34 seems to say so); but mortars and GMSs do not since they are
specialist heavy weapons teams just like APSW teams are, and the Fire
Effectiveness rule explicitly states that APSW teams don't take the
test (due to historical experience etc.). However, I don't know if that's what
JonT&Mike actually intended... and like both Indy and JohnL, I've
spent far more time with DS3 than DS2 over the past few years :-/
Regards,
> Sorry for replying late; I've been out of the country for a while...
Glad to see that you made it back safely.:)
> JKL wrote:
> > Sorry for replying late; I've been out of the country for a while...
Thanks :-) Now I just need to synchronise my body-time with the local
sun-time...
Later,