Hello. I just joined this mailing list, and this is my posting. I apologize if
I am not posting my message correctly. I also apologize if this subject has
already been covered.
In FT, the fighters move after the regular ships move. Since fighters don't
pre-plot movement, they get the benefit of seeing how the regular ships
move before they move to intercept.
In MT, there is an optional rule that has the fighter movement phase moved to
the point after the regular ships have plotted their moves but before they are
actually moved. This means that the fighters must anticipate where the regular
ships are going.
I would like to know which rule you prefer? Which rule is usually used in
tournaments and common practice? Thanks.
--Greg
Your mileage may vary, but if ships usually have velocities of 8 or less, we
make fighters move first and anticipate. If velocities go up into the 12 to 16
range, fighters probably need the advantage of moving last.
> In FT, the fighters move after the regular ships move. Since fighters
this is the rule i prefer...it seems to me that fighters would be able to
react better agianst larger crusers and such i do however use most of the
other optional rules concerning fighters... such as morale, aces and turkeys,
and fighter endurance
btw...
does anybodie else on this list live near detroit, Michigan, i am always
lookin for new gamers...and espically somebodie to play FT
:)
chris
Our group always uses the MT rules. But our table is small (48x60" oval). And
our speeds seldom get above 14.
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
> Greg Wong wrote:
We use the basic fighter rules for about all convention games to keep it
simple, especially for newbies. I have tried using the MT advanced rule with
other players and the results are something like this: Players that use lots
of fighters dislike it and players that don't use fighter often seem
indifferent. Personally, I like using the advanced rule to add more surprise
to the game.
Brian:
A friendly hint -- If you stop using your web browser to send mail,
it might be legible.
--
Rick Rutherford ----- rickr@digex.net ----- The above opinions are mine.
"I've seen collisions on fire off the side of the ethernet LAN.
I've seen the lights on the CSU/DSU glitter in the dark near the router.
All these things will be lost in time, like dropped packets. Time to
die."
> <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=2
color="#0000FF"><u>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fth
ome.html
> </u><font color="#000000"><br><br>----------<br>> From: Greg Wong
<br>
> In MT, there is an optional rule that has the fighter movement
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></
html>
> Greg Wong wrote:
Hi, I think the later method make the use of fighters a little more dramatic.
Here is the complete turn sequence that my group of players adopted.
Turn Sequence:
1) Write Movement Orders.
2) Move Asteroids and other fixed-move bodies.
3) Launch/Move any/all missiles.
4) Resolve any/all encounters between missiles and chaff.
5) Launch Fighters. Place them within 6" of the launch vehicle (forward arc).
6) Move any/all fighter groups. Players alternate moving one fighter
each starting with the player with the most fighters in the field. 7) Resolve
ADAF opportunity fire. That is attacks against any fighter or missile that
passes within 6" inches of the ship anywhere along their flight path. 8)
Declare Dogfights (They may be resolved in this phase as well.) 9) Move all
ships in accordance with written orders. Ships with unspecified orders cannot
turn or change velocity. (But they must still move unless they have zero
velocity.) 10) Declare fighter and missile targets. 11) Resolve any remaining
ADAF fire against fighters and missiles. 12) Resolve PDAF fire. (Yes, they do
the same thing BUT the tactics are different.) 13) Resolve Fighter attacks. If
the declared target of a group is destroyed, the group may NOT switch targets,
however this turn doesn't count against the groups endurance. 14) Resolve
missile attacks.
15) Fire any/all ships, players alternating one ship each, starting with
the player with the FEWEST ships in play. (Tactical goes advantage to the
underdog.) 16) Make any remaining unused fighter attacks.
> On Mon, 05 May 1997 19:27:41 -0700, you wrote:
> 15) Fire any/all ships, players alternating one ship each, starting
Be nice if there was some sort of "datalink" that let you fire 2 or more ships
simultaneously, like Starfire (which is quite a good game). I suspect datalink
would be a special type of FireCon. Datalink FireCon perhaps. Ships with
synchronised datalink firecons could fire
together, but you couldn't put more than 2-4 ships in the system and
you would have to predesignate the groups. Would make taking out those
awful level-3 screen ships easier (wreck cruisers too). I'll leave
someone else to work out the stats.
----------
From: Sandy Goh <sandy@artica.demon.co.uk>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: when do fighters move
Date: Monday, May 05, 1997 9:20 PM
> On Mon, 05 May 1997 19:27:41 -0700, you wrote:
> 15) Fire any/all ships, players alternating one ship each, starting
Be nice if there was some sort of "datalink" that let you fire 2 or more ships
simultaneously, like Starfire (which is quite a good game). I suspect datalink
would be a special type of FireCon. Datalink FireCon perhaps. Ships with
synchronised datalink firecons could fire
together, but you couldn't put more than 2-4 ships in the system and
you would have to predesignate the groups. Would make taking out those
awful level-3 screen ships easier (wreck cruisers too). I'll leave
someone else to work out the stats.
Sandy Goh (sandy@artica.demon.co.uk)
----------
I have been thinking about a ship system that would be kinda like what you are
talking about. I have been calling it the SpWACS ("spaywacks"). I based it on
the AWACS system the USAF uses. I used the enhanced and superior sensor
package and doubled the cost and mass. Any ship within
6"
(like a ADAF system) could be fed fire control information. Basicly other
ships could use one of the SpWACS FireCons as if it was their own. If multiple
ships were firing on the same target with the same type of weapons they could
all borrow the same SpWACS FireCon. Different weapon systems would have to use
different SpWACS FireCons. The targeting soulition for a pulse torp would be
different than a A bat. The system could also act just like a sensor of the
same type, ie illuminating bogies, giving information as per the sensor chart
in MT. The SpWACS system would be fitted to a deticated ship just like
area-effect ECM systems. Other systems operating on or around the ship
(like ECM or weasel systems) would interfear with the SpWACS. Enemy ECM would
also interfere with SpWACS. It could give sensor info as per the normal
enhanced and superior sensors but it could only lock on on an unmodified roll
of 5 or 6. The only weapon systems on a deticated SpWACS ship would be PDAF.
Other systems would be limited to extra FireCons and damage control partys. I
hadn't thought about ships in the SpWACS net being able to fire simultaniously
but it seems like a logical rule if they are using the same "borrowed"
FireCon. My main insperation (other than the AWACS) was the Imperial
Constellation targetting ships from Space Fleet. That is what I invision a
SpWACS ship
> On Tue, 6 May 1997 00:40:22 -0600, you wrote:
> Be nice if there was some sort of "datalink" that let you fire 2 or
> I have been thinking about a ship system that would be kinda like what
I would prefer SWAC but it may remind too many folks here of SFB. I don't have
a problem with that but there are some real weird guys out
there...
If the SWAC is just a distributed firecon, then why is it limited to one type
of weapon? A normal (non distributed) firecon can control both pulse torps and
beam batteries.
> My main insperation (other than the AWACS) was the Imperial
It's OK but the constellation targeting ship and the castellan shield ship
were quite badly broken from a game mechanics point of view.
----------
From: Sandy Goh <sandy@artica1.demon.co.uk>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: when do fighters move
Date: Thursday, May 08, 1997 6:04 PM
> On Tue, 6 May 1997 00:40:22 -0600, you wrote:
> Be nice if there was some sort of "datalink" that let you fire 2 or
> I have been thinking about a ship system that would be kinda like what
I would prefer SWAC but it may remind too many folks here of SFB. I don't have
a problem with that but there are some real weird guys out
there...
I won't be hurt if you call it a SWAC. I just wanted to differentate it from
other systems out there. Plus SWAC remindes me of the sound of rolled up
newspaper hitting a fly on the wall ("Swack! Swack! Take that! Swack!")
If the SWAC is just a distributed firecon, then why is it limited to one type
of weapon? A normal (non distributed) firecon can control both pulse torps and
beam batteries.
I was thinking that it would be easier and more game balanced for the system
to require the ships it is targeting for to use the same weapon systems. Even
more so if they can all simultanously fire... It is correlating firing
solutions for several different ships at different angles of attack after all.
But,as you point out, it *is* a FireCon so it could just follow normal FireCon
rules. I will have to test it both ways.. But feel free to do it however you
like;).
> My main insperation (other than the AWACS) was the Imperial
> At 12:04 AM 5/9/97 GMT, you wrote:
are the range limits a measure of sensors or beam cohesion? It would make
sense to me to have your SWAC close with the enemy and send target data to the
main fleet, if it survives.
ex: swac is 12" away from target, transmit data to fleet 36" away, fleet fires
as if from 12" range.
> On Fri, 09 May 1997 05:30:24 -0400, you wrote:
> are the range limits a measure of sensors or beam cohesion? It would
Err... I don't think this would work. The SWAC would be very expensive
financially and points-wise and if it did this it would most likely
get evaporated by a massed volley as soon it it hit the table. Well OK
you _could_ build the system into a super dreadnought hull. You'd have
to name it Constellation, of course (or whatever that old GW targeting ship
was called).
----------
> From: Marshall Grover <mgrover@mint.net>
The limits are the sensor range. The actual range would be measured from the
ships firing. The only thing the SWAC does is allow ships within 6" of the
ship to borrow a FireCon.
Enjoy,