I'm new to Full Thrust, and so I apologize for the simplicity of this
question. But I searched for an FAQ and/or errata, and found none...
I'm writing (like many of you have) a spreadsheet program to build ships using
the system in the Fleet Book. Once I made it, I decided to test it, using the
example ship given in the design section. I come up short on one
item: the example gives the Screen-1 mass as being 5, whereas I figure
it to be four.
Ship mass 85
Screen-1 = greater of 3 or %5 of Mass, which is 4.25, rounded to 4
Are screens inherently rounded up? Is my math off? Am I missing something? Is
this a typo?
It's trivial, I suppose, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
Thanks!
Side Note: I've loved Full Thrust so far, so I'm beginning to cast my eyes at
Dirtside and Stargrunt. I have played other games, and I was wondering if
anyone her could email me a decent evaluation of the games (why are they
good, why are they not-so-good, etc...). Feel free to compare to the
"other" miniatures game out there, 40K and Epic (which I'm not real fond of,
and would love to get a replacement).
> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:23:08 -0500, Andy Akins <igor@ames.net> wrote:
> I'm writing (like many of you have) a spreadsheet program to build
I can't find my copy of the Fleet Book errata. It's possible that this is an
error. I checked my own spreadsheet, which I used to help Jon work out the
Fleet Book values, and my spreadsheet calculates it as a mass of 4, too.
----------
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Newbie question
Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 7:06 PM
> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:23:08 -0500, Andy Akins <igor@ames.net> wrote:
> I'm writing (like many of you have) a spreadsheet program to build
I can't find my copy of the Fleet Book errata. It's possible that this is an
error. I checked my own spreadsheet, which I used to help Jon work out the
Fleet Book values, and my spreadsheet calculates it as a mass of 4, too.
> Andy Akins wrote:
> I'm new to Full Thrust, and so I apologize for the simplicity of this
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/faq-index.html
> I'm writing (like many of you have) a spreadsheet program to build
Correct. The 5 value is a typo, should be 4.
IIRC, this was the only design in the entire book we playtesters
*didn't*
check (or at least I didn't see it) <G>
> Side Note: I've loved Full Thrust so far, so I'm beginning to cast my
Haven't played WH40K for ages and SGII only a little, so I'll leave that for
someone else.
E40K (NOT Space Marine/Titan Legions!) vs DSII, well... both have their
strong points. A very quick (some would say indecent <g>) comparision of the
two:
DSII is better for smaller games - up to a couple of battalions or so.
Rules for morale (esp. infantry morale), artillery, casevac etc tend to be
important; the detail level is pretty high. There's a lot of choice in the
vehicle design, and the design choices are quite important. You have to know
how to use your units, or you'll lose (unless your opponent is even more
inexperienced <g>). Many people are annoyed by the damage
resolution - you draw chits instead of rolling dice, although there are
die charts out on the net as well.
E40K, OTOH, is designed for large forces. I wouldn't field my entire
pseudo-Eldar (using Renegade Legion gravtanks, among other things) force
- approx. 140 armoured vehicles with supporting infantry,grav bikes,
aerospace support and (dare I say it) Titans - in a DSII battle since
it'd take too long to finish, but I can take it (and have done so) against a
comparable enemy force in E40K and still play the battle to a conclusion in a
day. However, in order to get this speed of play
virtually all detail has been dropped - there is almost no difference
between, say, a Predator and a Leman Russ. In DSII, there'd be a real
difference between the weapons carried, rather than just "firepower 3 vs
firepower 2".
Regards,
On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 14:08:02 +0100, Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@nacka.mail.telia.com> wrote:
> Haven't played WH40K for ages and SGII only a little, so I'll leave
Okay, I'll handle this one.
In an opposite move to Epic40K/DS2, SG2 is designed to simulate battles
slightly bigger than 40K. Well, as compared to 40K Rogue Trader, that is. I
never got into any of the later 40K games.
SG2 is designed so that the base unit of the game is a squad. Individual
figures are marked and removed for casualty purposes, but otherwise everything
happens at the squad level. I guess you could say that the individual figures
are there for bookkeeping purposes.
Each player activates squads one at a time. Each squad gets 2 actions per
activation. They can fire each weapon only once per turn, but can move then
fire, fire then move, move twice, etc. Combat is different from almost any
type of game you've played, but it's easy, fast and a lot of fun. The attacker
rolls a certain type and number of dice and compares it to dice rolled by the
defender. The result tells if the target was hit, missed, or just suppressed,
and the number of potential casualties. Typically a squad fires all weapons at
another squad or splits the fire of its small arms and support weapons.
Command control and morale are very important, more so than 40K. Each command
unit has a special action. It can use one of it's actions to activate another
squad, including one that had already activated. This allows some units to act
twice in a turn. The strategy, therefore, is not just in moving and using the
squads, but also in how you activate them. Flexibility is the key.
With morale, squads drop through 5 levels of morale, potentially routing a
unit off the field. This is controlled by a squad's quality (untrained, green,
regular, veteran, elite) and it's leadership value. Sounds like a lot, but
quality is so tied into things like combat that it eventually (very quickly,
actually) becomes seemless and easy to remember.
While the game concentrates on squads, there are rules for individual figures
(such as snipers), artillery, vehicles, power armour, aerospace operations,
ECM, etc., etc.
Proper tactics usually result in correct outcomes. You can charge an intact
unit that hasn't been activated in order to conduct close combat, but if you
haven't supressed it first, you're in for a lot of pain! Close combat is so
much of a crap shoot that I rarely recommend it! This is a big difference from
40K.
Note, the game has no point system. I don't have a problem with this, but
quite a few people do. Perhaps we'll see one in the Bugs Don't Kill supplement
due when Jon gets around to finishing it.
If you have any other specific questions about the game, don't hesitate to
e-mail me. SG2 and DS2 are fairly similar, although most people prefer
the SG2 combat resolution system.