Re: FT III, BIg ships and such.

Hello Alex,
  I don't think your opinion stinks <grin>.  And you are most correct in
assuming that GZG's needs to publish or perish (God, who would have
thought
that applied to something fun like gaming!).  I also agree that a more
polished version of FT would be interesting to see come about.	One way
that
I can see for a person to have his cake and eat it too is the idea of
"BASIC" and "ADVANCED" rule sets.  FT II could be the basic version,
while
FT III could be the Advanced version.  As for Roleplaying rules, the
market
for the game would possibly expand (depending on the rules I suspect),
and
get the company some more income.  In short, don't crawl under rocks
(too
damp, and the bugs tend to make life difficult and uncomfortable), stick
around and enjoy the sunshine now and then...

Hal

>Gee, I must have the most /un/popular opinion around here; so much so
>I dread exposing it.
>
>I'd /like/ to see FTIII be a complete rewrite; so complete a rewrite
>that they go from the d6-intensive current system to FMA-style
>multi-die-style adjudication.	That would make it /much/ easier, in my
>eyes, to interface DSII and SGII.  In fact, that leads to a future
>publication, if/when GZG feels it necessary or useful, where the
>entire GZG wargame line comes out in one nicely bound book containing
>FTIII, DSIII and SGIII, maybe with even an RPG system stuck in there
>using the same FMA mechanics (gee, wouldn't it be nice if those were
>the rules I'm working on).
>
>Given the unpopularity of changing anything but the smallest fragment
>of FT amongst this group, I have to sit back and wonder how its
>expected for GZG to stay afloat.  If you folks were in charge, there'd
>be neither the excellent DSII nor SGII rules which are far and away
>superior to their predecessor.  GZG would have much less money than
>the already meager sum that they have at hand now.  A company has to
>sell new product to stay a company, and it cannot survive on just a
>handfull of suppliments and a small miniatures line, even with
>requirements as modest as GZG, not forever.  Jon and Mike have
>/never/, in my eyes, shown a mere hint of the GW mentality.  Any
>updates and new versions they produce, they do so because they feel
>its necessary, not just to gouge the playing public out of a few more
>lousy bucks.
>
>I think its vaguely insulting that most of the replies were
>implicitive of just such a mindset and hope to my depths that I'm
>simply reading more vehemance into them than is actually present.
>
>So, my unpopular view; I'll go crawl back under my stone, now.
>
>
>