[GZG] what's the latest news on Full Thrust

I've been away for a while, so I haven't kept up with recent developments.
What is the latest news on Full Thrust? I thought I read earlier that the rule
were undergoing another major revision. What became of that?

Thanks.

--Greg

A deafening silence was heard across the land...

Actually, reports are the playtest group feels it hasn't gotten sufficient
AAR's back on the suggested changes, but would like to proceed anyway. Jon
seems too busy with actually producing models and making a living to devote
much time to give much support to them.

Meanwhile, every mention of Full Thrust, or even GZG, outside of this list
usually finds at least one Starmada fanboy popping up stating their pride and
joy is SO much better, though I think much could be answered with FTIII.

Have you looked at Hugh Fisher's Cross Dimensions re-write of 2.5? Star
Ranger's links to suggested new weapons?

Me, I'm just in a second mid-life crisis, so it's all too depressing to
dwell upon.

Doug

Greg wrote on 12/09/2010 06:25:43 PM:

> I've been away for a while, so I haven't kept up

The main things I don't like about Starmada from what I've looked at of it is,
although it does handle a lot of things in interesting ways, it looks like it
takes a lot longer to play than Full Thrust does for similar sized ships and
fleet sizes, and it requires you to play on a hex game board while Full Thrust
lets you play on basically any surface you can find with a tape measure. I
haven't actually purchased official rules and don't currently intend to, but
this is what I keep seeing when I look at the demo rules and the forums
surrounding it.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> I haven't actually purchased official rules and don't currently intend

Just as an aside, Starmada no longer requires a hex grid. You can still play
it with one, but you can also play without one.

Well said, as well as SFB for quite some time, and even in the not-SFB
lite Fed Commander freebie. Don't rmember if it's also in my copy of Klingon
Border, though I'd assume so.

Now, given that I HAVE had Starmada demo'd on hexes, but not hex-free, I
still got the impression of the hexless version being a bit of a kludge,
something like Wizkids Crimson Skies being gridless. Or the hex version of
Full Thrust that Ken Burnside used to make strawman comparisons to Attack
Vector.

I suppose rather off topic; I apologize about venting about fanboyism. Several
players I greatly respect enjoy Starmada. I don't.

The_Beast

Allan wrote on 12/12/2010 12:48:07 AM:

> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> > I haven't actually purchased official rules and don't currently

I'll take a sec to chime in. We tried Starmada a couple of years ago. I was
interested the more "free form" "theoretically balanced design system", and
the resolution system. We converted a couple of our fleets to starmada, and
played some games.

After a few games, we decided that we just didn't like the feel of the game as
well as we like FT.

Now when we want to play space battles, we play something between
FT2.5 and FT3-ish.

And yes, I think that FT3 being produced and released is way, way overdue, but
also understand why Jon spends his time making minis.:)

John

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> I haven't actually purchased official rules and don't currently

Oh, okay. Is that with Starmada X in particular or...?

The main complaint I have about Full Thrust is actually a feeling that
cinematic movement is broken at high speeds. Oerjan speeds are effective
because they allow you to basically skip two or even three whole range bands
to make a strike, and because even moderately maneuverable ship travelling at
those speeds becomes completely unhittable with salvo missiles and plasma.
Vector has its own issues, but ships being unhittable with direct fire isn't
one of them. I wouldn't mind seeing a slight sop to inertia physics in
cinematic where if you're moving at, say, three times your thrust max you need
twice as many thrust points as normal to make a turn (with the same limits for
maximum turning), and at four times you just aren't allowed to turn at all
until you slow down.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

I've heard mention of people playing FT at "Oerjan speeds", but I've never
witnessed it. We play on a 4'x8' table. Moving a ship in cinematic, even with
a 6 thrust rating at speeds of more than 30
mu/turn poses a serious risk of flying off of the table.  And not only
does your ship have a chance of flying through range bands, you're also flying
through your own range bands, and thus you can't hit the enemy either.

Not saying that I necessarily approve or disapprove of anything, just saying
that it has it's own risks.

Realistically (not that that should factor in), it makes some sense that if
something is moving fast enough, it's possible that it could blur through
multiple range bands and not be a reasonable target.

I don't like the idea of capping max speed unless there is some
pseudo-physics that would support that at some point, continual thrust
would max out top speed in space. I have my doubts.:)

J

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> Oh, okay. Â Is that with Starmada X in particular or...?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I too have never seen them used on the table, even when using Cm per MU. The
only time I have seen it is in an online game

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com

> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:24:06 -0500
wrote:
> > Oh, okay. Is that with Starmada X in particular or...?

Well, I don't have a problem with raw speed being uncapped, I just have a
problem with unlimited speed while you're still able to turn the same way at
36 MU per turn as you can when you're only going 4 MU per turn. How fast you
want to go in a straight line, I don't care, I just don't like the turning on
a dime at any speed so that you could be anywhere in a 50 MU radius on a given
turn, and trying to put any kind of missile or plasma targeting on you is
effectively impossible and fighters can't catch you even with secondary moves.
At more reasonable speeds, Full Thrust is great; at Oerjan speeds a lot of the
mechanics break down.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

Your 'extensions' to FT movement are very like what I had in mind to suggest
on reading your first couple of sentences.

Cinematic has always been 'the one that goes swoosh', with only enough
grounding in reality to allow the plausible suspension of disbelief. People
mention 'going off the table'; this drives others mad. Same kind of thing, to
me; most of us agree but just go on playing on a table when somebody pipes up
'but space has THREE dimensions!'

I used to have arguments a decade ago where someone would say 'what if I
started my turn 1000 mu off table, came in at 994 speed, and deployed my
missiles' kinds of thought questions, and then say Full Thrust was broken
because of their example. I ended up just shaking my head and walking away. I
think it took them a few weeks of talking to the list before they'd left.

Personally, if I were to play at CM per MU speeds, I'd be playing on tables
one fifth the size I normally do. You fly off the table, and you've detached
yourself from the current battle dynamics, and I need special rules for you to
return. Or, there are now multiple battle tables. Or,
there are additional rules for larger-than-table velocities, similar to
what you have below.

Or, I would play Vector. Or not.

Actually, inches are about as fiddly as I'd be willing to get. Too bad;
another summer gone and I've still not played one foot MU's with ships on
garden stakes.

The_Beast

Eric Foley wrote on 12/12/2010 03:10:24 PM:

> The main complaint I have about Full Thrust is actually a feeling

Hi again folks,

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't have a problem with raw speed being uncapped, I just

Um... huh? I really don't get your first point. If you are playing cinematic,
the distance that you travel between course changes significantly changes
based on your current speed. With a Thrust rating of 1 (for simplicity sake),
if your speed is 4, you can move 2 mu, change course by 60 degrees, then move
2 more mu. If your speed is 400, you move 200 mu, change course by 60 degrees,
then move 200 more mu. How is that "still able to turn the same way"? Ok, you
can make as many course changes, but so what? The "arc" gets much larger, and
you cannot maneuver as well because you cannot turn as tightly.

I must be missing your point completely. Please explain. I'm feeling
stupid... :)

J

What I mean is, if you're going at 4 MU, and you have the ability to make 2
point turns in cinematic, the area in which you may be expected
to end up is around 7-8 MU in diameter.  At this speed, the ability to
make this turn does not fundamentally affect any mechanics of the game.

However, if you're going at 40 MU, and you retain the ability to make that
same 2 point turn in cinematic, the area in which you may be
expected to end up is around 7-80 MU in diameter.  At _this_ speed, the
continued ability to make this turn radically changes the game. Trying to
target that ship with any sort of indirect fire is largely pointless. Even
direct fire weapons are only possible to use on the speeder's own terms. It's
the main tactical reason to use such speeds, because people flying
significantly slower ones are basically forced to operate the entire game on
your terms when you do.

In vector, this is not a significant issue. Whether the ship is going 4 MU or
40 MU, if you know he's got 2 points of maneuvering thrust you can Mark I
Eyeball a circle 4 MU in diameter where he'll turn up, or perhaps an ellipse
if you consider speeding up and slowing down at the same time. It's a vastly
different situation, and Oerjan speeds are not nearly as effective in as many
ways as a result.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

E,

Thanks. Now it makes sense to me.:)

J

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> What I mean is, if you're going at 4 MU, and you have the ability to
 Even direct fire weapons are only possible to use on the speeder's own
terms. Â It's the main tactical reason to use such speeds, because people
flying significantly slower ones are basically forced to operate the entire
game on your terms when you do.
> In vector, this is not a significant issue. Â Whether the ship is
wrote:
> Well, I don't have a problem with raw speed being uncapped, I just

Only play vector, and its mostly because of this (I also like calling '2
points to port' in my most nautical captains voice, but thats something I'm
seeing someone about;))

Peter Quoting John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com>:

> E,
wrote:
> What I mean is, if you're going at 4 MU, and you have the ability

> reason to use such speeds, because people flying significantly
wrote:
> Well, I don't have a problem with raw speed being uncapped, I

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Mon, Dec 13,
> 2010 at 8:13 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> What I mean is, if you're going at 4 MU, and you have the ability to

I presume you meant 70-80 MU diameter.

Still not "turning on a dime". As John pointed out, your turn arc merely
increases. I don't see where this is anywhere a problem.

> At _this_ speed, the continued ability to make this turn radically

That's called taking the initiative.

Or change your tactical thinking. If Force Blue is flying around at 80+
speeds and Force Red is flying at 10-20 speeds, Blue is going to have a
devil of a time trying to get lined up anywhere close to target Red. And if
Red is defending an area (planet, base, asteroid, whatever), there is no need
for it to go far. Just sit tight and wait for Blue to get its maneuvering
under control and get closer. I don't see where the Oerjan speeds break
anything. Just changes the tactics you have to employ. You can either play
your opponent's game, or make them play yours.

Mk

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Doug Evans wrote:

> A deafening silence was heard across the land...

Deafening laughter would have been a worse greeting. So I didn't chime in
until now.

> Actually, reports are the playtest group feels it hasn't gotten
Jon
> seems too busy with actually producing models and making a living to

I get the depressing part, I'm fighting depression too. Unemployment sucks.
Having said that I present the following idea that it may have been presented
before or too stupid to work:

Let's buy Jon's time. Wait, hear me out.

Jon must make a living, no arguement. To date, making little metal bits is the
most cost effective way to earn money. So let's make it worth it.

Let's start a pot somewhere, ala kickstarter, for an hour of Jon's time. Jon
sets the value before we start so everyone knows going in what the goal is.
$20, $30, $50, WHATEVER, it doesn't matter to me.

Hopefully Jon will be willing to do this as an ongoing thing. Whenever
the pot goes over $goal_per_hour, we get another hour.

You know what I want most under MY christmas tree? FT3 or FMAS. I really don't
know which. Now it won't be under *this* years tree, but maybe next year...

Ok, let's hear from everybody. You willing to put an extra $5 on your
next order toward FT3?  FMAS?  Or Bugs Don't Surf/Dirtside 3?

> Message: 1
<OF09BDD817.BFC07B88-ON862577F7.00482ECC-862577F7.0049D501@nebraska.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> lite

Hi

I have played FT for a number of years, a year ago tried Starmada AE loved it
and not played FT since, this might make me a fanboy but I can still use my
GZG fleets, I would like to see a FT3.0 but the problems I have had with FT
have largely been resolved by playing Starmada.

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Indy
wrote:

> What I mean is, if you're going at 4 MU, and you have the ability to

> However, if you're going at 40 MU, and you retain the ability to make

> I presume you meant 70-80 MU diameter.

Yeah, my initial example was 400 MU speed and 7-800; I took away a zero
to bring it back to something that could non-insanely happen in an
actual game and it didn't read as well.:P

> Still not "turning on a dime". As John pointed out, your turn arc

The problem is that when many of the otherwise most potent weapons in the game
operate on trying to guess where this ship is going to turn up in order to hit
it, the speed alone effectively becomes an effective defense by widening the
area in which you may land. It doesn't even take a whole lot of turning
ability to completely throw off the targeting at this speed and turn it into a
matter of lucky guesswork. They might be flying off into the next planetary
shell on that turn, or they may be swooping into needle beam range, and you
have to make a decision on whether to either expend salvo missile ammunition
or give up your ability to fire a plasma bolt in the next turn based on which
you think it is. If you're not going similarly fast and they also have such
weapons, they can hit you much more easily and they don't even have to get
very close. All they have to do is get just within the firing range in one
turn and drop off their missiles or plasma and then swoop back out
 on the firing turn to avoid your counter-fire.  In vector, this is not
possible.

And keep in mind, I'm saying this and I don't even _like_ vector.  I've
always played cinematic and enjoy doing so. However, it's got a flaw here that
I don't like that doesn't exist in vector. I just think that if you're going
at Ludicrous Speed, you shouldn't be able to turn just as well as you can if
you're barely moving at all. Let's not even go into the issue of what happens
with an advanced drive 4 instead of a normal drive 4 at these speeds. Even at
20 MU, thrust 4A gets pretty stupid to try to hit.

> At _this_ speed, the continued ability to make this turn radically

> That's called taking the initiative.

> Or change your tactical thinking. If Force Blue is flying around at 80+

If major elements of the game weren't based on guesswork, I'd be more fine
with this. The main reason it's a problem is because of the
indirect fire rules.  If missiles and plasma were on a to-hit roll or
some other kind of fixed opposed roll (i.e. you roll to hit and then the other
guy still gets to roll point defense anyway) and there were no guesswork
involved in hitting a ship at this speed I'd have no problem
with it.  If getting to pick the firing range was the _only_ advantage
you got from going at such speeds, it'd still be a little bit weird but it'd
be easier to swallow.

E Mk

This is actually a valid consideration. Missiles as they stand, are VERY slow
compared to what a ship can do if it's got a good start
speed.  Most sci-fi genres don't have ships out running missiles
unless they're fired from REALLY far away and chasing.

In FT, since the missiles have a relatively short launch range and a very
short closing range, if you're playing at high speeds, Eric is
right - it becomes a huge game of guesswork to place them.  Of course,
that's said with the understanding that a big part of the game is about
guessing where the opposing ships (and sometimes your own!) will end up. I've
certainly benefited and suffered from guessing badly,
and ending up ass-end to my opponent within 3mu, or visa versa.

But since FT3 is being worked on, maybe put a note on the chalk board to
consider alternate missile rules.

Of the top of my head something like this could work (maybe, really, I've
given this about 2 seconds of random thinking)

Missiles - range bands of 24 mu (double that of beams).
Hit numbers like p-torps.
Prior to resolving hits, apply PDS/ADS/etc. against the incoming
salvoes (on a per firing ship basis). If Heavy Missiles are still single
objects that are harder to kill, that's what's used. If Salvo Missiles are in
clusters of 6, and you need to whittle them away, fine. After PDS (and such)
reduce the missiles, any remaining roll to hit. Apply damage as appropriate.

This makes them remain different from beams and p-torps in that a)
ranges are much longer and b) defense systems can counter them. But
it then uses an already existing mechanic for resolution - roll to
hit, do damage.

There is a factor of entertainment loss in that you can't fly into your own
salvo, but really, space ships running into their own fired missiles targeting
envelope and the missiles are too stupid to NOT attack the friendly ship??
That's always stretched it a good ways for me anyway.

Just a thought.

J

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----

> On Tuesday 14 December 2010 18:21:21 Eric Foley wrote:
I've
> always played cinematic and enjoy doing so. However, it's got a flaw

Turning costs 1pt per facing per 10" of speed or part thereof. Or some other
suitable number if 10" doesn't work for you. It will mean some ships will have
to slow down in order to turn at high speeds, or you'll need to allow
fractional facings, but that's getting complex.

Or you could just use vector :-)

I've run vector games where even fighters and missiles used vector movement,
and it worked reasonably well, and made it harder for ships to outrun fighters
and missiles.

But the huge turn arcs you can get in cinematic has always put me off
cinematic movement.

As a matter of interest - for those who use cinematic movement at
high speeds, do you enforce exactly 12 facings? We've always played things
that a 1pt turn is a turn up to 30 degrees, but I know some groups play things
where they enforce strict facings, so you can't make a 15 degree turn. Would
make a big difference at high speeds.

I've sort of been thinking about this, and my best thought is something about
like this:

For every missile salvo or plasma bolt, you throw it after ships have moved,
and you place it at a target point to start within the range of
the appropriate missile or plasma.  Then for each salvo/bolt, you roll a
d6. The results go like this...

6 - exact hit on the placed point
5 - scatters d3 MU from the placed point (another d6 to determine
direction, 1 is directly ahead of target, clockwise from there)
4 - scatters d6 MU
3 - scatters 2d6 MU
2 - scatters 3d6 MU
1 - fails to lock/detonate altogether

Each ship then rolls point defense on any salvos or plasma that land within 6
MU (3 MU for vector), with the rest of the rules as they are now.

As I see it, unescorted ships will still be vulnerable to missiles, while
escorted ones will still be relatively safe but not completely so; banzai
jammers won't be a complete panacea to missiles any more because a natural 6
will still hit the target. Slow ships would no longer be completely dead meat
against missiles because they can still just plain miss, but fast ships also
wouldn't be immune to them any more by simply
taking high-speed turns -- which IMO are excellent balance improvements
in both cases.

Heavy missiles might be a case where they still move for three turns and then
roll this attack roll whenever they wish to make a striking run. I would tend
to recommend that they be changed to hit the nearest ship as salvo missiles
currently do if they used this system.

Any thoughts?

E

[quoted original message omitted]

Eric,

I can understand how/why you came up with this, but I think that it
would significantly slow down play. One of the things that I
[think/hope] is always in the FT3 design team's minds is "speed of
play". That often will mean simplifying some things by sacrificing levels of
detail, but if it keeps things moving instead of making the
missile phase or whatever take as long as 2-3 non missile *turns*, I'm
OK with losing the complexity and potentially more "accurate feeling" results.

John

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> I've sort of been thinking about this, and my best thought is
banzai jammers won't be a complete panacea to missiles any more because a
natural 6 will still hit the target. Â Slow ships would no longer be
completely dead meat against missiles because they can still just plain miss,
but fast ships also wouldn't be immune to them any more by simply
taking high-speed turns -- which IMO are excellent balance improvements
in both cases.
> Heavy missiles might be a case where they still move for three turns
wrote:
> -----Original Message-----

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOh my god,
someone aknowledg's MT/hevy missiles are deadlier and smarter than
salvo missiles. Personally the MT/hevy missiles are harder to kill too.

________________________________
From: John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 9:51:16 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] what's the latest news on Full Thrust

Eric,

I can understand how/why you came up with this, but I think that it
would significantly slow down play. One of the things that I
[think/hope] is always in the FT3 design team's minds is "speed of
play". That often will mean simplifying some things by sacrificing levels of
detail, but if it keeps things moving instead of making the
missile phase or whatever take as long as 2-3 non missile *turns*, I'm
OK with losing the complexity and potentially more "accurate feeling" results.

John

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> I've sort of been thinking about this, and my best thought is
banzai
> jammers won't be a complete panacea to missiles any more because a
wrote:
> -----Original Message-----