Got to play Full Thrust at BenCon in Denver. This is only a limited after
action report since I didn't run the game, and forgot my digital camera to
take turn-by-turn pictures.
If anyone else from the game is on the list, feel free to correct me on what I
get wrong.
The setup:
Plantary defense. The -attackers- are invading the -whocares- system
with
the intent of bombing it back to the stone age. The -defenders- have a
fleet of system defense monitors to stop them.
The -defenders- were given the choice of how many pages of 1200 point
fleets
to use. (two pages were chosen) The -attackers- had the same number of
pages.
The game: Full Thrust and More Thrust rules only. Cinematic Movement.
The -attackers- were destroyed except for 2 small ships.
Sorry but I don't remember the turn by turn events.
I was part of the -attackers-.
Lessons learned: I suck at playing without FB1 and FB2. Too much play with
them and in specific conversion play. (like star wars universe)
I enjoy FB1 + FB2 too much to play without them. Trying to do anything
against a 1000 point ship with level THREE screens is no FUN.
Rerolling sixes is fun too.
Having to fight system defense boats is no fun when you're at equal points.
Both sides may have had 2400 points but since I had to pay for FTL and they
didn't I feel that this was unbalanced. After this game, I wouldn't attack
this system without at least a 3000 point fleet.
Don't play so fast. Dyslexia and movement plotting don't mix at 2 minutes per
round. No, your other left!
Always know your objectives, and winning conditions. Know how they balance.
Know where the exits are. We could have done much better by running straight
at the planet, hitting the planet, taking our lumps and then running away.
Was fun though.
> --- Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:
> Having to fight system defense boats is no fun when
When I first read this, I thought the defenders were probably in trouble. It
always seems harder to me to defend something, than to attack it. The defender
tends to get pinned to the objective while the attackers have more
flexibility. This is especially true if the attackers need only get some
ordinance or a few ships past the defenders to achieve the objective.
On the ground (I don't often play ground games) they tell me the defender has
a big advantage due to his ability to dig in. This doesn't seem to be a factor
here unless they had minefields and hidden movement (hiding behind
asteroids?).
I can see how FTL costs would give them some advantage like you say. The
scenario looks like it would need careful design. I'd try doing the scenario
and then switching sides to get a better idea of how achievable the attacker
goals were.
> --- Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:
[ I missed the original message that kicked this off ]
I actually played in this game, as one of the defenders (I was
running the 4 sys-defense heavy cruisers ... you killed one of
the cruisers).
I'll add my 2 cents in saying the scenario was quite broken.
I tried to find the person who'd never played before, after the game, just so
I could tell him that that was NOT what full thrust was like. But never got a
chance outside of the referee's hearing.
For other peoples edification (so you don't make the same mistakes): The
scenario was attack the planet, equal point value on either side, attacker's
came in randomized on the far side.
Mistakes made:
o About 1/2 of the defenders ships we could choose from didn't have FTL,
so were seriously overgunned and overshielded. I let my partner pick
the ships and he picked all sys-defense ships (compounding the
problem).
At the time I didn't realize that the point values on each "sheet of ships" we
could take were equal... I thought they were probably balanced based on
playtesting.
o All A-bats, all 3 arcs (using More Thrust rules). Although good for
beginners (since they have to worry about movement less), this is a rather
boring fleet composition for anybody whose played before. Make newbie ships
and advanced ships and make sure that newbies play newbie ships and advanced
play advanced ships.
o Although I don't think that attackers realized what they were doing, giving
a new player a bunch of little ships. New players do better with one or two
big ships.
o The attackers, already outgunned, came in randomized. This caused the
attackers to attack piecemeal.
o Some of the advice given the newbie by the referee was a little dodgy. This
is kinda a judgement call, but the referee knew that if the newbie got ahead
of his main line of forces, he'd get mauled. He proceeded to "help" him write
his initial orders... which resulted in him getting ahead of his main line...
then "adviced" him to pull up his
short-range
torpedo destroyers prior to them even getting a shot off, thereby extending
their time outside of range yet inside our's. At least if he'd come straight
ahead he'd have gotten a shot off.
It's always easier to criticize than compliment, so the things he did right
were: o He ran a Full Thrust game! o Alot of painted ships, which we could
choose our fleets from those we liked. o A good starmap surface. o A simple
scenario.
o Sheets of fleets of 2-8 ships each player could choose from.
I had fun, although I suspect I would've had more fun if it had been more
balanced.
> Mike Stanczyk wrote:
The scenario imbalance should have been obvious to the referee before the
game. Especially under the older rules version! A non-FTL ship had 25%
more mass available between an FTL equipped ship! Do you think he ran a
playtest of the scenario before the convention?
;-)
Mr.Sarno, you have my permission to beat this referee senseless with a large
piece of cheese.
> At 08:02 11/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
Cheese?! CHEESE!!!!! Why waste a perfectly good piece of cheese?
Use a leek instead:)