This message is addressed essentially to JMT via MJE since I'm basically too
much of a lazy sod to print it out and post it to GZG. So I'm sticking it here
for the assembled multitude to kick it around a bit. Maybe I'll post it
straight to GZG later if no one can convince me it's horribly flawed.
I ask for and welcome all comment on this message, and Mike, can you pass it
on to Jon?
I agree with the basic list theme that says "don't arse around with the game".
Equally I understand that GZG need to keep all
it's products in print, all the time and that each re-printing
offers a prime time to revise, update and improve.
I also rather fancy the idea of a system based more strongly on mass than
points.
I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets". Call me a
maximizer, or whatever, but I'm perfectly comfortable
with beam weapons being 3-arc weapons first, last and always.
There are plenty of single-arc weapons in FT to oblige players
to maneuver to bring them to bear: submunitions, railguns, torps, AA's,
needles etc.
The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
bumping it up to 4 mass.
What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but only as a
simple multiple of the ship's mass.
The points formula would go something like:
Points = Mass * (factor-based-on-thrust + factor-based-on-tech)
Factor-based-on-thrust could just come straight out of FT:
thrust/4 for escorts,
thrust/2 for cruisers,
thrust/1 for capitals and merchants.
Factor-based-on-tech would cover the costs currently borne by
the hull, weapons, FTL drive etc: (say,) a basic 3 for human military ships, a
basic 1 for human merchants,
+1 for FTL ships (? or not: non-FTL's carry more weapons/cargo)
+2 for a cloak
+whatever for ships using particularly expensive tech.
This latter "+whatever" factor can be used to bump up the cost
of ships using particularly frightening or advanced stuff, nova cannon,
superior sensors, ECM, whatever. I imagine the Kra'vak would come in at a
basic factor of 5 or more.
Fighter groups would cost extra.
Anyway, this way you can price up a mass x, thrust y, military,
FTL hull and then fit and re-fit it with whatever junk you wish
it to carry without having to tot and re-tot the points values.
This whole points system could be written on a single give-away
A4 sheet for those people with FT2, and appended to the well-
overdue fleet book. The core rules of FT need not be arsed around with at all.
Great swathes of irritating arithmetic in the ship design process are
dispensed with.
Now would everybody be happy with this? I'd like to know.
All rights to the above text and ideas waived...
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, David Brewer wrote:
does jon really read this stuff? just wondering if he's ever given any
indication (he must be awfully busy, after all)...
> I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
I dislike the idea of batteries being 3 arc on small ships. I LIKE the idea of
a tiny vehicle, just barely large enough to hold its weapon, being restricted
by mass to have a 1 arc fire arc. nowadays there is no reason to do that....
> The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
I'd say 5 or 6, but I agree...
> What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
<point system snipped>
to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present point system
except symantically (spelling?)...
Date sent: 11-DEC-1996 18:45:01
> This message is addressed essentially to JMT via MJE since I'm
It's horribly flawed. 8-)
> I agree with the basic list theme that says "don't arse around
It's all swings and roundabouts. On the one hand, the game works, and we all
like it. On the other, does this mean there is no room for improvement? And as
the game is almost 'perfect', any changes would not be major, leading to a
bitter feeling from those who feel they must fork out for a new version. On
the other hand, a major revision would also be hailed as a disaster as it
would make all old copies 'obselite', and replace as near a 'perfect' game as
currently exists.
Jon can't win.
The only thing I can see working is if Jon rationalized FT and MT into one
book, and added more in the way of simple campaign rules, alien tech (perhaps
for Kra'Vak, Svasku and Splaaargoids) and a few odds and ends. Enough to make
purchasing the book worthwhile for those that already have FT and MT. This
however would make it more expensive leading to another avenue of criticism.
No one ever said a games designers life was easy.
> I also rather fancy the idea of a system based more strongly on
I'm not so sure. As you all know, I like to muck about with new rules. The
various metamorphosis of the rules I play show one thing however. More and
more, the 'new' rules peel away, back to the core. I end up playing the basic
rules in spite of myself, frankly because they are better than the stuff I
come up with. So although I'm often enthusiastic about new ideas, the
enthusiasm soon wears thin, and it's back to the core rules.
> I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
I don't see why railguns were not simply classed as beams that ignore shields.
The damage resolution is Abstract after all, so could be almost anything. The
mechanics of the rules do not have to match the mechanics of the system used.
I've no idea how they made it into MT. SOMEONE must have compared them to
pulse torpedoes.
And as for turrets/casemates, again it makes weapons heavier and worse.
I could live with it if you made casemates lighter, but the current rules have
no room for maneuver.
> The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
The A-battery problem does not exist, and is more than taken care of
by threshold checks, needlers etc. All IMHO 8-)
> What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
We've no clear picture of what the new system is like, yet. Jon did say he'd
get Mike to post some 'play test' ideas to the list, as and when. The points
system might be identicle to that which David is describing.
One thing that looks like it will be in FT-III, which should make it
worth purchasing, is a finished version of the Realistic Movement rules that
can be found on Mark 'I'm not a Communist, honest guv' Seifert's web page.
(Sorry Mark, couldn't help myself).
> The points formula would go something like:
> Points = Mass * (factor-based-on-thrust + factor-based-on-tech)
> Factor-based-on-thrust could just come straight out of FT:
> Factor-based-on-tech would cover the costs currently borne by
In most games (non campaign) the none FTL has the advantage. I'd not give it
any bonus.
> +2 for a cloak
> This latter "+whatever" factor can be used to bump up the cost
Perhaps all items have a tech factor. * by the single highest item. Or would
this encourage fitting low tech items on capitals and high tech items on
escorts? Perhaps an average (round down) of all
items would be in order, encouraging capitals to use lots of C-bats
to degrade the tech level penalty for those AA beams? (just add up all the
tech codes and divide by number of items) But that is almost back to a points
system. It does encourage the use of low tech weapons though.
> Fighter groups would cost extra.
Why? They are heavy. This pumps the cost up quite a lot.
> Anyway, this way you can price up a mass x, thrust y, military,
> This whole points system could be written on a single give-away
> Now would everybody be happy with this? I'd like to know.
Hell. I'd buy FT-III (Although the name FT-II plus (or gold) would
sound better) anyway. My copy of FT is getting to look a little 'well used' if
you know what I mean.
> All rights to the above text and ideas waived...
Ditto.
I'd like to see a new Full Thrust, but I'd like it to be more of the same,
rather than a complete rewrite. I think my resistance to the initial idea was
more to do with the fear of major revisions than actually not wanting a better
game. Provided the core rules remain
largely unchanged, I'll be happy with FT-III, even if the Advanced
rules are changed beyond recognition. (I hardly use MT anyway).
I'll probably have to redo all my playsheets though 8-(
I can think of 7 problems with Full Thrust that have been discussed on this
list for the past 2 years:
1) Re-balance the A, B and C beams.
2) Kra'vaak and Sa'vaksu rules need a serious re-write if they're
going to be "balanced" with human technology. I think that this would put a
serious strain on the points system, and it seems to me that the obvious
solution is to discard the idea of balancing them with human ship technology
at all. A general guideline would work for me
(e.g. "You need at least a 2-to-1 advantage in ships of equal size to
take on a Kra'vaak force", or something like that).
2.1) An aside: Every time I have used Sa'vaksu ships in a scenario, they just
melted like so much alien goo. In my experience, they're terribly weak.
2.2) Another aside: The Kra'vaak scatterpack has got to go.
3) Needle beams are far too weak to be useful, as are EMP missiles. If
nobody's going to use these systems, why include them at all?
4) Pay-as-you-build fighters: you want a fast, long-range interceptor?
All you have to do is pay the points.
5) AEGIS fire control & other new systems.
6) Campaign rules.
7) Fleet book.
So far, nobody has said "These aren't problems", rather, they've said "We have
a house rule to deal with that". It would be nice to see these problems solved
in a "Full Thrust Companion" or something like that.
The most attractive idea I've seen so far is to have a hardback book
containing the rules from both Full Thrust and More Thrust, along with
whatever new stuff Jon publishes but the printing bill for hardback books can
be enormous, and there's no guarantee that it would sell enough copies to make
a profit.
I'd be the first in line to buy it, though!
> Adam Delafield wrote:
The Who? I've never heard of this bunch before (or is this some kind of inside
joke).
> >I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
> And as for turrets/casemates, again it makes weapons heavier and
No kidding. I don't know what everyone's problem is with the beam batteries. I
am perfectly at ease with the beam rules.
> One thing that looks like it will be in FT-III, which should make it
No problem Adam, but what does any of this have to do with Marxism?
> I'd like to see a new Full Thrust, but I'd like it to be more of the
The question is if you can improve on FT without a major rewrite. I don't see
anything wrong with the FT aside a few minor points. by correcting them in a
reprint or supplement, a complete new set of rules would be unnescessary.
Later,
In a message dated 96-12-11 15:34:18 EST, you write:
> Hell. I'd buy FT-III (Although the name FT-II plus (or gold) would
Adam has hit the nail on the head here. Now be honest, how many of us would by
a new copy of FT even if it was just FT and MT together in one book with just
the typos removed. I know I would (assuming it GW priced of course). It would
be worth it just so the two damn books weren't always on opposite sides of the
table and under separate beer bottles. Hell, I'd buy the thing just to put
money in Jon's pocket.
.
> I'd like to see a new Full Thrust, but I'd like it to be more of the
The thing's I'd like to see are a set of firing rules that use the FMA system.
I think that with a little work a set could be devised that are clean, quick,
and elegant. The opportunity to include crew quality, variable target sizes,
etc would make for very interesting gaming. To me, the core of FT is the
plotted movement system and the Threshold checks. The present combat system is
virtually completely separate from those elements and could easily be replaced
by an optional FMA system. Other than that, the only other things are gadgets,
which are not really a big deal since everyone comes up with their own anyway
(I've doubled the number of weapon systems we use, but most people still rely
on beam batteries), and fixes for a few of the glaring problems. I don't see
the beam battery issue as all that great a problem, although we did install a
per arc mass system for our games. I disagree with those who want a more
detailed construction system, since in my experience, the more detailed the
system, the more room for rules lawyers
and min-maxers. With the current system even the min-maxed ships (mass
36 cruisers, etc) are still easily defeated if the captain doesn't fly them
right. The only thing's needed for construction are a few point and mass
tweaks, which again most people have already done anyway.
Just my thoughts
Brian
PS I'm going to play a full game playtest of my set of FMA rules tonight. I'll
post a synopsis later
> Rick Rutherford wrote:
I like the variety of weapons available. It allows designers to make some
unique ships as well as help those who like to match a particular genre.
> 5) AEGIS fire control & other new systems.
Improved anti-fighter and anti-missile support might be useful, but the
current mechanics seem to work well.
> 6) Campaign rules.
Yes.
> 7) Fleet book.
Yes.
> The most attractive idea I've seen so far is to have a hardback book
I'm not sure about this. One of the big factors for many to buy the game is
its affordability. Go hardbound and you raise the price. Many folks I have
introduced to FT went out and bought it shortly after playing it the first
time since it is great fun and affordable.
> I'd be the first in line to buy it, though!
I'd just like to say I've looked at BJ's proposed FMA system and
/really/ liked it.
> Alexander Williams wrote:
Could someone please send me a copy of this? (Personally, I don't like the
sound of FMA FT, but I want to reserve any final judgements until I read
them.)
Later,
In message <009ACB2A.FACBD6A4.333@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam Delafield
writes:
> Date sent: 11-DEC-1996 18:45:01
That's the boy. I knew I'd get a sympathetic hearing from you, Adam.
[...]
> Jon can't win.
Sure he can. He can get on with writing "Jungleland" and we'll all hail him as
a wonderful, lovely man, bringing intelligent SF gaming to the huddled masses.
Or some other game. He's got
spaceships, tanks and infantry down... JL should add house-to-house.
What new genre can he turn to next? Wacky Anime? He already carries the
figures...
> The only thing I can see working is if Jon rationalized FT and MT
If some kind of campaign rules were in the offing, then one track
would be to split FT/MT differently. Game rules for one, background/
campaign/interface fluff in the other.
> >I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
Amen Brother. Testify. I'm sure some PSB can make beams ignore armour too.
> >The points formula would go something like:
Ah, but once you force the blighter to keep a an FTL tender handy...
that's the same mass * (2 for thrust +1 for hull +3 for FTL)... that
make an FTL-free ship an extra +6 factor here...
...Just musing...
> >+2 for a cloak
Would that be a bad thing? Tax the bollocks off big cheesey ships? Specialised
escorts?
If the +whatever factors were stricly additive it would encourage
very, very monochrome ships... all the ADAF in one ship, all the
fighters in another, all the super-cheese-guns in yet another. This
would mandate a certain amount of fleet cooperation and introduce a certain
fragility into fleets.
> >Fighter groups would cost extra.
Well, people seem to want fast-heavy-stealth-torp fighters...
They've got to pay somehow. I wouldn't have a mass-mutiplier here.
Besides, this is how wet naval orbats get written. You get the HMS-
Whatevers listed, with the assigned Squadron-Numbers appended as
seperate entities. It works for me.
In message <Pine.SUN.3.92.961211114417.1171A-100000@caroli.usc.edu>
> lojeck writes:
I meant I'd post it by r-mail not e-mail. R is for "Royal". Mike
Elliot, Jon's sometime co-author is about here.
> > I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star
Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
limited-arcs.
Even then I wouldn't make a simple beam weapon a 1-arc weapon. Front-
and-side strikes me as the most limited such a weapon could be. This
woundn't be so if a ship was physically armoured, but they're not.
All the funny-guns should be (and are) 1-arc wonders.
> > What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
Semantics = substance. You mean "syntactically". Syntax = style.
The idea is to be sufficiently similar... but helpfully simpler.
Date sent: 12-DEC-1996 09:01:28
> The most attractive idea I've seen so far is to have a hardback book
> whatever new stuff Jon publishes but the printing bill for hardback
> One option here is to have a pre-printing subscription. This works for
> various arcane historical primary sources. Then GZG can guarantee at
> Although, all three DS/SG/FT might increase the subscription base...
But people who are only interested in one of the three games would have one
hell of an overhead. Think of GW's second incarnation of Epic. You could buy
boxes with not quite enough models to make Three different forces, now if they
had sold each force separately...
Another problem I've seen here is New Edition vs Suplament. Is the Suplament
such a great idea? Think of it like SFB, you need the core rules PLUS this
PLUS that PLUS the other before you can play. So for us old hands, a new
suplament may seem preferable, but I'd go for a new edition because that is
what new players would want.
> The most attractive idea I've seen so far is to have a hardback book
One option here is to have a pre-printing subscription. This works for
various arcane historical primary sources. Then GZG can guarantee at least
costs are covered to "break-even" and print a reasonable number
thereafter for future sales.
Although, all three DS/SG/FT might increase the subscription base...
----------
> From: David Brewer <db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk>
IMHO I think A Mass Battle Fantasy Game is in order. I know its been all
Sci-fi until now, but JT has a knack for representing complicated
varibles in simple and consice game mechanics; and nowhere is this needed more
than in the Fantasy gameing genere. And you have got to admit alot of players
play fantasy. It may be a good business move, if he can get alittle of that
disgruntled Games Workshop (TM) crowd.
Just my thoughts, JNoll
----------
> From: David Brewer <db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk>
IMHO I think A Mass Battle Fantasy Game is in order. I know its been all
Sci-fi until now, but JT has a knack for representing complicated
varibles in simple and consice game mechanics; and nowhere is this needed more
than in the Fantasy gameing genere. And you have got to admit alot of players
play fantasy. It may be a good business move, if he can get alittle of that
disgruntled Games Workshop (TM) crowd.
Just my thoughts, JNoll
In a message dated 11/12/96 20:34:18, you write:
<< SOMEONE must have compared them to pulse torpedoes.
> [quoted text omitted]
Mass for mass they do considerably more damage especially at the longer ranges
as they are one pip on a d6 better!
In message <Pine.SUN.3.92.961211114417.1171A-100000@caroli.usc.edu> you
wrote:
> I dislike the idea of batteries being 3 arc on small ships. I LIKE the
There definitely should _not_ be any rules along the lines of
"an escort can only mount 1-arc A batteries". If you want this
result, then there should be a modifier to the mass of multi-arc
beam weapons, that just so happen to prevent escorts mounting them.
If there are no 'energy' requirments for weapons, and an 3-arc
A battery is X mass, then whatever has X mass spare should be
able to mount 3-arc A batteries. Anything else just complicates
things, and doesn't make sense within the game.
> > The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
5 or 6?!?! I'd say that the problem isn't that the A battery is only mass 3,
but that Cs and Bs are as much as they are. A bats are about on par with pulse
torpedoes (ie X mass of pulse torps are about equivalent to X mass of A
batteries). Bumping A batteries up to 5 mass would render them practically
useless.
> I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space combat or
a "wet-navy" game where the boats have wings? (ie. if it were space
combat, ships would only really have 2 fire arcs since they could just roll
about their centerline to shoot to port with their starboard weapon array)
I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need to build a
cruiser carrying one as an engine and a cockpit tied to the gun itself, while
a carrier should be big enough to have it's torpedo launcher on a turret
(imho)
> > to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present
(goes to dictionary) oh yeah... sorry...
> The idea is to be sufficiently similar... but helpfully simpler.
I just think it was too similar. if it gives the exact same results, why not
use the same system?
> IMHO I think A Mass Battle Fantasy Game is in order. I know its been
I cannot tell you how fantastic this would be... Jon, if you get wind of this,
sign me up for a copy now!
> Just my thoughts,
> I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need to
i meant to say escort, not cruiser
> lojeck wrote:
You know, there's no reason that you can't use StarGrunt II for fantasy
battles as is; just scale the top-end weapon systems down from heavy
sniper lasers and convert it to a heavy longbow.
The only big hole would be magic systems, but there are so many kinds of
magic people like (see Raven and WH) that its almost /better/ to only
have a very minor sketch of magic and leave it to players to flesh it out.
> You know, there's no reason that you can't use StarGrunt II for
does stargrunt handle all the varieties of hand to hand that could happen
(calvary charge, pike vs. blade, etc...)? if it does, I'll buy my version this
afternoon!
> lojeck wrote:
StarGrunt pretty much abstracts away the exact kind of weapon in use; the
important thing is how much damage it is capable of at close range compared to
the level of withering attacks it can issue. All weapons are issued a
multiplier which gets computed by multing it by the number of attackers in a
squad, compared to a value computed from a die roll for the armour involved.
I'm not saying SGII couldn't use some tweaks for fantasy to be covered
entirely, but like /all/ GZG games, the mechanics are clear enough as a
model that its trivial to either abstract things away or add a minor thing to
cover it.
Keep in mind that fantasy battles under SGII will be /highly/ dependent
on the moralle you can sustain in your troops. Careful use of leadership
rallying and wearing down opponants from range with showers of arrows or
whatnot will be very important.
----------
> From: lojeck <lojeck@bcf.usc.edu>
No it doesn't, but then I wouldn't want it to.. It is an awesonme Squad
level Sci-fi game, beats the pant's off any other game of it's type.
Because of what I see in SGII is the reason I think a JT designed Fantasy game
would be great.
again, JNoll
> Brian Lojeck
----------
> From: Alexander Williams <thantos@alf.dec.com>
Actualy this last statement is what I feel is laking in most fantasy based
games. And so again another reason why JT would be perfect for a Fantasy Game.
again, once more. JNoll
> --
> At 09:05 AM 12/12/96 +0000, you wrote:
I want to throw something else in here. A friend of mine published a
roleplaying game (actually, sort of a generic supplement) a year and a half
ago and is now working on his second supplement (I'm working on the third).
What stores want are supplements. What distributors want are supplements. And
they want lots of them. My friend was told repeatedly that it's easier to sell
a game (to stores) if it has a couple of supplements than if it's a
standalone.
Now this might not apply to wargame rules, and Jon DOES have three games in
the one universe. Even still, according to my friend, distributors prefer
supplements. While some new players prefer everything in one book, if the game
is good they will buy all of the supplements. Meanwhile, players who have
never played the game can sample the base rules for a smaller outlay of cash.
The higher cash outlay is more of a detriment to getting players into a new
game than having to buy multiple supplements.
Essentially, one book with all of Full Thrust for C$30 will not sell as well
as a rulebook at C$20 and two supplements at C$15. SFB, of course, is an
extreme example. If the main FT rulebook is maintained as a viable game
without the supplements, it won't fall into the SFB trap.
> At 01:37 PM 12/12/96 -0800, Brian wrote:
I wouldn't hold my breath. As much as I'd love this, I seem to remember a
comment from Jon that he's not all that interested in Fantasy.
This is unfortunate. There's a thread on rec.games.miniatures.misc with a few
WHFB arguing it's worth while the rest of us argue against the fowl spawn of
the evil GW (can't tell which side I'm on, huh?). What is becoming obvious is,
to paraphrase Churchill, WHFB is the worst fantasy battle game available,
except for all the others. There really aren't any really good fantasy battle
rules. I hate WHFB
reliance on super figures and it's style-over-substance attitude. I
enjoy Hordes of the Things, but it's really too small and there's a certain
lack of flavour. I haven't tried a fantasy variant to DBM, but I'd prefer
something more "official" and written with fantasy in mind. Leviathan looks to
be an oversized skirmish set (which is, really, what WHFB is all about). I
have Martin Hackett's Fantasy Wargaming, but it's not well distributed (and
might be out of print). The only other set I've seen is Legendary Battles by
the writers of the Canadian Wargaming Journal.
We really need a good, solid, intelligent, non-partisan fantasy wargame.
Something definitive, like Fire and Fury or Johnny Reb are definitive ACW
games, Harpoon is the definitive modern naval game, and (as if it needs to be
said) FT is the definitive fleet starship combat game. If anyone can do it,
it's Jon.
Hmm, here's an idea. How about a project team to build a FMA style fantasy
game, to be distributed free of charge on the net, but only if Jon has no
interest in fantasy? With the people available on this list, I'm sure we could
come up with something that could easily compete with WHFB.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> Hmm, here's an idea. How about a project team to build a FMA style
Resume normal volume now.:)
> Gary Ballard wrote:
FMA stands for "Full Metal Anorak" (an inside joke!). It is the system that
SGII and DSII use. Nuff said.
Later,
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Allan Goodall wrote:
> I want to throw something else in here. A friend of mine published a
I agree completely. I would also like to add that many players will not
pick up a game if it looks like it will not be supported (re-writing the
rules is not the same thing). I doubt if I would have picked up FT if I had
thought it would not have been supported (I saw MT and thought it would be).
I'm very glad I did buy it. IMHO more than Full Thrust needing anything I
would say that DS2 needs a supplement. Do something with the Kra'Vak or the
Sa'Vasku, add a few new weapons, and of course some rules for logistics
(campaign rules). SG2 could use the same thing of course. I would prefer to
see an FT supplement, but the other games really need Jons attention more.
Also,
with Epic (GW 1/300) being dead for what looks like another year now
might be the time to push DS2. Just a thought.
Ok Alan I'm in, if we can get a few more people to help with the design and
background. How do you want to run this? I think a good starting place would
be the overall game concept, ie. scale, morale based, representation on the
tabletop. From there we can deduce the types of mechanics we need, and finaly
knock around a background.
BTW if this gets going I think we should handle it through personal email, and
only post general questions and surveys to the mail list. It is afterall an FT
mailing list.
So to all of you who want the chance to have input on a Fantasy set of rules
using FMA (If Jon is okay with it) jump on the band wagon now, and well
starter up and see if she's got any gas. BTW I also think that any set of
rules, no matter how good they are, and hey they could stink, should be public
domain for those intrested.
My email is u1a00458@mail.wvnet.edu Joe Noll
----------
> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca>
In message <Pine.SUN.3.92.961212130139.15154C-100000@caroli.usc.edu>
> lojeck writes:
I don't agree. The 2-D nature of FT, as discussed in the rulebook, is
forced on the game through necessity not by any wet-naval analogy.
Note that I specifically referenced Star Wars to add a note of genre-
adherence. I don't see "Star Destroyers" rotating axially to get battery
coverage on both sides.
> I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need to
I don't tend to think of beam weapons in terms of one big gun-barrel,
tho' I do for various weapons like PTTs, which is specifically a
"tube". A beam weapon is a "battery":- suggesting multiple weapons.
One or more small projectors backed by thumping great energy coils; that would
be my picture, tho' I'm happy to leave it vaguer than that. This is SF, with a
liberal dose of PSB we can have what we want.
> > > to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present
The case now is that, having settled on a platform of given mass and thrust, I
do not particularly stop to consider the miniscule points
difference between, say, a PTT and 1A+1B (of whatever arcage),
although I am obliged to work through the tedious arithmetic. Dispensing with
this tedious piddling arithmetic is what I took JMT
to mean when he said he was considering a points-free system.
People *like* the substance of FT. A small change in the style of the points
system would seem to satify peoples conservative tendancies, while tidying
things up a little. Fix a basic cost on the platform... fill it with whatever
junk you feel like using this game... and get on with it.
> Ok Alan I'm in, if we can get a few more people to help with the
I think a basic background should come first as that will greatly sffect game
mechanics. For example, a Tolkeinesk campaign would place magic as a rare and
limited thing. WHFB looks to be dominated by magic.
This background need not be to detailed at first but a few general facts about
the fantasy universe would be needed before any serious attempt at writing a
game to be in that universe.
> BTW if this gets going I think we should handle it through personal
Agreed.
> [quoted text omitted]
*****************************************************************
I'm A saxon dog and just can't help it.
Date sent: 13-DEC-1996 09:22:34
> << SOMEONE must have compared them to pulse torpedoes.
> Mass for mass they do considerably more damage especially at the longer
It's called Irony.
You know. Like goldy or silvery, only it's made out of iron.
Date sent: 13-DEC-1996 09:35:01
> now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space combat
None of the above. FT is a game of SF space combat. Think Star Wars, Think
Star Trek. It isn't real, but it's fun.
Date sent: 13-DEC-1996 09:51:58
> Hmm, here's an idea. How about a project team to build a FMA style
> Ok, So I've only been in wargaming for about 2 years, so maybe I'm a
Full Metal Anorak
It's a term that I belive Mary Gentle(sp?) came up with, and which Jon uses to
describe his opposed dice roll method.
The general idea is that the attacker rolls a dice or die and so does the
defender. The highest score is taken for each side, and the higher wins.
Skill, ability, technological advantages are represented by the die TYPE. eg
d8 for average. A bonus shifts you up a type (say to d10) and a penalty shifts
you down a type (d6).
I saw someone post about this a couple of months ago on the.historical group.
They shut up fast when I told them a SHOCK HORROR 'SF' game had already done
it, named it, copyrighted it, sold it.
> lojeck@bcf.usc.edu writes:
@:) > I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
@:) > weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star
@:) > Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
@:) > limited-arcs.
@:)
@:) now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space
@:) combat or a "wet-navy" game where the boats have wings?
@:) [snip]
@:) I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need @:) to
build [an escort] carrying one as an engine and a cockpit tied @:) to the gun
itself, while a carrier should be big enough to have @:) it's torpedo launcher
on a turret (imho)
Well, if it is a modified wet-navy game or if wet navies, our only
existing examples of navies of any kind, are to be used as instructive
examples, then I am reminded of a footnote in the book _Sea_Power_
about the Yamato that stated "One of the triple-mounted [18.1 inch
gun] turrets weighed as much as a large destroyer...".
Youch.
> Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Well, if it is a modified wet-navy game or if wet navies, our only
> PS those guns apparently fired a 3,200 pound projectile, which sounds
My only question is with all this tonnage, where did they find the room
to install the wave motion gun? :-)
Excuse me, there seems to be a dozen Narns with baseball bats at my
front door. "Hi boys, what can I---WHAM!"
Later
> @:) now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space
Guys enough with the Fred Jane and Alfred Thayer Mahan rubbish. It's about as
relevant to FT as Truth is to politics.
Whatever happened to Kimball Kinnison, the Dauntless and the Z9M9Z? or
Helmuth and his band of ever-so-nasty Klono-crunching space-pirates?
(anyone got any others?)
I'll bet bet you guys flame people for mispelling postings in your spare time!
(got your dictionaries handy?)
> Chad Taylor wrote:
Also,
> with Epic (GW 1/300) being dead for what looks like another year now
Just got my new White Dwarf(yes, I am a customer, though reluctant of GW) and
it had pics of the new Epic stuff. Nothing about the rules, but all the
infantry are now on strip bases(long rectagular 5 men to a strip) instead of
square bases. How much does anyone want to bet that the rules will make using
those strips necessary, bringing about the obsoletion of the square bases and
all the models you may have?
Ok, back to Full Thrust, DSII and SGII. Sorry to interrupt.
> At 10:21 PM 12/12/96 -0600, Gary Ballard wrote:
Okay. FMA stands for Full Metal Anorak. In case you're not from the UK, an
anorak is a coat, kind of like a rain shell but I thinkg it's supposed to be
nerdier. Certain gaming geeks are said to wear anoraks, much like the
stereotypical computer geek wears a pocket protector.
FMA is the trademark name for the Dirtside II and Stargrunt II game systems.
> At 12:59 AM 12/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
The problem with HOTT is that an Orc blade unit feels exactly the same as a
Dwarf blade unit or a Human blade unit (and the same could be said about the
other unit types). The armies are distinct as a whole, and the interaction of
the whole army is the most important factor. However, an Orc army of 8
warbands (Orc soldiers), 2 shooters (Orc bowmen), 1 heavy cavalry (Orc boar
riders), and an Orc general is functionally identical to a Wood Elf army of 8
warbands, 2 shooters, 1 heavy cavalry, and one Elf general. In a game played
at a smaller level, the Orcs might outnumber the Elves and the Elves
may be more capable (1-on-1) with the Orcs, but HotT loses this detail.
> I've been planning on taking a small set of
You might want to show him DBA, as well. Although there aren't a whole lot
of figures on a DBA/HotT battlefield, at least the end result feels more
like a battle than Warhammer.
> Despite my general lack of confidence in net.projects, here's
I have a general lack of confidence in them as well. I think it can work,
though, if you have the right kind of people working on it. I'd work on a set
of rules of my own but I'm currently working on my own samurai skirmish rules
(as well as other things).
> You won't be talking one game, but three, maybe four: strategic
I'd leave out the skirmish rules. There are a couple of these right now
(technically, Warhammer falls into this). The campaign rules would be part of
a grand tactical set. I'm not sure you'd need a tactical set, assuming that
fantasy battles are much like ancient battles. A properly designed rule set
should be able to handle tactical to grand tactical.
Alan just saw this post, I didn't know you were working on a set of Samuri
skirmish rules, I've been looking for a good system to use with my Ral
Partha's. I really want a mass battle system but skirmish pleases me also. BTW
how about an Asian army for the FMA FANTASY set. I think it's an overlooked
army.
----------
> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca>
> At 05:05 PM 12/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
I've got a pretty extensive samurai rules set for the BattleLust skirmish
rules set (32 pages long) but I want to convert it to my own system. Combat
looks like the following: each figure rolls 1d20 versus a target number to hit
or parry, but I'm using opposed die rolls (similar to FMA) to determine
wounds.
If you have BattleLust, I can send you the BattleLust versions of the rules.
Otherwise, I can put you down as a playtester for the full rules when I'm
done, if you'd like. I hope to finish the rules over Christmas.
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Samuel Penn wrote:
> > > The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
Lessee:
Expected damage per weapon mass at given ranges, assumed mass 5 PT and mass 3
A:
Weapon: Range: 6 12 18 24 36
Pulse Torp 0.47 0.35 0.23 0.12 0 A vs no screen 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.22
A vs lvl-1 0.5 0.5 0.33 0.33 0.17
A vs lvl-2 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.11
A vs lvl-3 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.06
So X mass of pulse torps is better than the same mass of A batteries against
heavily shielded targets at very close range. I don't see very
many engagements at that close a range, though - in fact, since I
measure in cm, actually placing the models less than 6 mu <1> apart can be
difficult if one of the models is large enough (ie, large enough to
represent a ship with level-3 screens)...
Having said all this, I agree that mass 5 or 6 A batteries would be too
large; mass 4 seems fair - big enough to let the smaller batteries
actually be better at close range, but not so big as to make the smaller
batteries rule unchallenged. (I've also found it very hard to keep the
range open enough to avoid B-batteries... the commonest engagement
ranges
in my experience are 10-25 cm or so.)
It would be a little difficult to reduce C- and B-batteries any further
in size, unless we want mass 0.5 batteries. (Hm - why not? Mass 0.5
single-arc C batteries...)
Regards,
IIRC Jon has no commercial interest in producing fantasy rules. His attitude
has always been "How can a small company like mine compete with the likes of
GW?" JMT is SF through and through - and lets face it, with all the
stuff you
want us to produce for our existing games systems, do you _really_ think
he's got the time to branch out into another period? Forget it.
In the meantime, lets assume that JMT has no interest in Fantasy and start
work on a game based on the FMA concept. I will get confirmation from Jon that
he's happy about this, but I can't see any problem. If the worst comes to the
worst and he says he wants to do it then we simply off load the discussion to
that point as input to him. I rally think its unlikely though.
Count me in on the discussions please.
Mike Elliott
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]
Author: SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk/ at INTERNET
Date: 13/12/96 06:21
Ok Alan I'm in, if we can get a few more people to help with the design and
background. How do you want to run this? I think a good starting place would
be the overall game concept, ie. scale, morale based, representation on the
tabletop. From there we can deduce the types of mechanics we need, and finaly
knock around a background.
BTW if this gets going I think we should handle it through personal email, and
only post general questions and surveys to the mail list. It is afterall an FT
mailing list.
So to all of you who want the chance to have input on a Fantasy set of rules
using FMA (If Jon is okay with it) jump on the band wagon now, and
well starter up and see if she's got any gas. BTW I also think that any set of
rules, no matter how good they are, and
hey they could stink, should be public domain for those intrested.
My email is u1a00458@mail.wvnet.edu Joe Noll
----------
> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca>
of
> >this, sign me up for a copy now!
no
> interest in fantasy? With the people available on this list, I'm sure
> M.J.Elliott@uk22p.bull.co.uk wrote:
Leviathan
> looks