This is one of the still disputed intrepretations of the Full Thrust rules.
Some say that odd ton ships round up both systems tonnage and damage boxes
(making a cheaper version of the next larger even ton ship). Others say to
round both down (making odd ships more expensive than the next smaller even
ton ship). Still others say to round up the system tonnage and round down
the damage boxes. This gives more weapons/systems but tends to make the
standard ships less powerful by comparison. I prefer to round down the system
tonnage and round up damage. This only provides 1 extra damage box.
I feel this gives the standard ships a better cost/preformance ratio.
Jon? Any [official] comments?
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
> This is one of the still disputed intrepretations of the Full Thrust
I guess one of the most logical ways to do it is simply to ban
odd-numbererd mass ships!! :)
More seriously, of the options you suggested I think the last one sounds
best - round systems space down and damage boxes up; but please don't
take
this as gospel - it might be interesting to allow either way, as long as
one factor (system mass or damage) is rounded down and the other up -
gives players yet another choice to make....
Jon (GZG)
> Brian Bell
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I guess one of the most logical ways to do it is simply to ban
As this is quite clearly the stand Geo-Hex takes in their FAQ at
http://www.geohex.com/faq1.htm, I was wondering who authorized that?
I *thought* they were gospel straight from the horse's mouth.
Do we already have a schism?
> this as gospel - it might be interesting to allow either way, as long
Unnecessary complexity, IMHO. And, IMHO, odd thrust should round
maneuverability DOWN. A single point of turning is more important (usually)
than a single point of thrust, which leads to optimised designs with odd
thrust numbers.
> Ground Zero Games writes:
@:) I guess one of the most logical ways to do it is simply to ban
@:) odd-numbererd mass ships!! :)
BOO!
@:) More seriously, of the options you suggested I think the last one
@:) sounds best - round systems space down and damage boxes up; but
@:) please don't take this as gospel - it might be interesting to
@:) allow either way, as long as one factor (system mass or damage) is
@:) rounded down and the other up - gives players yet another choice
@:) to make....
We've had pretty good luck with the opposite - we round systems
space up and damage boxes down. We (my gaming group) argued this for
a while and decided that it made sense - the slightly smaller ship can
carry the same weapons load but it has to sacrifice cargo space, crew
quarters, etc to do it - and those are the parts of the ship soaking
up damage in battle.
This seems to work but I think it would be nice if there were a fewer
"rounding error" problems of this sort. We have the odd mass problem, the odd
thrust problem, the odd turn problem and none of them are explicitly resolved
in the rules. The examples seem to avoid these problems as well. Perhaps these
would be issues worth looking at for FTIII. They're not major but what it
boils down to is that every group has to decide very basic game issues in
their own way and you end up with people who have very different ideas about
how very simple aspects of the game work.
"Ensign! Ahead one-third!"
"Captain, that speed's not divisible by two...."
"Damn! All right, ensign, ahead one-third plus one!"
"Very good sir!"
> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
No. KR at Geohex has been on the net much longer than I have, and I didn't
have any input into this FAQ, but that doesn't make them any less (or more)
"right" or "official". But in fact, KR has probably PLAYED a lot more games of
FT than I have (certainly in recent years) so is, IMHO, pretty well qualified
to offer interpretations.
> this as gospel - it might be interesting to allow either way, as long
I don't really think this is complex - just a simple choice one way or
the other when you're designing your ship, you write it into the ship design
and there we are.
> And, IMHO, odd thrust should round maneuverability DOWN.
Yes, I'd definitely agree with you on this one.
> --
I avoid the odd ton ships by building the ship components and then calculating
what the tonnage must be to support those components.
2xComponents for FTL ships; or 4xComponents/3 for system ships. It
helps using a computer to design, because it can then do all the calculations
and give a running total of the ship mass as you add equipment.
> Slaan@aol.com writes:
@:) I avoid the odd ton ships by building the ship components and then @:)
calculating what the tonnage must be to support those components.
@:) 2xComponents for FTL ships; or 4xComponents/3 for system ships.
@:) It helps using a computer to design, because it can then do all @:) the
calculations and give a running total of the ship mass as you @:) add
equipment.
That's funny, I usually build the components, multiply by two and
subtract one to get an odd-mass ship. Computers do certainly help
(insert shameless plug for Full Thrust Space Dock at