Why Sensors??

> I've been doing some general mulling over the rules that have been

I'm afraid that I have to agree with this. I've been deleting all the Sensor
stuff, because it just involves too much extra calculation and dice rolling.

If I were to do something for campaign purposes, I'd just abstract the beam
system -- Class Ones are civilian sensors, Class Twos are military,
Class Three are Spiffy Military. Ranges are calculated by hexes, and dice are

rolled exactly as normal beam fire. One point of "damage" gives a partial
reading, two or more points give a full reading. Stealth could be purchased,
and would work against sensors precisely the same way that screens work
against beams.

And again: I agreen with Schoon: If you are within combat range, you are

well within minimum sensor range.

I've been doing some general mulling over the rules that have been put forth
by various contributors to the list (including my own), and have come to the
general conclusion that they're all too complex. (snip) I was thinking that
the minimum range for having the "All" information should be about the range
at which people tend to engage on the trabletop. This way, one off games and
those not interested in sensors can safely ignore them.

Make it 100", that'll cover an 8 foot table. Then apply Phil's "Sensor Lite"
rules, maybe an "admiral quality" rating, and you're in good shape. I've been
slowly percolating "Campaign Thrust" on my mental back burner, so here are a
few thoughts. You've got several levels of simulation: a) Head of State:
Starts with astrography and deals with economy, diplomacy, and grand strategy
(national goals) b) Fleet Admiral: Starts with the budget and assigns
training, maintenance/resupply, operations, and building
programs. Assigns ships to battlegroups or fleets and assigns objectives for
those units. The realm of strategy (deciding which campaigns to fight to
achieve the national goal). c) Admiral: Starts with the ships assigned to the
battlegroup/fleet and the assigned objective, and devises a
way to carry the objective with available assets. The realm of operations
(deciding what battles to fight to make the campaign successful). This would
include things like approach vector into a system; whether to refuel before
the assault or to rely on surprise while hoping you don't run out of fuel;
attack outlying installations first or go for the main planet. d) Commodore:
Starts with the battlegroup assigned and uses it to achieve success in the
battle. This is what Full
Thrust simulates.   I'd call this grand tactics.
e) Captain: Starts with a ship and uses it to carry out the Commodore's
designs. Tactics. This is partly below the granularity of Full Thrust. If the
idea is to set up the basis for battles, then what we need to develop first is
the Admiral level. That's what I was muttering about a day or two ago, when I
asked (and got zero response on) "how many AU out should the Jump Limit be,
for a star like the Sun?" <muttering ON>That's okay, if y'all don't want to
provide input, I'll write it however I feel like....you'll have to calculate
your velocities in furlongs per fortnight, and serve you right!<muttering OFF>

> If I were to do something for campaign purposes, I'd just abstract the

This idea has merit!

If we can ever agree upon a campaign system... ;-)

> Make it 100", that'll cover an 8 foot table. Then apply

Agreed.

> You've got several levels of simulation:

[snipped rest]

I think that a good campaign system can effectively combine B & C, and include
enough of A to keep the kingmakers happy.

Abstract much of the detail for A, and then concentrate on B & C. This would
give a stand alone game or "scenario generator," though they wouldn't
necessarily be balanced :-)

Laserlight wrote (or muttered):
> "how many AU out should the Jump Limit be, for a star like the Sun?"

In my opinion, they should be at the trojan points and those points
where space-time is very close to "flat" - gravitation pull very close
to zero in any direction. So, that's a ring around each planet, points if
there's a moon, too complex if there's lots or a ring. Otherwise, at the Oort
or Kuiper belt? Something like 100 AU out?

In a message dated 9/7/99 11:35:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> schoon@aimnet.com writes:
I agree with schoon. Oliver Upshaw << [snipped digest rules]

I've been doing some general mulling over the rules that have been put forth
by various contributors to the list (including my own), and have come to the
general conclusion that they're all to complex.

 The "old" basic system of Bogey / All was very simple and worked fairly
well. However, even so, very few people used it. In fact, aside from specific
groups interested in campaign games, I have never seen anyone even use the
basic rules in FT (p21), much less the advanced rules from MT (p5).

Why?

First, FT is generally designed to be very simple in execution, though rich in
variety. The current batch of ideas do not follow this pattern. They all
involve more die rolling, I suspect, than we are collectively comfortable
with.

I was thinking that the minimum range for having the "All" information should
be about the range at which people tend to engage on the trabletop. This way,
one off games and those not interested in sensors can safely ignore them.

"But wait!" I hear you say, "that means that I can only use the rules off the
tabletop."

Bingo.

Say the average table provides 72 inches between combatants. Make 72" your
standard range unit (one could up this to 75 or 100 if you wanted rounder
numbers). This would allow for some sort of "system scale" engagement rules,
which would in turn be the forbearers of campaign rules.

By putting sensors in the realm of the campaign, we don't put off the casual
player, but give the campaign player (who most likely was the one who wanted a
little more complexity in the first place) something satisfying.

 Schoon
> [quoted text omitted]