> I am concerned with a number of changes that will
Which changes?
> Right
Yes. However, it is also much cheaper to buy defences for a 300 Mass
Supermonitor than for a 100 Mass Dreadnought... which is not a good thing IMO.
Battles between huge Superships aren't very fun, and those huge superships can
kill just about anything except a large missile salvo
launched from afar - including smaller capitals.
> 2) Capital ships have access to certain weapons
First of all, the rumours you've heard about changing the screen masses are
not entirely correct, so this argument falls. (No, I'm not allowed to tell you
how they should read.)
Second, with the current design rules far too many FT battles -
especially
one-off ones, and of course IMO - are slugfests between the
battle-lines.
No or little maneuvering, few or no small ships (except missile boats),
just dreadnoughts and bigger beating the sh-t out of one another. This
tends to happen when the players are design-maximisers, who immediately
realise your point 1 above.
Third, I strongly doubt that the Escort Swarm will be a serious danger in
FTIII
> Capital ships should dominate whatever battle they
But unless you play on a _really_ big area (so big that 54 measuring
units (scanner range) is relatively small) or in a campaign, you won't have
any need for scouting and little need for distraction; and when the enemy
fleet also consists of dreadnoughts your "pursuit cruisers" are likely to be
too
small and fragile to do much good - I'd expect them to be taken out
first, since shooting at them is a faster way to reduce the number of enemy
weapons.
[snip]
> I don't like wonder weenie fleets of scores of low
A "wonder weenie" fleet tends to be pretty vulnerable to a cruiser fleet
-
and, unless it is equipped with a lot of missiles, to a fleet consisting of
capitals too...
[snip]
> There is so much for smaller ships to do
Sure. But not on the gaming table.
> , why not let
Because it results in horribly boring battles?
Regards,
> Mk,
If there's a game master, yes. However, quite often there aren't; in fact, the
only GMed games I've seen have been demos (or campaign battles, but then the
GM has very little influence on fleet compositions). All others
have been one-off encounters - ie, both sides bring their own fleets,
and there is no GM. It is these battles that offer such temptations to the
"design-optimizers".
Regards,
> Michael wrote:
> I have a hard time sympathizing with people who can't
It should be, yes. In FTII, at least for smaller battles (up to a few
thousand points or so) this isn't necessarily true - it depends a bit on
board size (and thus the speeds involved).
> On the other hand, if Capital ships don't have a slight
Currently they don't have a _slight_ edge. It is a rather big one IMO -
level 3 screens are _very_ powerful. The fact that they take their
treshold checks later than smaller ships help a lot too.
> Obligatory silly ship design:
Included in the basic ship cost if you use the MT boarding rules.
> The Marine Scout has four important roles that it can
For this it is pretty OK in a campaign game. Note, however, that if you're
using the FT/MT scanner rules it needs to close to 36 mu or less of the
enemy - at which range capitals, at least, will be able to destroy it
pretty easily - so you need more than one of them. For shadowing an
identified fleet they're fine. It all depends on how you interpret the
scanning rules... but as the MT rules are written, these scout ships are only
able to sense the presence of the enemy (and possibly their general
class - but this is open for debate).
> 2) Decoys. With 180 point frigates around, having
This too depends on your scanner/combat information rules, of course.
> 3) Boarding, 4 marine scouts = 1PDF. Fleet tactics
<g> So to have a chance against my Mass 80 SD you'll need at least some 60
Marine Scouts, preferrably something more like 100, no? Ah well, that's
only 3-500 points anyway...
> 4) The ship can attempt to ram. It is always on its
<g> Referring to "the spirit of the rules" (in this case, FT p.22):
"...but
such suicide attacks should be rarely attempted..." Of course, if you're
playing something like the Arachnids in Weber's "In Death Ground", ramming is
more or less compulsory!
> It
If the ship AI is powerful enough to do this, you don't need a pilot at all.
If it isn't, you only get one chance to ram. This is, of course, entirely
subject to what background (if any) you're using.
> On this general subject:
The MT boarding rules don't define exactly when boarding battles are resolved.
If you do it in initiative order, however,
_each_single_marine_
boards individually - and at the odds 0.25 to 80, I'm not prepared to
bet on his chances. I suggest executing all boarding attempts after shooting,
and combining all boardings of a single ship into one combat.
A troop carrier can get an impressive 3.125 boarding factors per Mass -
but this doesn't account for the boarding pods needed, so drop it to 2 factors
or so per Mass of troop quarters for a dedicated boarding design.
Regards,
> On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Actually, I mostly agree with you. I think it's very nice to see that the
rules are being thoroughly analyzed instead of the all too common "let's throw
in a dozen new cool gadgets and see what the players think."
Just some points I'd like to make.
> It should be, yes. In FTII, at least for smaller battles (up to a few
Board size does NOT determine what speeds can be used. It does determine what
speeds can be used *conveniently* but if you are concerned about winning only
(as in a tournament you should be), convenience is not a factor.
Unless you were planning to insert some silly "what happens when you fall off
the edge of space" rule?
I would really like to see the design team play out some battles
with three-digit speeds, post a blow-by-blow account and say with a
straight face: "Yes, the game works with unlimited speeds."
> For this it is pretty OK in a campaign game. Note, however, that if
Agreed, but scanning rules are optional anyway. I personally stopped using
them because they simply slowed the game down too much.
In general, I don't think one should take such a dim view of
"design-optimizers". Heck, the entire modern battleship concept was born
when someone decided to optimize the 19th century battlewagon designs. And it
died when later "optimization" of fleet design made it obsolete.
There is over-optimization born of game abstractions and rule flaws I do
not like. But logical optimizations should not looked down upon.
E.g. giving all ships odd thrusts, or giving all K'V ships Level 2 armor
are IMHO bad optimizations born of bad rules. The first exploits a abstracted
rounding point, the second the rule flaw that armor does not have mass (and
that bigger ships really have less surface area to armor).
OTOH, mounting only A-batteries for beams is a valid optimization. It's
very boring, true, but valid because a viable alternative does not exist
-- which may very well be true even if it is boring. Would you call
someone an optimizer in a modern skirmish game if he gave all his troops
assault rifles instead of bolt-action ones?
It is a fault of the rules not to offer viable alternatives, not a fault
of the player not to use the non-viable ones, IMHO.
Mikko asked (concerning badly-massed weapons):
> > > How about the "3 arcs is the only thing that makes sense" problem?
> the Fleet Book. I was under the impression the FB would have the FTIII
> design system (or at least an extremely close relative).
Guess why I said "...for FTII" :-) Your impression is correct, but I
can't tell very much about it without Jon's permission. The change in A mass
from 3 to 4, OTOH, is not FTIII material.
Later,
> Michael wrote:
> > > > How about the "3 arcs is the only thing that makes sense"
problem?
> How about doubling or tripling the cost of the third arc?
This would make the sample Heavy Cruiser in the game cost 256 points
instead of 238 (+7%), and giving the sample Superdreadnought three arcs
for
all its batteries (instead of 1 3-arc and 4 2-arc batteries) would cost
24
points instead of the current 8 - but 24 points is still only 4% of the
total cost of the ship.
One thing to remember when adjusting the costs of various weapons is that MASS
is much more important than COST. 1 extra useable MASS on the Heavy Cruiser
above costs 10 points (OK, so you get an extra damage point into
the bargain :-/ ); the greater part of the cost for a ship is hull and
engines (except possibly non-FTL ones).
Later,
I little late, i know but...
> If there's a game master, yes. However, quite often there aren't; in
I my opinion if there is not a GM the game is played very differently. The
game be comes table top war gaming as apposed to playing scenarios or
campaigns typically with out a "judge".
***Explaination***
*When two people bring their fleets, set down to play a one of battle where
the players try to distroy each other this is a table top war (maybe a bad
choice of words) GW/evil empire/money grubber/tournament style game.
*The converse to this is inline with the old Role playing style /
campaign
based / story line following game.
The whole point is based on this different STYLE the game will be played
differently.
Table top / one off battles tend to need a balance where certain ships
and do certain things but nothing as an advantage. Everybody is equal and
start with the same thing. (GW Of course in real life it never happens like
that.
Or, campaign style where balance means nothing (the realistic alternative. The
advantage is how you win. (war isn't balanced) This style of game is based on
a lot of out side factors (i.e. where fleets are in the galaxy
/
universe <depending on scale>, technology level, intelligence <not smarts,
but, information / where your opponent is so you can "jump him">, etc.)
So, when you play one off battles it's okay to "cheese" your just trying to
win. War has always been about who and manipulate the rules to beat the enemy.
But, everyone knows in reality cheesed armies would never win. All escort
classed ships with missiles (you run out of missiles) All jet bikes vs.
balance marine detachment (you run out of fuel some time)...(GW)
My little less than half a nickel,