Reactions...

Well, we certainly did open up the proverbial worm can, didn't we? As I
expected, the opinions of everyone out there vary widely, which is exactly why
we can't please all the people all the time...
Thanks to everyone who responded to the new draft ideas - there are a
few where I can see a slight trend towards a consensus of opinion one way or
the other, while other ideas seem to have equally vociferous support from some
people and loathing from others! I suspect that a lot of this has to do with
the fact that many people play their own customised versions of FT anyway, so
whether they like the idea of a new rule or not depends on whether it fits in
with their current universe. I definitely agree that there should be a section
in FTIII giving outline suggestions as to how to customise the game to your
preferred background (though obviously I can't
go into specifics) - there is a little of this in FTII/MT, but perhaps
there should be more.

Just to make a couple of points in answer to specific issues raised in some of
the replies: Fighter move sequence: the comment was made that the MT sequence
allows
ships to avoid/outmaneuver fighters, and comparison was made with
nautical carrier ops, where such an event is obviously ridiculous. However,
the
reasoning behind it was that these are SPACECRAFT, not aircraft -
without going deeply into the maths,the basic idea was that the fighters,
carrying
little fuel/reaction mass/whatever (and wanting to save most of it for
combat maneuvering anyway) would have to commit to an interception vector at
the start of their move, depending on where their tactical systems predict the
target ship is most likely to end up; if the target in turn has anticipated
this and taken evasive action, the fighters may find themselves too far away
to attack this turn; this (to me, anyway) is all part of the
guess/bluff/doublebluff, which is a major fun element of the game.
One possible idea that has just come to mind - and I throw this in
purely
as a random thought - how about letting a player sacrifice one turn's
worth of the fighters' combat endurance in order to get a (short) additional
move to bring them in range of an evading ship, if they end up more than the
required 6" away? This would represent the fighters carrying out an
emergency course-change burn (extravagant on fuel) when they see the
target slipping away from them...

Several people have commented that fighters should move like ships -
well, in effect they do, but just on a much smaller scale, which is why we
have abstracted their movement in the way we have. The reasoning behind a
fixed maximum move for the fighters was largely a pure game mechanic, but I
have always considered it reasonable in the light of (again) limited fuel in a
small fighter - it is not that they CANNOT go faster, it is just that if
they accelerate to too high a speed they will not have enough fuel left to
slow down again, to fight and to get home! I am VERY strongly against the
complication of keeping velocity/course records for fighter groups as
part
of the core rules - however that does not mean you can't do it if you
prefer!

An interesting point was the few people that didn't seem to think there was a
problem with the original beam battery mass figures; I guess that if you
design "balanced" ships with reasonable weapons fits, as the "standard" ship
designs were supposed to be, then the problem really isn't that
important - it only matters to the players who want to maximise their
designs (and to their opponents...). However, I think the consensus points to
a change along the lines of what I suggested.

The most difficult thing about asking for everyone's opinions like this is
that whatever we do for FTIII we're going to p*ss SOMEONE off by going against
their suggestions! Well, we're just going to have to bite the bullet on this
one, but please understand that I've read and noted ALL the feedback and
opinions, and they'll all help to shape FTIII and future products in some way;
as always, if we end up using something you don't personally like then feel
free to change it!!

I'll probably be putting some more thoughts out for discussion in due course,
but for now it may be a good idea if we get back to the "normal"
day-to-day correspondance on the list - if anyone else has any comments
on the draft stuff it might be best to email me directly rather than filling
the list, especially as one or two people seem to be having problems with the
volume of mail each day.

All the best, and again many thanks,

In message <199702241945.TAA23402@gate.flexnet.net>
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:

[additional details, and neat idea, snipped]

I think that this sort of information is an important part of the rule texts,
if you want to allow optional rules. By explaining the reality the rule is
trying to model, you help decide whether or not the rule needs changing for a
different game universe.

I can, for instance, think of possible universes where this rule would not be
appropriate, as the fighters use some sort of propulsion system which doesn't
expend reaction mass. And, in some extreme cases, all ships might be as agile
as fighters. Would that be QX?

Actually, if I wanted to use Bergenholms, I'd be looking at the systems in
GURPS Lensman, which I believe have been reprinted in one of the two
Compendiums.

In a message dated 97-02-24 21:24:56 EST, you write:

> Well, we certainly did open up the proverbial worm can, didn't we? As

Don't worry about "everybody" and make a game that pleases you. It has worked
fine so far...

> Just to make a couple of points in answer to specific issues raised
additional move
> to bring them in range of an evading ship, if they end up more than

Using the More Thrust sequence, fighters have to end up not just 6" away, but
also facing in the correct direction. We played this way for several games and
fighters all but disappeared. They simply were unable to do anything. A
suggestion might be to allow fighters a larger firing arc if using this turn
sequence.  I will keep using a fighter-thrust model.  I just like the
way it makes the fighters move like ships....

> I'll probably be putting some more thoughts out for discussion in due

This very sort of topic generally occupied about a third of list traffic even
before you showed up, Jon, so don't feel that you are burdening anyone
:).
Thanks for sharing ideas with all of us.

Later

Brian

> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> I guess that if you

Well... If I design a scenario, I can put whatever tech limitations I want
into it (eg, the "Age of Iridium" scenario which was modelled on the
naval battles between Russia and Japan during the 1904-5 war, with 180
degree arcs and all that; or B5 rules, or whatever...) - and I can make
them "make sense" in that background. In Mk's B5 rules C-bats and *DAFs
are very valuable (especially the *DAFs which double as screens!), so it

"makes sense" to use them.

What I'm trying to say is that in the context of a given background, certain
weapon mixes "make more sense" than others.

But in a background-less single game, the thing that determines what is
making sense is the rules. Nothing else. If I were responsible for BuShips
and designed something using "inefficient" weapons - as the B battery
was
compared to the A - when I knew there was something better available,
I'd certainly be fired (and possibly fired at!) when my fleet suffered from
better designs. Thus the "reasonable" weapon fits given in FT actually become
"unreasonable", unless you have a background which says things about how ships
should be designed. Or, of course, the rules are such
that you have to make compromises - fewer but longer-ranged weapons or
more but shorter-ranged, or weapons vs point defences, or something.

But if I _don't_ have to make compromises anywhere (ie, one weapon
system stands out clearly as the best), I certainly won't.

> The most difficult thing about asking for everyone's opinions like

Which is, of course, exactly why you don't have to be afraid to go against the
opinion of people!

> I'll probably be putting some more thoughts out for discussion in due

You mean, discussing what we think you ought to have written or how to
modify FT? :) :) :)

Later,