OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some playtest
ideas to this list to get some reactions, so here goes:
Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional -
they are points for discussion, not finished rules! Some of this MAY end up in
FTIII (and probably in the Fleet Book first), but nothing is set in stone at
this stage. I am actively seeking feedback, but the final decision as to what
we use will be made from a mixture of testers' responses, discussions here and
my own preferences.
NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been written
yet :).
This is simply the rough outline of the new system:
1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between Escorts,
Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship designs from
smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to need
special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and threshold
points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
interest...)
2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with in the
design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of this you will
have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently assumed to be
part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating will
depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives - preliminary
ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. FTL drive will use 10% of ship
mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if you
wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very "slow"
one bristling with guns..... (OK, I know this will change the ship designs
considerably, but then so will a simple change like making A batts cost 4
mass....)
3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus 2
per additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think they'll
go
a long way to fixing the age-old problem.
4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
in a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole" effect of
all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly increased
fighter move distances (24" or 36"?) and making the revised turn sequence from
MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after order writing, but before
ships move, so you have to anticipate the enemy's move).
6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to judge
from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do you think
this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other than (perhaps)
making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?
So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the reactions
-
either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send loads
of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so I
can gauge feelings on it.)
Many thanks!
In message <199702220954.JAA26488@gate.flexnet.net>
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:
...Can't resist throwing in my thruppence ha'penny...
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
As far I can tell, no matter how you write this rule, there will always be
some more optimum sizes, and some less optimum sizes and the maximisers will
sniff out the former as soon as they read the book.
I wouldn't lose too much sleep getting this bit perfect.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
I (rather pompously, check the archives) threw out some ideas for rejigging
the design rules to emphasise mass over points values and by the end of the
discussion I'd talked myself round about 180 degrees.
The conclusion I came to is that the more descriptive the design system is,
the better it is, and the more constructive the design system is, the worse it
is. I know full well that this isn't going to be a popular point of view,
since for many people the engineering aspect of a game like Full Thrust is
more than half of the game ("my designs vs. your designs"), but my first
impression of the above idea is that it is a huge retrograde step.
The more constructive the design system, the faster a flock of maximisers will
descend on it and gut it like a big wet fish.
My preferred rejigging would be to go the other way. Want to design a ship?
Write down what systems it will have, write down how many hull boxes it will
have, write down what thrust it will have. Tot up the points values of the
systems and hull, muliply by some number derived from the thrust. Description
over construction.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
Will 4-arc weapons be allowed?
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
It seems counter-intuitive for submunitions to bear over a greater
angle if side-mounted not front-mounted. Also this will make it more
difficult to trail big ships and stay in their rear-arc (always a joy).
Considering 4) and 6) together, Allan Goodal recently ran a PBeM game
where the rear-arc fire was allowed and ships mounted weapons mainly
as starboard-front-port and starboard-rear-port, which combining these
rules seem like the optimal way of mounting weapons (so all weapons bear
on the two broadsides) and it was still very much a "plughole"-type
game.
In message <199702220954.JAA26488@gate.flexnet.net>
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:
Huzzah! This is better than those bar stewards down at GW. The 40k list never
gets any mail from any official source; keep it up!;)
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
Perhaps allow ships to fire rear arc weapons when ship is moving, but not
allowing the rear arc weapons to bear elsewhere. This is intended for game
balance, but if you need some fluff to balance it out then perhaps the
sheilding from the ship's drive takes up space that servo mounts etc...
normally would. That way you could have a decent set of guns all round, and
maybe a B class guarding yer a$$.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
I think it's great! The picture in the FT rulebook of a pair of ships
exchenging broadsides is v good indeed; very "realistic". The idea of
broadsides is quite a good one IMHO.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
Ooops. But by abd large a good set of ideas; any chance of a release date for
the new rulebook (I lost mine!).
> Many thanks!
Excerpts from FT: 22-Feb-97 [OFFICIAL] new ideas! by Ground Zero
Games@gzero.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
I like this one, but then I've got a large number (more than 2/3s my
ships) of Space Fleet minis, which used broadsides all over the place. Of
course, this rather trashes the "fire forward" front 180 of some of the ships.
Hmm....
Two things, then: 1) I'm wondering how much work it would be to include a
"turreting cost" or some such, which allows you to mount over different
angles. This would probably turn into a royal pain actually, but could make
for some
very interesting ships designs. ^_^ And alternative -- which I do
rather like -- is to have the standard fore/port/etc. arcs that exist
now, and a second set which are rotated 45 degrees. This allows for front or
side 180 degree fire arcs.
2) On a rather unrelated note: I like the way you're changing the drive system
to a portion of the hull, now how much work would it be to put in some sort of
power system? I'm thinking of the Omegas in B5 here; they seem to have a lot
of guns which they can't all fire at once. So you can make a central power
system or something, which you allocate fire for to the various weaponry. I
don't think I'd want to do this for the
small escorts or anything, but they're not likely to need it -- you just
power all their weapons. But having a Battleship with lotsa guns and an
alternative torpedo tube or something, which if it wants to fire it can't fire
some guns, would allow for a lot more tactical flexibility.
> At 09:58 AM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
In one of my own games, my system allowed players to design their own missles
on up to dreadnoughts.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
This makes more sense than the system currently in use.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
Not too bad.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
Ahh firearcs...my favorite topic...
a) rear arcs: I could not see any reason why a ship's drive would be so noisy
as to totally block rear fire. This also stops players from simulating SFB
ships without changing the rules. A simpler system is this: Allow the rear arc
to be chosen like any of the others. This fits with alot
of science-fiction backgrounds better.
b) 4 arc weapons: most ships only have two places to put 4-arc
weapons, the very top, and the very bottom. anywhere else must be 3 arcs or
less.
Some ships can only have 1 4-arc weapon. If the players are assigning
mini's to specific designs, then they can point to the mini and show where
the weapons are, and weather it can mount 4-arc weapons or not. The
laws of physics prevents two objects from occupying the same space at the same
time.
So this limits how many 4-arc weapons a ship can carry to 1 or 2.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
The fighters sound ok as is...just allow the fighters to
accellerate/decellerate like the ships do.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
How about some 180 arcs? Left side, right side, front side, aft side.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some
> Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional
I would be very careful with the design of this system. At the moment it seems
that it is a simple matter to decide what mass of ship is the most effective
in a given size class. This would effectively give us one size class and I am
concerned that one mass would stand out (if even only slightly) as the best of
all the others.
I rather like the current system of having the mass of ships broken up into
various hull sizes. I would like to see a few more than the three we
have, my preference being at about five-six or so. It allows the idea
of each size class having something that "it" is a little better at doing than
the rest. Besides, having the given names for each hull size was great for
description purposes (standard names = standard reference).
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
The "% ship mass per thrust factor" kind of scares me away. I would really
rather not make such calculations in order to design ships. I'm willing
(grudgingly), but I have a number of friend who aren't. They want a simple
system or won't consider playing (actually, they want fleet books to choose
ships from). Just the same, if you kept
the hull size/class idea you could say that each thrust costs 1 per size
class or some such. Easy calculation, you stay with mass only, and it allows
you to buy thrust.
I've got reservations about going to an all mass system myself. I rather like
having points as a balance also. This of course all came out earlier during
the original debate of mass v points. Allowing all of the mass to be used for
systems makes me feel a little better about the idea, but I'm not sure how
much.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
I'm sure someone will do the mass and come up with the argument. Sounds like a
great idea to me though.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
-snip fighter movement-
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
I really like the idea of firing to the rear arc when you use no thrust.
Simple rules change and easy to explain. I'll probably suggest this as a
"house rule" to my group tonight. Can't think of a much better endorsement.
You make a very good point about the hexagonal model bases (I have more than
one fleet of SFB ships that I use with Full Thrust) and I think that taking it
into consideration is a great idea. I would suggest though that you keep it
simple. Just buy arcs in 60 degrees. Having different arc widths will only
cause confusion and give us ship design preferences. I always prefer to see
rules that are consistent on such things (all arcs are X). If you design side
arcs to be wider and cost the same then broad side ships become a better
design. If you tried to keep balance by saying side arcs cost twice as much
(being twice as wide and there for twice as effective) then why not just allow
people to buy the arcs in the grades they want? I would much prefer the
decision of building large side arcs to be mine.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
Re: response from Aaron Teske:
> Two things, then:
There is no reason why we couldn't use different arcs for different
weapons/mounts, eg: front or side 180 deg. as suggested here and
elsewhere
- but it WILL complicate things quite a bit; is it worth it, or do we
just suggest that players can amend the arcs for their own specific "universe"
if they wish? What does everyone else think?
> 2) On a rather unrelated note: I like the way you're changing the drive
With the exception of a few "special" weapons (eg: the Wave Gun with its
charging system) I specifically DON'T want to get into the "power
allocation" idea - IMHO it is one of the the major things that slows
some games (SFB?) down to a crawl, with players having to spend ages working
out how to allocate their power before each turn. However, I see no problem in
having just a few big weapon types that need "charging" in the same way as the
Wave Gun.
Thanks for the feedback - keep it coming!
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:58:29 +0000
...
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Excellent.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play
As long as it stays fairly simple, this is a good idea. I don't want to see it
get as complicated as Hight Guard or any of the other Traveller
ship-design
systems, though.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
Sane enough.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
should
Fine, but...
For some backgrounds or ship designs, it ought to be fine to fire to the rear
all of the time (Frex., Star Trek's Klingons & Reliant-class ships, Some
Star Warts ships, some B5, etc.). Perhaps that can just be campaign specific,
or perhaps it's a special extra cost to the drives, because they're either
better shielded, different design, mounted on otherwise silly pylons, etc., to
allow firing while under thrust?
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
_Hate it.
> sequence from MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after
Make them use Ship rules, but not have to plot, and allow them to move after
all plotted ships have moved.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
I'd definitely stick with even-sized arcs. Whether they're 90 degree, 60
degree, or whatever, is of no real importance. Perhaps keep them 90 degree,
and have 8
arcs, which have overlap zones? (12:00-3:00, 1:30-4:30, 3:00-6:00,
4:30-7:30,
etc.)
> OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some
Well, with everyone else jumping on the bandwagon... ;-)
Here's my (long-winded) 2 cents worth:
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
[...]
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Hmmmm...I dunno. Yeah, there are valid points in doing this, but at the same
time I can see where things would break down to only certain mass ranges being
optimal and others totally avoided. The optimal ship size problem has been
around since at least Starfire and I've managed to live with it there as is,
and have been happy with the current method of doing things. It's simple,
straightforward, and yeah, there are optimal class sizes, but hey, I was never
one of the (as one person coined the term)
'maximizer' types anyway. :-) I like a diverse fleet.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
Maybe I need to sit down with this idea and actually work out numbers, but on
the surface this seems to add a level of complication that I'd rather not see.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
I don't like it, but then I want all *my* A-batts to be Mass 1. ;-)
Go for it; this'll fix the battery/mass problem. maybe heavy on the
A-batt,
but I'd have to sit down with the math. No time right now; I'll let someone
else take a crack at it.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
I agree that there should be rear-firing weapons - unless your universe
calls against it. Starfire uses this limitation and explains it away with the
distortion field that the ion drives create behind ships. My question was then
how do you target someone through a distortion field if you're
behind them? ;-)
I recently ran a B5-related PBeM game, and certain ship classes (notably
the Omegas and Hyperions) were allowed rear-firing weapons mounts. It
did not seem to hinder the game any, and made for interesting decisions for
the players. They *knew* now some ships could fire rearward; how to
avoid Big Damage and still attack their target was their problem. :-)
I would vote Yes to rear-firing weapons. However, I would also suggest
that perhaps you place a cap on the number of arcs weapons can fire in.
Say 3 arcs max. Ships I have designed and allowed rear-arc fire for I
restricted the number of arcs to be 3 tops. And I designed them so they
concentrated fire forward and aft, and partial fire to the starboard and
port. Basically half the rear-firing 3-arc weapons were mounted facing
port, the other half starboard.
Someone else mentioned a potential of 4-arc weapons, and allowing at
most one or two of these. I can see arguements in favor of this, and would say
'sure' as long as you limited it to *only* one or two batteries.
Otherwise, everyone'll have 4-arc weapons, and where's the tactical
maneuvering go?
So sure, I vote for rear-arc firing being permitted. I also vote 3-arcs
max on weapons, with *maybe* one 4-arc weapon - if you have the model
for it! ;-)
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
I've been trying to follow (in my copious spare time lately) the fighter
thread a bit and like the idea that fighters should/could be treated as
tiny ships with 12 thrust. It's simple, doesn't screw too much up, and
eliminates one (sub)step in the turn sequence.
I also am a proponent of fighters going *after* ships if they don't move at
the same time ships do (thus simulating their better ability to follow the
larger monsters). However, at the same time, I am also a proponent of
upping the damage potential of *DAFs - have them take out a fighter on a
4 or 5, and 2 ftrs on a roll of 6. Ditto against missiles.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
While this has appeal, I like the current 4-arc system. It's simple,
straightforward, and easy enough to deal with. You can get a general idea of
where your opponent is with respect to your ship, and simply placing the
template over your ship will verify which arc they're in.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
There're mine! Hope it's of some help.
Mk
> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Chad Taylor wrote:
> I would be very careful with the design of this system. At the moment
The whole problem with the original system seems to be precisely that: some
players maximise their ships to use the biggest available hull size in the
class group, and this is where the problems occur (ie: biggest Escort is
better than smallest Cruiser etc.). Losing the distinction would, I believe,
actually help to keep things much more balanced.
> I rather like the current system of having the mass of ships broken up
The names will still be there, and they'll still refer to the same mass
groups - they will all just use the same construction formulae. I think
increasing the number of groupings would simply make the original problem of
the break points far worse...
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play
Fair comment, but the fleet book and standard ship designs WILL be there for
players who don't want to design their own. We're only talking of a VERY
simple calculation, say 5% of mass per thrust factor, rounded UP to
nearest whole mass - eg: thrust 2 takes 10% of ship's total mass, thrust
4 takes 20% and so on. So a mass 40 ship with thrust 6 uses 30% or 12 mass for
drives; the same drives for a mass 36 hull take 10.8, rounded up to 11. I
don't think this is too much of a problem for the average gamer, who is pretty
used to basic percentages anyway.
> I've got reservations about going to an all mass system myself. I
There is no reason why we won't keep the points as well, but they may be more
closely tied to the mass that in FTII so that players who prefer to balance
games on mass alone won't find things too far out of kilter.
> [quoted text omitted]
> I really like the idea of firing to the rear arc when you use no
Let me know how it works out!
> You make a very good point about the hexagonal model bases (I have more
I
> always prefer to see rules that are consistent on such things (all arcs
Interesting idea - allowing six 60 degree arcs would also solve the
question of people wanting 180 degree forward fire; the biggest problem would
be how to depict the arcs on some of the system icons, but I think we could
get round that.
> [quoted text omitted]
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
This is OK as long as you can respond to problems caused by change number 2.
> 2) Thrust assignment
I consider this change to be very dangerous if the thrust is still related to
the ability to turn a ship. I like the idea of being able to build a fast
capital ship but, it shouldn't be easy to make the big sucker turn. I know you
said no new rules but two types of thrust are required speed and maneuvering.
The maneuvering thrust should provide the abiliy to turn and some how cost
more mass to provide the same turning ability. The relationship of mass to
maneuvering I'll leave to someone else.
> 3) Battery mass.
No problem for me but I'm sure that others are not going to like this one.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there)
Just increase the range band to the target by one if the firing ship uses the
main engines.
> 5) Fighter movement increases (24" or 36"?)
This does make the fighters effective again against move moving ships. This
opens another question though, do missiles use the same thrust system? If they
do then are they also going to get a speed upgrade.
> 6) Fire arcs
If your going to use 60 degree arcs for forward and aft, keep it simple just
use all arcs as 60 degrees. I like the 60 degree arc then
forward/aft 180s are possible, as well as the port/forward or
starboard/forward 180s
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
Overall I like the possible changes but number 2 could be very scary.
> Many thanks!
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
< snip >
> >
I
> >always prefer to see rules that are consistent on such things (all
Maybe just switch to hex symbols from squares for the Beam Batteries. Simple
and quick.
> Jon T. (GZG).
Jon, I've read your original ideas and all of the previous replies and here's
my.02 Credits worth. As an over view I'd like to make sure everyone remembers
why we play Full Thrust over some other Space Games: Simplicity. I do not want
to have to pass a Bar Examiniation to have fun playing a game. Nor do I want
to spend two hours to see if my Star Ship Captain is breathing properly before
battle. Full Thrust is great because a large battle with multiple players can
be completed in less than two hours. All rule suggestions should be measured
in that light.
1) Ship Classification: This area of discussion would be removed if topic 2 is
adopted. The real issue of ship classification was the break between a
ship of mass 18/19 and 36/37 etc... This artifical distinction was the
real flaw in the game design. I do not agree that increasing the number of
classifications would increase the problem. While the problem would exist it
would be mitigated by using the better breakdown, such as the one I posted
before.
2) Allocation of Mass to drives etc. This becomes a real can of worms real
fast... While everyone agrees that KE=(1/2)*MV^2 for any mass whether
in one ship or devided into many, we cannot make the same case for turning
those ships... (For ships on the water there are quite a number of issues on
this, some larger ship's can actually go faster than smaller ones depending on
the sea state) This leads to a serious distinction of two kinds of drives
(Maneuver and Thrust) and how to calculate them. Not only have we added
another element of complexity but gave the battle over to the big ships since
they can now pack those huge weapons and keep up with the small fry...
3) Changing the Mass for certain weapons. With C Batteries mass equal to one
with full coverage, B Batteries Mass of two plus one per arc. A Batteries take
Four Mass plus two per mass. I like this idea, this will go a long way towards
balancing ships and weapons in the game. However, it may exasterbate the
issues of small fry versus big ships, if Rule 2 is adopted.
4) Rear-Arcs. Since Full Thrust is designed to be usable in any
universe, this rule will have to change (The opening Scene in Star Wars: A New
Hope.....) I really do belive that Rule 3 will go very far to remove
this issue... If you want to have full coverage A batteries, then go ahead, I
can stuff more fixed B batteries in another ship and we can play Monitor
Versus Merrimack. If you don't think that this will be enough place limits on
how many arcs certain weapons can have. C Max 4, B Max 3, A Max 2, etc.
However, the infrastructure cost to 360 As will make them prohibative.
However, now that you opened this can of worms, check the rest of your weapons
againts the costs for A batteries, everyone could start moving to Pulse
Torpedoes instead...etc. Another option is to make the rear arc cost double
its normal value in points. Fixed weapons pointing aft cost an additional 25
percent.
5) Fighter improvements: Fighters are very powerfull already, but I think that
the 36 inch movement will work. However, to commensate, you need to
beef up anti-fighter weapons. Make the effective range of ADAF larger
or
introduce anti-fighter missiles. As an AEGIS Fire Control Officer, I'd
love
to show my longe range anti-fighter capabilities...
6)Changing firing arcs: DON'T. Your game is nice and simple as it is and
this adds complexity without adding any benefits. (I hate the idea of
creating Broadside ships, it goes against everything I learned in Naval
History.) The Firing arc problem will be compunded by Rule 4 as it is. The
combination of the two grows more worms.
Final Reccomendation: Add Rule 1 and break the chart down into smaller pieces.
This combined with Rule 3 will remove the issues that Rule 2 was supposed to
take care of without adding too much complexity. Add Rule
4,
Rule 3 will mitigate the super ship issues. Go ahead and add rule 5 but give
fighter pilots something to worry about or we'll see nothing but carriers on
the board some day. Abandon Rule 6. Great Game, Keep it simple and balanced.
Phil P.
If I might add a thought regarding firing arcs...
In stead of allowing a large number of forward and rearward firing batteries,
might I suggest that the arcs of fire have a cost that is cheaper for side
firing rather than a straight cost?
Another thing to mention, is the concept of having limitations on forward
firing batteries that can hit a wide frontal arc. Visualization questions that
pop into my mind is this:
"hmmm, that ship bears 4 weapons, all bearing with a 270 degree arc centered
on the forward arc! That baby must be wider than it is long!!!"
Just a thought...
> Interesting idea - allowing six 60 degree arcs would also solve the
You could just use diagonal lines. I think that most gamers could figure out
the extra arcs.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
Well, I quess I should chime in on this topic.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
I'd have to see what you've got in mind before I make a decision on this.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
I like the idea of paying more MASS for faster drives. In my other notorious
playgroup, they mount thrust 8 engines on ships with a mass of 70. It would be
logical that the faster and more maneverable the ship is, the bigger the drive
system would be.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
What problem? I never understood the weeping about the beam batteries at all.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
I never had a problem with firing in the rear arcs. It all depends on what
universe your playing in.
> and making the revised turn
Jon, Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!! I really dislike this idea. IMHO fighters are
supposed to be more nimble and faster than clunky warships. They should have
the upperhand against normal ships and be able to react to there movement. We
used the revised rules with one of my playgroups and it made the fighter's
worthless. Once fighters start appearing all they do is evade them.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
Again, I'd like to playtest this before I decide whether I like it or not.
Later,
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
First let me thank you for providing us all with such an enjoyable game.
> Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional
Understood and Agreed.
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
This means you'll have to have something to encourage small ships. Otherwise a
single large ship will be optimal. For example, the USS Nimitz and a Boghammer
both have about the same top speed. And probably about the same proportion of
tonnage devoted to propulsion. Yet one is clearly more manouverable and
difficult to hit than the other. Care is needed or you'll have nothing but
Death Stars beating balanced fleets of equal
cost/tonnage.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
No worries about ship design changing. See above for comments re speed vs
manouverability. One of the really good things about FTII is the lumbering
battlewagons vs the turn-on-a-dime escorts. I for one don't mind large
ships being fast: but I would like them to be "looks like a fish, boosts like
a fish, steers like a cow" to misquote Hitchhikers.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
Had a look at this one. I like it. The right mix of simplicity and balance.
Better than my own 1:3:6 proposal.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
Needs playtesting! I'd have to see how this works in practice.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
1. Revised turn sequence standard => good, I like it. 2. Faster fighters =>
Playtesting needed. There's a problem with fighters being too slow to catch
fast ships, but this may not be the solution, because in every other respect
fighter combat is rich with subtlety in the current system.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
Dislike this. 4 arcs of 90 degrees sounds good to me still. I'd allow ships
to have -O- arcs though ie port, stbd (no front). The current
restriction that all firing arcs must be adjacent is, to me, either a hangover
from the past or an unneccessary complication. One which rather restricts, for
example, the accurate modelling of the Honor Harrington type and SFB type
ships.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
OK, hope I've provided what you were after.
Great Minds think alike Brain. Does that make me Pinky... Gronk
In message <199702222314.XAA08769@gate.flexnet.net>
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:
some
> players maximise their ships to use the biggest available hull size in
There are a couple of possibilities which I've seen used in the
Traveller ship-design system. First, "standard" hulls which are of
specified size and cost a little less than custom-built hulls which can
be of any size. I'm not sure if that is entirely practical in the scheme you
have in mind.
Second, as used in the High Guard starship design/combat version of the
Traveller system, put a limit on the number of pilots. This could certainly be
appropriate for fighters, if not for the larger ships, depending on just how
you want to visualise the talents used to manouver
a ship in combat.
The second might be a more appropriate limit for a competition than for
general use.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Ok, I like the Idea. But you will need to include provisions for maintaining
balance in design. I see lots of little ships made by strapping a WaveGun to
an engin. Also the micro carrier (it carries ONLY 1 squadron) will come into
the game. WOW, BIG change in tactics.
BTW: I hate superships: - they always end up being immoble
"turrets"
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
The flat percentage for drives leaves out the law of diminishing returns. Now,
can I take all of my existing battleships and use the 50% mass to build engins
(that makes thrust 8 battleships) The most important element of the "other
50%" mass is crew quarters. Does that mean that each system will have a crew
rating that must be included in the design? (i.e. an A battery needs a crew of
1, while a fighter launch bay needs a crew of 10 plus the pilots for the
fighters themselves.) This could become the key to balanced designs. (Ok, just
so that I don't get flamed in the list, these are crew UNITS, they could be
live beings, AI computers, or Blobs of goo, it doesn't make a difference.)
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
With new construction rules based on mass (more mass) you will have a tough
time getting the numbers right. The cost should be based only on the weapons
damage and range values. A consistant 1 mass gets 1 damage die at a range of
12" is good. The question is what is the value of the addtional range in A and
B batteries. I think the attitional range is worth much more that you have
assigned.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
A restricted-fire rule like this will just be ignored. A better
idea would be additional rear arc only weapons. They should be both expensive
and limited use items. (Scatter guns, submunitions,
"mini-space mines" -- all fire and forget systems.)
The "plughole" effect is caused as much by the size of the table as by the
lack of rear fire weapons.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
This is a great idea. We will get Midway type battles (where no opposing
carriers saw each other). A further clarification of fighter movement would
also help. TRY: Fighter squadrons choose their heading before moving (in a
straight line), therefore the fighters facing is determined as facing away
from their starting position. Without this ruling, fighters [can] always
attack from the rear arc. It seems
strange that fighters approaching a ship head-on at high speed can still
attack the rear (But... But... the fighters just make a U-Turn. <yea
right>)
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
If you want to promote broadside weapons, make them cheeper. Why not make 6
firing arcs? (kidding) This change more or less dictates that ships are
constructed like modern warships (that is long and narrow.) This is not
stictly required in a space setting. Further, how would the change affect
space stations? Are the rules going to have different firing arc schemes
depending on the shape of the ship?
I think the 4 quadrents are simple and efficient.
Since you are considering changing the design rules, you might want to make an
effort to include the Kra'vak technology in a mannor consistant with the other
design rules.
For your information, I play with both FT and MT. Further I use a computer
program to store ship positions. (That gives me an almost infinite playing
area.) The tactics might be a little different. Running battles take place
often. Ships trying to flee usually get picked off since the rear arc is
exposed, but that makes a stratigic withdraw an exciting exercise. The winning
ships tend to be the ones with the most forward firing weapons.
Tom
> 1) Ship Classification:
The base cost of the ships should probably be 10 times the hull size, so your
size 100 superships START OUT at 1000 pts. a mass 15 escort would start at 150
pts.
> 2) Allocation of Mass to drives
the total start cost for a 100 mass, speed 4 supership is 1800 points. you
could buy 6 of the smaller ships for the cost of 1 supership
> 4) Rear-Arcs.
we have a house rule for rear arcs, they don't cost any more than adding
another arc. It seems to work fairly well.
> 5) Fighter improvements:
The house rule we have for fighters is that they have free movement, move
after the ships and can react as the owner sees fit. the makes them very
dangerous and makes it much more likely that fighters will take them on,
instead of ignoring them.
> 6)Changing firing arcs: DON'T. Your game is nice and simple as it
The firing arcs are just fine the way they are.
> In message <331018B7.3D08@calweb.com> Thomas Corcoran writes:
> [quoted text omitted]
I dunno how much other people are gonna like this, but...
Howsabout making different races require different%'s in engines, etc... to
distinguish between them. One of the major flaws in the game (well, maybe not
major) is that every race has exactly the same ship design potentials; why not
take a leaf from the PBeM game "Stars!" and allow different races completely
different equipment list? The changes would not have to be significant; some
races only require 4% per thrust factor or torpedoes have a +1 to hit,
but it would be enough to add a little flavour.
I realise that this can open the way to abuse of the system even further (see
WH40k where Orks lose almost every time), but there's a fairly good chance of
the idea balancing out.
<trim>
> Tom
> In message <331018B7.3D08@calweb.com> Thomas Corcoran writes:
The question of both this, a bias towards broadside armament, and of firing
into the rear arc, is where the answer depends a lot on the setting. David
Weber's Honor Harrington series has few fighters, and a
technology that seems designed to create Nelson-style broadside/line-of-
battle tactics. Other SF worlds operate with different rationales, and
different tactics. The existing GZG-universe maybe doesn't depend
critically on these game-design choices, but it might be that the answer
would be to have variations from the existing system as 'official'
alternatives.
So an Honor Harrington campaign would employ options that encourage
broadside-to-broadside actions, with no carriers, while a B5-style
campaign would use other options, like carrier/battleship combinations.
This suggests that planning for a more modular rules system would be
important, including options for different movement systems for fighters.
BTW, while the book 'Honor Amongst Enemies' is in a British edition, there is
a long series available in American editions, and the earlier ones do have
some info about the rationale behind the tactics. They're worth a look.
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
Whooohoo!! A new design system! I'm all for this. Throw in a couple new
gadgets and gizmos and I'll be happy. Maybe you could redefine the
screens/armor rules a bit, too (I have a supership for a mini-campaign
I'm working on now that uses both, and the two systems seem to have a tough
time working together). Of course, this means I'll have to reprogram the
spreadsheet on my PDA to adapt to the new system...
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
I like this idea, but (like a lot of the other people on this list) I'd like
to see some sort of additional penalty come into play on very large ships; I
know I'd gladly sacrifice 40% of my ship's mass to get thrust 8 on a 200
mass ship-- What the heck, I'm already in for 50% for thrust 3 under the
current rules.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
I would limit the maximum number of arcs a weapon can cover to 3, INCLUDING
the C batteries. It presents more considerations when designing a ship, since
you have to determine which arc you think you'll need the least.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
This is Ok, but I like the idea of no rear arc restrictions better (there's
just too many examples of it in the source material I'm trying to simulate).
The rules "No rear arc limits" and "maximum of 3 firing arcs per weapon"
acutally complement one another quite nicely. Maybe the idea to limit
rear-arc fire could be an optional rule?
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!! Just trying to contemplate this gives me a brain
embolisim, Jon. Please, please, please, I beg of you, DON'T DO THIS!!
How many times did you see a Star Destroyer outmanuver Rebel fighters, or, for
that matter, a Japanese Carrier give the slip to torpedo bombers in the South
Pacific DURING BATTLE? If you must change the fighter rules, do as I and
countless others on this list have suggested: give the Fighters a thrust of
12, move them as normal ships, but don't require them to write their courses
beforehand and let them move AFTER everyone else does. This more accurately
simulates fighters as reactive elements, and fixes the problem of ships
outrunning fighters. I realize that fighters are still very deadly (more so,
under these rules), so I would recommend either a) producing some
more cheap anti-fighter weapons, or b) beefing up the abilities of
PDAF's
and C-bats operating in PDAF mode (perhaps let them target ANY fighter
or missile in their sphere of influence, as per ADAF rules, or letting every
*DAF hit take out 1D6/2 Fighters?).
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
Can't say I like this one too much either, Jon, although I suspect that a
great deal of my hesitancy on this may be related to the fact that I FINALLY
got the Arcs to work properly on my FT program:). I say leave the arcs as is,
or (and I can hear the screams of "Overcomplication" now) do as someone
previously suggested and come up with another 4 arcs which are shifted 45
degrees from original ones. I like the second option, because it adds an extra
level of contemplation during the design phase, as well as a host of new
tactical considerations on the battlefield, but I do see where this could be
an awfully big monkeywrench to throw into the mix.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
Well, that's my $00.04 (the price goes up when I have to ship overseas).
Thanks again for a fantastic game, Jon.
Take care,
> At 01:01 PM 2/23/97 +0000, you wrote:
why not
> take a leaf from the PBeM game "Stars!" and allow different races
some
> races only require 4% per thrust factor or torpedoes have a +1 to hit,
I must admit that I concur wholeheartedly with this idea. We need
something to distinguish different races' technology/design strategies
from each other. I understand that most people aren't interested in this. But
certainly some system of spending a fixed number of points to buy advantages
and disadvantages in design technology could be implemented solely as an
optional rule. It would add a great deal of flavor.
James
> At 09:58 AM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
Think this is a wonderful idea. All that's needed are some indicators of the
sizes of specific ship classes from the different
nation-states of the Full Thrust universe to gauge. The standard NAC
cruiser should be a different size than the standard ESU cruiser anyway...
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
Also love this idea. However, I really like the idea of fast small ships
outmaneuvering the big lumbering hulks. I would really hate to lose that.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
Prefer 1 Mass for a C-bat, three arcs fire. 1 Mass for a B-bat,
1
arc fire and 2 mass for three arcs fire. 2 Mass for an A-bat, 1 arc fire
and add 1 mass for each additional arc of fire. Pulse torpedoes should either
be reduced to 4 mass or be improved in some way.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
I think the FTII rule against rear-arc fire should be continued.
However, an optional rule to permit rear-arc fire to simulate Star
Trek/Star
Wars/etc. should be included.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
Much prefer the proposed idea of making fighters move like small ships; this
will simplify things and prevent the fly up to someone from their front and
then move in behind and flip around 180 degrees pattern that has become
standard with us and fighters.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
My first thought about this was to simply allow a 60, 90, 120 or 180 arc and
let the player place the arc wherever he wants. If you want a 60 degree
forward (from 330 to 30) no big deal. If you want wing weapons where one on
each side of the ship can fire from directly ahead (0 degrees) to 60 degrees
on the side again it is really no big deal. All that matters is that you and
the other player both know where the gun faces and it is made absolutely
clear. I think the best way to handle the whole thing would be to shift to two
sets of 60 degree arcs, one offset from the other by thirty degrees.
> Many thanks!
Thank you for a great game!
P.S. Just some other thoughts in response to other people's responses:
I very much advocate PDAF being able to act more like a short range ADAF where
PDAF could shoot to aid nearby vessels under attack or even attack fighters
within a very limited range. This would be far more realistic than the present
state of affairs.
360 degree weapons should be limited to 2 at most.
The wave-gun plus engine thing scares me; what scares me more is
wave-gun plus engine plus cloaking device.
The Kra'vak need a complete redesign and a costing scheme in line with human
ships.
We could definitely use more gadgets and gizmos--the more the
merrier.
A good way to handle engines might be ratio of thrust to mass gives a thrust
cost multiplier. Add up the cost of everything else then multiply that cost by
the thrust cost multiplier to get the cost of the ship.
I agree that missiles should be easier to shoot down.
James
> At 12:18 PM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
I do think you're on to something here. I've seen systems like this in the
past but I've always had the thought, how do you encourage players to take
engines in systems like these? If you can take wide arc weapons, won't all the
ships degenerate into battle stations that drift closer to each other? Still,
the idea is intriguing. If you have or ever decide to do a Full Thrust ship
design optional rule for this, please let me know. I'd love to try it out.
James
> At 08:39 PM 2/23/97 +0000, you wrote:
why not
> take a leaf from the PBeM game "Stars!" and allow different races
But
> certainly some system of spending a fixed number of points to buy
Sorry to reply to my own message...
I had the thought that it might be more balanced to simply have say six sets
of different values for construction data and you could choose one of these
six. That way, there wouldn't be a construction system that optimizers could
abuse. You could even simply the Kra'vak situation by making them one of these
sets.
Just a thought,
James
> AEsir@aol.com wrote:
> As an over view I'd like to make sure everyone remembers why we
Concur.
> 1) Ship Classification:
Concur
> 2) Allocation of Mass to drives etc.
Concur
> 3) Changing the Mass for certain weapons.
Concur
> 4) Rear-Arcs.
Concur.
> 5) Fighter improvements:
Concur
> 6)Changing firing arcs: DON'T.
Concur
> Final Reccomendation: Add Rule 1 and break the chart down into
Concur
Ok,I just read this now, and I usually like to give my first reaction before
seeing everyone else's reaction.
Sliding ship scales and no arbitrary breakpoints: this is great for tournament
play balance, etc. Structuring the damage tracks, now that could be fun. If
you're really making size open ended, Jim Bell's pattern diagram gets too big
to print in a book, so you probably want an algorithm and a
sample diagram. How about a rule of 5? Small ships have two rows of up to 5
boxes, boxes split evenly between the rows. Ships with more than 10 damage
boxes add another row of 5 and then extend each row by 5. This gives
5/5/x for x=1 to 5, then 6/5/5, 6/6/5, 6/6/6,7/6/6, etc. up to 10/10/10.
Then it's time to add another row of 10 and then extend the rows to 15.
That gets us up to MASS 120. Add a 5th row and then extend the rows to length
20. Egads, MASS 200 already.
Paying a% of MASS for your thrust: I like it. I might also like paying a
percentage of your MASS for shields, but the current system's OK too.
Certainly higher MASS ships will proliferate, so emphasize some reason (other
than common sense, which some lack) to include destroyers in your
forces. Maybe shields are fixed MASS systems, but Kra'vak armour costs a%age
of hull MASS.
More MASS for guns: This is needed. Are the numbers right? Well, I wanted an A
to be around 10 times what a C is, and for all four arcs, that's
about what the cost is. I assume AA's get a little MASSier/pricier ?
Pulse torpedoes, OTOH, should probably stay at 5 or 6 MASS. Oh, and Kra'vak,
well, make those railguns way more expensive. But you knew that!
Rear arc only when no drive: I like it, and it fits some of what players
have been tending toward with special rules, like aft firing submunitions but
not beams, etc.
Greater fighter movement: This should be very interesting. I guess further
play will help sort it out.
Alternate arcs: Much better for hexagonal bases, marginally better for Geohex
clock bases than 90 degree arcs. It might hurt fighters a lot to be held to 60
degrees. Lots of players give fighters 360 degrees for firing. Maybe you could
consider it. Interestingly enough, with these rules favouring broadsides and a
'naval attack' rather than a 'fighter' attack, I immediately see that a B or A
battery covering bothsides must include the aft or forward arc, and that makes
a 3 arc A or B as expensive in MASS as two one arc systems. Player's
preference, I guess, as to which is better. I prefer three arcs, but unlucky
threshold checks will burn you.
Well, that's my initial reaction.
> AEsir@aol.com wrote:
"Yes, Pinky, but fools seldom differ."
> Gronk
Squared. BTW I've never actually seen P a t B. I have been sent many.GIFs,
even.WAVs of it. But AFAIK it never was screened in Canberra, or if it was, I
was in Germany at the time.
Here are my few and probably mostly redundant comments on the proposed
modifications to the FTII ruleset. I have read several replies and am
attempting to reply to some of those also.
> Ground Zero Games writes:
@:) 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between @:)
Escorts, Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" @:) of ship
designs from smallest to largest;
I think this is only sensible. I, for one, would have LOVED to have used, at
some point, a mass 19 ship. But I never did because I am not stupid and I knew
that ship would be slaughtered by any mass 18 ship.
@:) 2) Under the new system... you will have to use mass for drives @:) and
other bits.... The thrust rating will depend on the% of the @:) ship that you
devote to the drives....
I like this idea quite a bit. The only _possible_ problem (mind you
I'm not certain that it is a problem) is the diminishing returns situation
that has already been mentioned by others. There may be a handy but probably
overcomplicated way of reducing this problem by using a progressive thrust
cost scale. Thrust 2 would cost 5%*mass*2 or 10%*mass. But perhaps thrust 4
would cost not 20%*mass but 22%*mass. And so on, increasing as the thrust
increases. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that small ships,
with small masses, can now use rounding error to their benefit and not pay for
these increases whereas large ships will pretty much always have to pay.
Again, this is tricky and might be a pain to work out, although you could
probably just print a table for those of us without electronic calculators and
have done with it.
@:) 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed
One of the nicest things about FT is its adaptability to settings that are
often quite different from the one described in the rulebook. A rule
disallowing fire into the rear arc doesn't fit well with the generally
flexible nature of the game. My vote: allow fire in the rear arc but don't
publish any ships that have it. The offending rule is removed but the FT
universe remains the same.
@:) 5) Fighter movement...
I think moving fighters faster will help. Maybe it will be enough. I still
like the idea of them moving like small ships. *DAF should function more
effectively, though, especially if fighters are going to get more dangerous.
@:) 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
@:) fore/aft arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees....
The four firing arcs are pretty easy to work with if you're using
counters (some of us can't or won't afford miniatures). The 60/120
thing sounds good at first but I think the arguments against it are sound (the
submunition arc problem in particular. If you can figure
out a way to allow weapons to be mounted in 90-degree arcs offset to
any position, you should do that. I think it would be fantastic to
have three batteries arrayed around the fore/port corner of a ship,
one port, one forward and the third just in between, from 315 to 45
degrees. You could also do some fancy stuff, then, with a 60-degree
exclusion area in the rear or the 60-degree front arc, which I think
would help prevent the all-weapons-bear-forward syndrome.
SNIP
> Think this is a wonderful idea. All that's needed are some
As there will still be size categories, how about (as a house rule) adding to
the% points per thrust point for size categories, i.e. for
category 1, (4+1)=5% mass per thrust point, category 2, (4+2)=6% per
thrust etc. That way the big fatties have to think more carefully about engine
installations.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
I agree- perhaps allow the use extra Firecons to improve the hit roll
(+1
per extra FC).
SNIP
> I think the FTII rule against rear-arc fire should be
Yup.
SNIP
> Thank you for a great game!
Absolutely!
> P.S. Just some other thoughts in response to other people's
As others have said, there are lots of good cloak ideas out there, and it
would be a good idea to choose one "standard" idea, perhaps with others as
alternatives.
> The Kra'vak need a complete redesign and a costing scheme in
How about keeping mass constraints constant across species, but radically
altering points cost, so that eg a Kra'Vak Railgun is much cheaper than a
human railgun, but a human PDAF is much cheaper than a Kra'Vak PDAF
> A good way to handle engines might be ratio of thrust to mass
One of the many "Aegis" ideas would be useful, so that people who want to play
a "modern wet navy" style can have CGs. Personally, I'd rather
Trafalgar/Tsushima/Jutland than Coral Sea/Midway!
Overall, I think it's VERY VERY VERY important that the core rules remain
simple, so that anyone can start playing and having fun straight
away. I would be keen to retain the structure of "Core FT/Advanced
FT/MT",
where MT represents a range of optional rules that would help players
customize the game towards their preferred style of play.
Once again, thanks for a great game!
Cheers,
> Donald A. Chipman, III writes:
@:) How many times did you see a Star Destroyer outmanuver Rebel @:) fighters
This never seemed to happen.
@:) or, for that matter, a Japanese Carrier give the slip to torpedo @:)
bombers in the South Pacific DURING BATTLE?
This, however, happened quite a lot. Otherwise it would have been a lot easier
to sink ships. Manouvering capabilities of ships may not have been great
compared to that of fighters, but then the fighters are trying so hard to
avoid the AA that they can't aim that well either. Torpedos and bombs are
avoidable by ships. Until there get to be too many of them.
> James Butler writes:
@:) P.S. Just some other thoughts in response to other @:) people's responses:
@:)
@:) I very much advocate PDAF being able to act more like a @:) short range
ADAF where PDAF could shoot to aid nearby vessels @:) under attack or even
attack fighters within a very limited @:) range. This would be far more
realistic than the present state of @:) affairs.
I have to disagree on this point - only because I've heard it
mentioned several times recently. I think the PDAF/ADAF rules are
pretty good as they stand, but I think some of them are not worded as clearly
as they need to be. This causes confusion over what the weapons can do,
exactly. In particular, there seems to have been confusion about what exactly
the word "attacking" means when it's used to describe the actions of fighters
against ships. If you assume this word means that the fighter has to designate
that it is attacking a particular ship, PDAF suddenly becomes worthwhile and
pretty useable. It's still a little underpowered.
In message <01IFQ426HVJ6EE8WHX@avion.stsci.edu> I want to be on 'Cops' writes:
> I agree that there should be rear-firing weapons - unless your
Map it's parameters... and shoot where the generating ship ought
to be...
> I've been trying to follow (in my copious spare time lately) the
This would it very difficult to land the little bleeders within the three
turns allowed after they hit bingo.
> I also am a proponent of fighters going *after* ships if they don't
Now, if we make it easier to shoot down missiles... what will we use as a
balance against stupidly big ships? It's the only useful function missiles
fulfill.
Just some random observations.
> Jon T. wrote:
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
:
Great! Keep it simple.
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
I like this! I never liked the idea that all ships used 50% for standard
systems like engines, etc. I think the idea of adding mass based on more
powerful engines is excellent. What other systems will make up the other bits?
Possibly a powerplant or this considered part of the drives?
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
:
Great! The A-batt mass is one item many of us would like to see
changed. I think this would be fair and increase diversity in designs. I like
keeping
the C-batt as mass 1, but please keep points included in the design to
allow folks to buy each arc, so we can model ships that might not use
multi-arc
C-batts.
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
Please do this! There should be no reason to not allow fire to the rear if the
engines are silent.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
Giving the fighters extra mobility will help keep them in the game while using
the advanced movement as standard should keep them from being too deadly. I
like this. Lately, I've been trying to get more of my friends to use the
advanced fighter movement rule. 36" movement = fast fighter? 24" movement =
all other types?
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
I prefer using the 90 degree arcs. Using the 60 degree fore and aft arcs
would resemble wet-navy a bit too much. If anything, firing arcs should
be dictated by the ship configuration, but this would be adding more
complexity to the game. Such as selecting a sphere, cone, cube, dispersed
configuration, etc. could each produce different firing arcs. Using the 90
degrees arcs keeps it simple without hinting at actual ship configuration.
> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 hal@buffnet.net wrote:
> If I might add a thought regarding firing arcs...
Single arc weapons should be significntly cheaper than multi-arc
weapons, regardless of direction they point. A fixed battery should be cheaper
in terms of size, ease of mounting and maintenance when compared to a turreted
model. The direction of mounting should not have any effect on
cost or ease of placement. Slanting arc choice by artificial price increases
limits the choices you can make especially if you're trying to
adapt FT to another type of universe such as ST, SW or B5.
> Another thing to mention, is the concept of having limitations on
Not at all, just think Star Destroyer wedge shape. I can mount 4 turrets on
top along the center line, each has a 270 degree arc of fire, actually with
the six arc model they would each have 5 arcs or 300 degree arc of fire. There
are innumerable shapes for starships that allow large amounts of weaponry to
be mounted to provide maximal coverage.
In a previous post someone mentioned that only 2, 4 arc weapons are physically
possible on a starship. This is just plain wrong. Although objects can not
occupy the same space at the same time, they can occupy
adjacent areas. To generate unlimited numbers of 4-arc weapons, all you
need is unlimited turrets stacked on top of each other, a la machine gun
turret on top of a main battle tank. The ship would look ridiculous but
it's not impossible to have a giant cylinder composed of dozens turrets
stacked on top of each other. Virtual 4-arc weapons could be generated
using long tethers or booms to place the weapons farther away from the main
body, reducing the amount of visible arc blocked by the body of the
ship. Although not true 4-arc capablity, the difference may be small
enough that it would be allowable.
I think that allowing rear arc weapons to only fire when thrust is not applied
is reasonable, although I would like to see some kind of advantage to
attacking from the rear arc, perhaps the option of attacking the engines
directly instead of having to chew through a threshold roll.
This would make protecting your rear much more vital than it is now and a lot
more incentive to maneuver.
I would also like to see mini-swarm type missiles along the lines of
those suggested for anime type games or even Honor Harrington conversions.
In a message dated 97-02-22 04:56:27 EST, you write:
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
A flat rate will se the death of escorts, since they will lose their principle
advantage: cheap speed. I'd like to see some sort of sliding scale on Thrust,
but suggest something a little different. One possibility which would require
a bit more math would be to have each Mass UNit of engines profuce a certain
amount out output. The thrust is then computed by dividing the output by the
ships Mass squared. I've played with the numbers on this and I think it could
work. I also think the idea of having separate Main thrust and maneuver thrust
could work well. Main thrust could be more flatly proportional than maneuver
thrust.
> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
I've been playing with A-batts at 2/3/4 for one/two/three arc weapons.
This has resulted in a lot more limited arc weapons. I also used the similar
ratios for the other beam weapons (fractional masses haven't bothered me much)
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
I like the idea of rear fire if thrust is not used. It's just another tactical
decision t make...
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
I have been playing with operating fighters as thrust 12 ships which don't
have to plot their orders and I think that this is the way to go. Fighters can
zomm around the board, but have to watch their accumulated speed like everyone
else. They also make their turns in two step increments like a ship (max 90
degrees at each step), so they don't spin on a dime. When we tried using the
MT fighter turn sequence, most fighters never expended all of their combat
endurance in even our longest games. I like the idea of them being nimble and
fast to react, but restricted by the same "physics" that govern everyone elses
movement. As for *DAF, I've not noticed that it needs to be made any more
effective vs the fighters as some have suggested. Maybe its just a design
philosophy. My large capital ships will have 6 PDAF and be accompanied by an
Aegis cruiser, all of which tends to rip fighter squadrons to bits.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
I'd stick with one size of arc, but 90 or 60 degrees are both fine. Broadside
ships are only going to appear if there is a space advantage to one arc
weapons. I use broadside ships fairly often. The perform well once the battle
turns into the big swirling furball, since they can direct their maximum
firepower at two targets (one to each side) whereas a turret ship can
direct its firepower to only one target. This is with the A-batt masses
above.
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
It's truly great to have you on the list and be able to contribute to the
evolution of FT!
Later
Brian
> At 09:58 22/02/97 +0000, Jon wrote:
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
Seems fair. I always wondered what all that empty volume was for :-).
> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but ONLY
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
Ok, I'm a bit unsure about the restriction being sufficient - I can see
it leading to some very odd battles with ships stopping & starting all the
time in case they got attacked from the rear arc. If you are going to allow
rear arc fire I would prefer a system where you needed very expensive
extrasuperduper dedicated firecons to do it, plus maybe the restriction of
no increase or decrease in speed - there is no reason to suggest a ship
might have small maneuvering thrusters to turn which don't have the effect of
'chaffing up' your rear arc.
> 5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
I'm ambivalent about this one - it depends what sort of game you want.
In
most 'film' sci fi fighters are horribly effective - in Star Wars a
group
of fighters take out a supership (OK, lucky shot but :-) ) and in B5 it
seems a ship without fighter cover is toast. Indeed, in B5 and SW Fighters
have the capability to be virtually independant from any mother ship. If you
are going to do this I think (for game balance) you HAVE to enforce some sort
of ammo limit on fighters, or give all warships some sort of 'base'
antifighter protection.
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to fore/aft
I have to say, everyone I know uses hexagonal bases, so this could be a good
idea. I would prefer the hexagon to four uneven quardrants, but then that will
make beam weapons more costly. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing
though.
TTFN
Jon
In a message dated 97-02-24 20:24:58 EST, you write:
> > I've been trying to follow (in my copious spare time lately) the
Actually, I've found it easier to get the fighters back to the carrier, since
the fighters can accelerate to higher speeds than 12. Under the standard
rules, a fighter more than 36" from its carrier is dead and very few people
like to put their carriers within A-batt range of anything....
Later
Brian
> Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
Like you say, the fighter's trying to dodge the AA, an undefended ship would
be hard to miss unless it was something like a torpedoboat or something like
that. So how about this: many people find that *DAF systems should be more
lethal. Keep the current *DAF rule but give surviving fighters a negative die
modifier.
> Ludo Toen writes:
@:) Like you say, the fighter's trying to dodge the AA, an undefended @:) ship
would be hard to miss unless it was something like a @:) torpedoboat or
something like that.
Well, not to belabor a point or anything but actually ships like carriers and
superheavy battleships were more what I was thinking of than torpedo boats.
There are some fantastic aerial photos of (several) bomb splashes to either
side of a completely unscathed warship. I'm pretty sure one of the photos I've
seen was the Bismark (obviously you can't dodge forever) and the rest were
pacific battleships and carriers. You really can evade air attack, or you used
to be able to anyway. Ships aren't as big as you think when you're moving in
at four hundred miles an hour with no aiming equipment but the nose of your
aircraft.
Whether these conditions should be simulated in FT is another matter
but I think that the basic FT theory fits quite well to a space-going
WWII navy kind of concept.
> At 04:40 PM 2/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
Since I was responsible for the initial WWII comparison, I think I ought to
clarify my thinking behind the statement. I ment that very rarely did the
fighters, even the ones undersiege from AA guns, accidentally misjudge the
location of the ships to the extents possible if you adapt the proposed rules
into the game. Sure, fighters can get to the target ship and then just miss;
that posiblity is already modeled into the rules as they are now (that's why
you roll to hit, after all). Yes, it would be possible for fighters in the
game to miss their targets to the extent as the ones in your photos, but to be
so off the mark as to miss the target ship by SEVERAL TIMES the range of your
weapons?? Come on, guys. I can buy Jon's rationalization of interception
vectors and so forth; I don't particularly like them, but I can understand
where he's coming from. For my games, however, I prefer a little more "space
opera" feel. While I think that Jon's concept of fighter movement is closer to
"reality", I do feel that making the fighters similar to MV 12 ships more
accurately simulates a "cinematic" style game. I guess it just boils down to
"You say tomato, I say tomato" (come to think of it, that doesn't really
translate into text very well, but you know what I mean). That's what house
rules are for, and if (God forbid) some fool goes off and has the wherewithall
to create the PERFECT game, what the heck are the rest of us supposed to do?
Take care,
> In message <19970223211205.AAA29396@LOCALNAME> James Butler writes:
I'm not sure I understand your point, James. How do we stop this in any game?
Why is this more likely to occur in a descriptive system vice a constructive
system?
> Still, the idea is intriguing. If you have or ever decide to do a
I'd love
> to try it out.
I'm sure I will. The problem is how to set the point costs for thrust
ratings. Low-value ships should be encouraged to have greater thrust
ratings than high-value ships.
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Couldn't you just use the same outline and change the number of rows and
columns of damage boxes?
> At 16:57 26/02/97 -0500, you wrote:
That is maybe what they will have to do. RIGHT NOW (if you look at the record
sheets in the FT rulebook) there are 3 distinct outlines for the 3 distinct
classes of ship. The idea was to have the computer print out something as
close to the record sheet as possible but it was going to be a nightmare to
try and get the computer to shuffle the outlines round on the page to fit them
properly. If there is only one outline then you can just say 'this many
rectangles on the page'.
If you do away with the classification groups *I* think it's a good thing. You
lose one fairly arbitrary level of complexity from the design system.
TTFN
Jon
> At 02:44 AM 2/26/97 +0000, you wrote:
What I mean is that mass provides a penalty for wider arc weapons (or at least
it does the way we play). Without that penalty, I think players would have a
nasty tendency to take nothing but three arc weapons. In fact, IIRC that was
why we put in Oerjan Ohlson's construction numbers, to
encourage the use of non-three arc weapon batteries. I was just
wondering if cost alone, with cost differing only by a few points, is enough
to encourage
players to take one-arc weapons.
> Still, the idea is intriguing. If you have or ever decide to do a
I'd love
> to try it out.
Perhaps what you need is some sort of sliding scale. Perhaps an exponential
scale might be better. That way, low cost ships would pay proportionately less
for higher thrust than higher cost vessels. That would work to keep people
from just building a handful of gigantic superships.
Just a thought,
James
> At 12:18 PM 2/22/97 GMT, you wrote:
> Considering 4) and 6) together, Allan Goodal recently ran a PBeM game
I really do intend to get a blow-by-blow account of our game out this
week...
My idea was to run a game that was metaphorically similar to the
Russo-Japanese War. Actually, I wanted to see what would happen if you
allowed rear arc weapons but altered the ship design rules so that the rear
arc was "realistic."
Ships were designed along old style naval ships. Ships were designed with
three arc main gun "turrets" at bow and stern. Dreadnoughts and battleships
had A batteries, cruisers had B batteries, escorts had C batteries. Secondary
batteries (C batteries) were mounted differently. If it only had one or two C
batteries, they were mounted like the primary batteries. If there were four C
batteries, they were usually mounted at the "corners"
(i.e. they had two arcs: fore/port, fore/stbd, rear/port, rear/stbd).
More secondary batteries than that usually had four mounted on the "corners"
with the remainder as single arc batteries on the sides.
Rear arc fire was unrestricted. Even still, the ships were maneuvering pretty
much as they usually do in FT. There was an advantage to firing broadsides at
the enemy, but they didn't have as much of an effect as I
expected. The problem is the lack of a line-of-sight rule. The optimum
attack pattern in this type of game is for both fleets to try to cut each
other off at a point somewhere in front of both fleets. They should approach
such that the headings for each fleet forms a triangle or a wedge like this:
X - aim point
/ \
fleet 1 heading / \
/ \ fleet 2 heading
/ \
This lets each fleet approach the other while maintaining a broadside. In
fact, if both fleets approach at the same speed, the firing angle will not
change (simple geometry).
A line-of-sight rule suddenly adds some options. Without a LOS rule, all
ships are fair game. In a game with rear arcs, trying to swarm an enemy
usually means that you'll put a ship into a firing arc that wouldn't otherwise
have a target. With a LOS rule, you can put a big, shielded ship up front to
take the brunt of the attack, with the other ships running line
astern. This is, in fact, the way pre-dreadnought through early WWII
naval combat worked. I think everyone here is familiar with the idea of
"splitting the T" but that only worked when the majority of the battle line
could approach the enemy unscathed. In FT, this would be suicidal. The ships
trying to "split the T" would present forward weapons only while taking
broadside shots. The mutual "triangluar approach vector" is the only
reasonable way for the two fleets to approach. Changing the forward and rear
firing arcs to a tighter arc will make the triangular approach even more
necessary, as well as easier to do.
Another problem with rear arc ships is that the movement rules make it
impossible to maneuver in formation. Try turning a battle line running line
astern. Because of FT's movement rules, a line astern turning will result in a
line abreast formation. You can't order one ship to follow the exact course of
another ship.
I'm not so sure that this all that bad a problem. I mean, it's a big problem
if you want to simulate pre-dreadnought combat, but this is a SF game.
SF
combat should be different than pre-dreadnought, or I might as well dig
out
my already painted Russo-Japanese war ships and play on the floor. I
agree with David that a rear arc might not make that much of a difference in
stopping "plughole" games. I like Jon's rear arc idea, though, particularly in
a "real thrust" movement game. It adds a little tactical complexity without
adding rule complexity.
> On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, James Butler wrote:
[snip]
> I was just wondering if
No, it isn't. In the basic FT design rules, by increasing the mass of a weapon
you also increase the hull cost and the cost for engines, and (at least in my
experience) these are the main part of the cost of a ship. As an example, on a
thrust 4 Cruiser 1 extra available space means a MASS
increase of 2, for a cost of 4 (hull) + 2 (FTL) + 4 (engines) = +10.
(This means that by increasing the mass for a weapon, the cost goes up
fairly fast - so fast that a fleet with cheaper (and thus more numerous)
broadside batteries has a fair chance of winning. In the battles I've fought,
honours have been about even between broadside designs and
three-arc ships, although the tactics vary quite a lot between them.)
If it only costs me 3 points to get another fire arc for my A battery, of
course I'll pay them! If it costs 13 points (3 for the extra arc, 10 for the
extra mass), I'll have to be a bit more careful.
However, if a descriptive design system (which was what James' and David's
discussion was about) makes extra arcs cost a lot, it should work
pretty well. Multi-arc weapons are much more flexible than single-arc
ones, and thus worth much more. All IMO, of course:)
> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:
> Another problem with rear arc ships is that the movement rules make it
Actually it is possible, but difficult. Each ship in the line makes the
course change one turn after the ship in front of it. THe ships must maintain
constant velocity. So the effect would be ship 1 turns left, ship two occupies
the space vacated by 1 with the following ships moving
up one position. Next turn ship 1 goes stratight, 2 performs the left turn and
the rest move up one position.
Due to the complexity of planning something like this the amount of time
it would take to actually complete the maneuver it's not very practical.
> In message <19970228025530.AAA11837@LOCALNAME> James Butler writes:
Now... did I say that cost would be different by only a few points? After all,
any increase in the points spent on weapon arcs would now affect what you pay
for thrust, as well, just as if you'd bought a bigger hull.
The way I see it, a good starting point for a new, descriptive, points
system would be to make all beams cost n+(n*arcs).
This would equate one three-arc beam with two one-arc beams of the
same size, and the former could replace the latter without affecting any other
part of ship design. This occurs to me to be a fair trade.
> At 07:44 PM 2/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
I like this--particularly as it would be very easily to
implement
with the ships we already have. We already use 1 mass for a 1-arc B bat
and
2 mass for a three-arc B bat as well as 2 mass for a 1-arc A bat and 4
mass
for a three-arc A bat so the equating of one three-arc beam with two
one-arc
beams is what we are used to. I agree that it seems like a fair trade.
Out of curiosity, do you use offset arcs? If you take two arcs and declare
them to be a forward 180 degrees, you get much of the usefulness of
a three-arc weapon for less cost and mass (again, you do the way we
play...)
James
> At 02:55 AM 2/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
In message <19970302030405734.AAA58@nas1-5.acd.net>
> hosford.donald@email.acd.net (hosford.donald) writes:
that
> they could have carried.
No offence, Donald, but I really couldn't disagree more. I have no desire to
put players in the position of "designers" (this being my idea discussed
above). I would rather put them in the position of "commanders", but I
digress.
Let us consider your idea (and this all, I think, holds true for JMT's
ideas... just to bring the content in line with it's subject). Take eight
escorts. Clag them all together to get a capital ship with the same thrust
rating, and maybe cash in a few weapons for shields (but that probably isn't
necessary).
What odds do you give the escorts in a fight to the finish with the sum of
their own parts? Anybody like to quote me some prices? I'll bet on the monster
ship, thank you.
It seems overwhelmingly obvious that the whole is greater than the sum of it's
parts. It must therefore cost more points or the game is broken.
> At 04:14 AM 3/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
We like it. Keeps us safe and alive and what not.:)
> A sliding scale isn't nessesary.....small ship's engines will be cheap.
And
> the large ship's engines will be expensive. What this does is put the
that
> they could have carried.
Without a sliding scale, players will immediately see that all vessels pay the
same rate for engines. Now I don't know what kind of guys you play with, the
guys I play with will translate that into:
"Nothing but superships!! You see, you get all the increased defenses of a
huge starship and you pay the same rate for speed as a little
ship with a C-bat and a submunition. Doesn't make sense to get anything
other than superships!!"
I'm very interested in this descriptive design system idea, but to implement
it with our group I'm going to need some incentive for people to take smaller
ships, or they simply won't. Would you? Would you take several ships with a
handful of damage boxes when you could merge them into one big ship for the
same price? You wouldn't lose a ship to incidental damage. You wouldn't risk
the whole force being annihilated by a single wave gun hit, etc., etc., etc.
We need some way to make ships with high price tags pay proportionately more
for their engines or frigates will wind up in museums.
James
> No offence, Donald, but I really couldn't disagree more. I have no
The easiest way to do it is base engine and hull costs on the square of the
hull size hull cost for a size 20 escort = 20*20 or 400 hull cost fot a size
100 BB = 100*100 or 10000
Engine cost for the speed 5 size 20 escort = 20*20*5 or 2000 engine cost for
the speed 5 size 100 BB = 100*100*5 or 50000
based on this scale you can by 25 size 20 ships for the cost of 1 size 100
ship. I would say that the odds are more even here.
The costs here are way out of whack but you get the general idea, you might
want to square the speed too, to discourage high speed ships except for a very
few courier class ships.
> At 05:23 PM 3/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
You
> wouldn't risk the whole force being annihilated by a single wave gun
> At 02:26 PM 3/2/97 GMT, you wrote:
I hadn't thought of it that way....
Then some playtesting is needed to deturmine by how much more the supership's
engine cost should be raised to properly balance against the force of
escorts....
> The easiest way to do it is base engine and hull costs on the square of
The above may be a little too much. You could use the following engine cost:
Tons x (Tons/10[round up]) x Thrust
Ship cost for a size 10, thrust 4 escort would = 10*1*4 or 40
Ship cost for a size 20, thrust 4 cruiser would = 20*2*4 or 160
Ship cost for a size 50, thrust 4 capital would = 50*5*4 or 1000
Ship cost for a size 100, thrust 4 capital would = 100*10*4 or 4000
> At 11:48 PM 3/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
Yeah, on the excel spreasheet I use, Its ((Mass*mass)*thrust)/20. I also
mass out the drives at ((mass*mass)/500)* spd. for base hull cost i use
(mass*mass)/20
this is what i get for a speed 5 ship with 10% of mass given to FTL drives:
mass: Hull+ drive cost Drive/FTL weight:
10 33 2 20 126 6 30 279 12 40 492 20 50 765 30 60 1098 42 70 1491 56 80 1944
72 90 2457 90 100 3030 110
This system give a very practical limit of a ship: in this case Mass 40. and
building a mass 100 ship is impossible, the drive systems would weigh more
than the ship itself!
> Brian Bell writes:
@:) You could use the following engine cost:
@:)
@:) Tons x (Tons/10[round up]) x Thrust
@:)
@:) Ship cost for a size 10, thrust 4 escort would = 10*1*4 or 40
@:) Ship cost for a size 20, thrust 4 cruiser would = 20*2*4 or 160 @:) Ship
cost for a size 50, thrust 4 capital would = 50*5*4 or 1000 @:) Ship cost for
a size 100, thrust 4 capital would = 100*10*4 or 4000
This will work but it will also re-introduce that nasty ratchet
effect that the removal of ship class types is meant to avoid.
Why not just
(Tons^2 x Thrust) / 2
rounded up?
> Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> This will work but it will also re-introduce that nasty ratchet
how so?
> Why not just
whould make the cost a little high? don't you think.
<snip>
> The one other problem I see with these methords of calculating
A
> This system give a very practical limit of a ship: in this case Mass
no, it just means I can't put a thrust 5 engine in a size 100 hull. I can put
a thrust 4 or 3 engine in it. thr absolute size limit is around 400 or 500
with a thrust of 1.
> A simple solution that just came to mind:
don't have much of a problem with cost except when you build something twice
as big, it does not cost twice as much. The Mass I have a real problem with.
it's the Flat tax theory. a mass 100 ship can afford to spend more of it's
mass on thrust than a size 10 ship and still be combat effective. With the
formula it's a bit harder, but it eliminates the superfast ship problem, by
making it very mass expensive. you can also add new technologies by increasing
or decreasing the divisor to make the engines more or less efficient:
size 100 speed 5
chemical rockets : ((100*100)*5)/100 = mass 500
charged particle: ((100*100)*5)/250 = mass 200
Ion engine(FT norm): ((100*100)*5/500 = mass 100
Gravitic drives: ((100*100)*5/1000) = mass 50
and so on.
> jheck @ East.Sun.COM (Joachim Heck - SunSoft) wrote:
> The original formula was:
Or
mass * mass * thrust / 20
> At 05:53 AM 3/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
those 400-500 mass ships will have only an engine, and very little
else....:-)
That does put a sizable brake on the superships....
In message <19970305055852056.AAA47@nas1-42.acd.net>
> hosford.donald@email.acd.net (hosford.donald) writes: