Prev: Re: FTIII Next: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

From: db-ft@w... (David Brewer)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:01:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

In message <>
lojeck writes:
> > I see it quite the other way round. A small ship can give its single
> > weapon an all-round coverage; it's these bloody great "Star
> > Destroyers" with their massive superstructures that should mandate
> > limited-arcs.
> now we've reached the question of is full thrust a game of space
combat or
> a "wet-navy" game where the boats have wings? (ie. if it were space
> combat, ships would only really have 2 fire arcs since they could just
> roll about their centerline to shoot to port with their starboard
> array)

I don't agree. The 2-D nature of FT, as discussed in the rulebook, is 
forced on the game through necessity not by any wet-naval analogy.

Note that I specifically referenced Star Wars to add a note of genre-
adherence. I don't see "Star Destroyers" rotating axially to get 
battery coverage on both sides.

> I tend to think of a batteries as guns so huge that you would need to
> build a cruiser carrying one as an engine and a cockpit tied to the
> itself, while a carrier should be big enough to have it's torpedo
> on a turret (imho)

I don't tend to think of beam weapons in terms of one big gun-barrel, 
tho' I do for various weapons like PTTs, which is specifically a 
"tube". A beam weapon is a "battery":- suggesting multiple weapons.
One or more small projectors backed by thumping great energy coils;
that would be my picture, tho' I'm happy to leave it vaguer than that.
This is SF, with a liberal dose of PSB we can have what we want.

> > > to be honest, I don't see how that is different from the present
> > > system except symantically (spelling?)...
> >
> > Semantics = substance. You mean "syntactically". Syntax = style.
> (goes to dictionary) oh yeah... sorry...
> > The idea is to be sufficiently similar... but helpfully simpler.
> I just think it was too similar. if it gives the exact same results,
> not use the same system?

The case now is that, having settled on a platform of given mass and
thrust, I do not particularly stop to consider the miniscule points
difference between, say, a PTT and 1A+1B (of whatever arcage), 
although I am obliged to work through the tedious arithmetic. 
Dispensing with this tedious piddling arithmetic is what I took JMT 
to mean when he said he was considering a points-free system.

People *like* the substance of FT. A small change in the style of 
the points system would seem to satify peoples conservative
tendancies, while tidying things up a little. Fix a basic cost on
the platform... fill it with whatever junk you feel like using this
game... and get on with it.

David Brewer

Prev: Re: FTIII Next: Re: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]