> Schoon wrote:
> I don't mean this in a disparaging way, particularly since you've put
That's exactly why - too short IMO. A battle with a destroyer and two
frigates per side is really un-interesting at the FT scale. Two
cruisers is no better, and a destroyer or frigate duel is laughable. I started
20 years ago with SFB, and while the ruleset quickly grew to hideous levels, I
always
had fun with single-ship duels. I wanted a way to make a satisfying
variant for that purpose without tearinng up the FT ruleset too badly. I
didn't just what to have 100 mass frigates, because I think Frigates shouldn't
be able
to carry Multiple P-torps or Class 3 beams. Perhaps it won't work out,
but I wanted to try it. In the back of my mind I also have an idea for a game
universe with _much_ smaller fleets than in FT canon - where each power
has at most one DN or One BC as their flag, and entire fleets can be counted
in the dozens of ships rather than hundreds or thousands.
> It looks as if you simply doubled most things, and while it will tend
The main object was to reduce the luck factor in small battles. If reducing
luck and increasing tactical effects on small battles is all that this
accomplishes, then results _should_ differ. Plus, again, it's main
purpose is to enable smaller battles and single ship duels, which is probably
a niche interest for most FT'ers, but I happen to like visiting that niche.
> [core systenms]
> That's exactly why - too short IMO. A battle with a destroyer and two
Ack! Say no more about SFB. I also used to be an avid player, even after the
rules became huge. I realized after time that I didn't really like anyone else
who played the game. They were all rules weenies.
> I liked the idea in the alternate core system rules, z'all.
Good enough reason if you ask me!
> "Maintain attack" also forces the additional CEF burn.
But it only forces 1 CEF burn for both the move and attack, which gives
prolonged endurance for more attacks. Doing the other way MIGHT force a CEF to
move, and another would be expended in the "continuing" attack.
> Record-keeping, mostly. You'd have to trak half-hits on each group,
Since you're only talking about smaller battles anyway, the extra record
keeping shouldn't prove too burdensome, and it does further help cancel out
the "luck" thing.
The reason I make an issue of it at all is that the most common result of a
combined PDS shot for small ships is "1." This will always round up.
All you really would need to do is make a nifty graphic for the
fighter squadron (which would also add to the visual appeal ;-) with
two boxes for each fighter. Simple mark and go.
> I started 20 years ago with SFB
I see you got your "Masters" in gaming... When you tell me you have
played ASL and all of the supplements then we can be assured you have your
"PhD" in gaming!
> > I started 20 years ago with SFB
17 years ago for me; gave it up 2 years ago. (See, I can learn!)
> I see you got your "Masters" in gaming... When you tell me you have
I played ASL, but never got beyond about 4-5 of the supplements
before all the rulebooks reached critical mass and collapsed in upon
themselves. Even more rules intensive than SFB!
Does SFB qualify for a PHD? On second thought, SFB qualifies you for a JD.
> --- Peter Mancini <peter_mancini@email.msn.com> wrote: