I think it should be evident to everyone that no one builds a fleet to fail.
There is an entire science called naval architecture devoted to finding the
best and optimized fleet design of ships. The problem is that you have
multiple missions for ships to accomplish and so balances have to be struck.
And again there are different mindsets to how to accomplish them. So unless
you desing a campeign or scenario that has these competing missions, ships
will be optimized. Legislating your versionof sanity won't change it. Phil P.
> ----------
A nation would be foolish not to strive for the best mix of weapons and
weapons platforms to suit it's needs. Those needs are affected by the
economic, political, geographic factors of the countries (planets) involved.
These only come into play generally in large, complex campaigns.
Some nations may not have an optimization 'choice'. To counter your statement
I will put forth a few examples.
1) A nation too poor to afford 'first run' naval architecture that must rely
on second hand ships or follow the dictates of a larger benefactor
as far as astronaval theory/ practice. Beggars can't be choosers.
2) Mercantile interests who (as in the core FT/MT rules) are held to
specific weapons/ systems for defense, except by certain special license
or permission.
3) Nations who have invested in large amounts of now obsolete or as yet
unproved technologies, who may field large navies, but to lesser effect.
4) Alien races may not be physically able to use, comprehend or reproduce
given designs or technologies. The Sa'vasku, for instance may not be able to
'grow' a ship strong enough to safely use a Nova Cannon or Wave Gun, but may
be able to produce new 'heavy' armored fighters with a little effort after
seeing the correlation between the thicker armor and it's effect.
> The problem is that you have multiple missions for ships to accomplish
That's exactly why I advocate a strong scenario based element. At least
explain WHY these mighty instruments of space destruction are hurtling after
each other through the inky void. Fer crying out loud AT LEAST GIVE YOUR SHIPS
NAMES!!!! <ahem, sorry>. It's a start. It is one of our groups house rules
that all ships be given names, even silly ones are preferable to numbers or
letters (unless that's your naming scheme).
Regardless, FT/ MT/ DII/ SG2 are simulations, albeit fantastic ones,
they still attempt to model thier own internally consistant (well... usually)
universe. This universe, closely resembles our own, so probably follows almost
all of the constants we see around us. So while Naval Architects, Admirals,
and Heads of State jockey around for the most bang for the buck the swabbies
are stuck using it, the workers have to build it, and the taxpayers have to
pay for it. Summing up: Nothing occurs in a vaccuum, if you want an pre
optimized game there's always chess or checkers (for the true power gamer use
the variant multiple jump & 'king me' rules for the latter). All the forces in
those games are as good as they get. As I grow older, I seem to prefer the
'shades of gray' of more realistic games.
> Legislating your versionof sanity won't change it.
But if everyone can agree on a good version it will become, de facto, law.
> Phil P.
Some more thoughts,
> Gene
It is interesting to me that ship optimization vice specific designs is an
issue. My first step in analyzing FT was to determine what "missions" were
required, and then design ships to fulfill that mission role. For example, I
visualized a need to torpedo boats to zip in an hit capital ships, so I
designed a light but very fast torpedo carrier. Other designs included the
long-range bombardment function (BBs with lots of A batteries), snipers
for slowing or stopping enemy ships (equipped with needle beams), medium
vessels that could break up enemy formations (screened cruisers with lots of
missiles), etc. No single design can function without the others (except for
the patrol cruiser that has a bit of everything, and is designed for
independent patrol). So the fleet automatically assumes a balance; I've had
very good luck using screening ships to protect my core force while my snipers
and torpedo boats slow and attrit enemy units, and eventually my core force
closes in for the kill or capture. And by using specialized ships, I have
managed a number of captures.
-- John I.
> Slaan@aol.com writes:
@:) It is interesting to me that ship optimization vice specific @:) designs
is an issue. My first step in analyzing FT was to @:) determine what
"missions" were required, and then design ships to @:) fulfill that mission
role.
I guess the question is whether you needed to bother. What if you
just plunked down a bunch of mass 36, thrust 7 cruisers with 6 3-arc A
batteries each (cost 312 - thrust 3 gives cost 240)? Would they be
able to destroy your opponents intricately complicated multi-ship-type
fleet? If so, optimization is a problem.
> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Slaan@aol.com writes:
The only problem I have with the design above is that it is boring. There is
very little maneuver from such a fleet. Oh sure, they turn and move
and such - But with three arcs on all their weapons there is no real
need other than range. I have found that limiting the arcs on a weapon
increase the amount of maneuver during a game dramatically. That kind of
change might encourage the "multi-ship" fleet, each having its own job.
Just a thought.
> Chad Taylor writes:
@:) I write:
@:) > [ should you only buy ships with only 3-arc A batteries? ]
@:) > If so, optimization is a problem.
@:)
@:) The only problem I have with the design above is that it is @:) boring.
There is very little maneuver from such a fleet.
I agree with you completely. So if boring is bad, and if a fleet of boring
ships is the best fleet that can ever be made, optimization is a problem in
FT. I don't think it's as bad as that, but I do think certain weapons, like A
batteries, make more sense to use than others, and I think that certain
weapons, like needle beams, make less sense to use. It would be nice if each
weapon were different but in some way equal to all the others. Same thing with
ship classes. Obviously this is quite difficult, though, and I don't expect it
will be completely possible. The question right now is whether things are so
unbalanced that it doesn't even make sense to use the less capable weapons,
systems or size classes.
> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> I guess the question is whether you needed to bother. What if you
IMHO, "no limits on thrust" is a problem. You can make e.g. the heavy cruiser
designs much better with relatively little cost without sacrificing anything.
> I guess the question is whether you needed to bother. What if you
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Exactly, hence the intention to rate drive power as a % of mass in the
Now, the $64,000 question:
Will there be some kind of rebate or upgrade plan for loyal customers, or do I
get to buy it all over again?
> At 07:52 AM 4/1/97 +0100, Jon at GZG wrote:
> Exactly, hence the intention to rate drive power as a % of mass in the
I strongly suggest that Jon re-examine the issue of the % Mass
application issue. I have a couple disagreements with this concept: First, It
adds a level of complexity to ship design that is unneccessary to the game. I
believe the problems with this can be solved with a newer Thrust Efficiency
chart that places more data points besides the current
18/36/100 Mass ones.
Second, It will drive the game into the arms of the big ships. Since a large
ship has more room to place long range or area affect weapons, it can afford
to do this and pay for high maneuverability, thus creating more of the Kravak
effect, but now in capital ships.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Provided we can get it sorted and tested in time, we intend to use the revised
construction system in the Fleet Book, along with introducing some other ideas
and changes, so the FB will be a "bridge" for existing players
between FTII and FTIII - if you have FTII and the FB when it comes out,
you will have most of the important changes for playing FTIII. But, of course,
FTIII will be SOOOOOO cool that you won't be able to LIVE without your very
own shiny copy..... :):):)
Oh, and it won't cost $64,000; who do you think we are, G*m*s
W*rksh*p???
> At 07:52 AM 4/1/97 +0100, Jon at GZG wrote:
Our playtest results so far (with in-house and external teams) don't
suggest that it is in any way more complicated; in fact, most of them liked
the extra freedom it gave them in designs, and felt it was more logical and
intuitive than the FTII system.
> Second, It will drive the game into the arms of the big ships.
Since a
> large ship has more room to place long range or area affect weapons, it
Sorry, but I maintain this is even MORE likely to happen under the original
construction system; a thrust 8 big ship has the same weapons space (and the
same mass) as a thrust 2 one. If costing drives in Mass (as well as points),
you have to tradeoff between thrust and weapons space, which doesn't happen in
the FTII system. Please note that if we are changing the system AT ALL, then
we'll probably take the opportunity to juggle ALL the factors (weapon mass,
ship sizes etc.) to balance everything as well as we
can - so if you want to put everything on your capital ship that it has
under the FTII system, you may well find you don't have ROOM left for more
than thrust-2 or so. You can go for a zippy high-g tincan with minimal
weapons, or a hulking ironclad gunbus that steers like an arthritic hippo. Or,
of course, you can build something nice and sensible in between...
:)
> Until FTIV that is...
Listen, If GZG had been around 17 years ago when I got into this
racket, I wouldn't have spent $10-15,000 on useless overpriced self
absorbed games. $20-30 bucks every year or so for a GZG product is
hardly an opressive figure, especially considering the "bang" you get for the
buck. Hmmmm...$70US for GW rules kludge vs. $20US for GZG product and I can
tailor my force to whatever miniatures I already have...Gee, that's a
difficult choice.....(sheesh!)
> GAMEPREACH MODE OFF<<<<
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> will have most of the important changes for playing FTIII. But, of
Until FTIV that is...
Not that a new rulebook is really that big a sum. It's the principle of the
thing.
I will pay for new rules. I object to paying for the same Official Background
Bullshit(tm), which I'm still not going to use, all over again. Thankfully,
there's not that much of that in FT.
> On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Sorry, but I maintain this is even MORE likely to happen under the
The only problem is that unless this "thrust as% of mass" relation changes
as mass goes up, you'll have exactly the same problem for small ships -
ie, they too can choose either to be fast or to carry weapons. After all,
under the FTII rules all starships spend exactly the same percentage
(50%) of their mass on useful non-engine systems.
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> The only problem is that unless this "thrust as % of mass" relation
Well, it *is* realistic... but no more on that unless someone insists.
You could say that small ships are faster, because that's the only defense
they can afford in their small hulls! This is probably the most realistic
approach.
How about: The point cost could be similar to current system, but the mass
requirement strictly linear.
Or how about the BTech way: Choose your engine from a table (though I hate
tables), tack on stuff and then see what your power:mass ratio is.
All in all, do we want to retain the intuitive but somewhat unrealistic
system (small & fast -- big & slow), or do we want to model naval,
space and physics realities better?
It might pay to separate raw speed from maneuverability. Raw main drive power
is linear, but maneuverability isn't. There's even some real justification to
this: J (angular mass, for lack of a better word) is proportional to the
*square* of radius. Ok, so momentum is proportional to distance which cancels
it out if you can mount your turning thrusters on
the outer edges. But you could invent a number of semi-plausible
explanations based on this.
Was $64,000 a price suggestion???? ;-)
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Brian Bell wrote:
> Was $64,000 a price suggestion???? ;-)
Since some people don't seem to know: The $64K question is a reference to some
quiz show, where the final big question could earn you the afore mentioned
sum.
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Mike Wikan wrote:
Didn't I make my message clear enough? It's NOT about coughing up $20 a year
for NEW stuff. It's about coughing the $2 a year for the Official Timeline(tm)
I already have in three different books!
I don't mind paying for stuff I get. I *do* mind paying for stuff I don't
want. I don't throw dollar bills into trash just because I can afford to.
It's about rule:bs ratio.
In the good old days, games were mostly rules, let's say 90:10. These days,
games are sold on nifty background and have very little rules, mostly lifted
from somewhere else. 10:90.
Thus, if there are major rules revisions, 90% of the money I spend updating a
typical modern game goes toward buying the same background bullshit I already
own.
GZG products do have a very good ratio, especially in these days.
The upcoming Fleet Book will probably be more along the modern lines, 10%
rules and 90% ships I could have designed myself and Official Background(tm)
I'm still not going to use. Fine. I'll just not buy that particular book.
*But* if the FB was the *only* source for some rule updates, I would be...
annoyed.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio:
> <<Didn't I make my message clear enough? It's NOT about coughing up $20
Clear enough to me.
> <<I don't mind paying for stuff I get. I *do* mind paying for stuff I
It is for me too. However, I feel that I should support a fellow like Jon, who
produces a game that has an acceptable "roadapple coefficient".
If this means paying for the printing of GZG's "O-ficial" timeline with
a few niggling expansions here or there per volume, this is a small price to
pay. Putting it this way, when you go to a restaurant, do you complain about
the lettuce and tomato garnish that is taking up space on the plate. I
understand your point, however. I simply am willing to put up with Jon's
background in order to get to the gamin' goodness at the core.
> <<In the good old days, games were mostly rules, let's say 90:10.
Ah, hand typed, xeroxed (or mimeographed). Hey, what's that thing on the
cover. Um, it's a drawing my brother did, I think it's a tank or something...
I remember it well, rules did seem like they had more 'heart', back when it
reall was a labor of love. Oh, well, so much for nostalgia.
> <<Thus, if there are major rules revisions, 90% of the money I spend
> *But* if the FB was the *only* source for some rule updates, I would
Again it depends on the ration of good-to-garbage. If there's enough
good stuff, then it's worthwhile, otherwise, don't shell out the money.
Personally, I'm willing to take the plunge and risk the fact that there may be
some stuff that comes out as useless for my personal campaigns.
Now if GZG begins to fall into a decaying orbit similar to GW/Citadel
Megacorp, producing nothing but a highly stylized miniatures painting
competition and die-rolling wrist muscle strengthening plan, along with
rulebooks held together entirely by snazzy artwork and mucilage, with the
occasional 'rule' to confuse things. When that happens, by all means feel free
to bail out. From what I've read, on this list, and in the rules, there seems
to be little danger of that happening.
Later,
Gene
> [quoted text omitted]