Re: Fighter groups (designer please read)

> 
> I agree with the intent of the endurance rules but I think the return
> range after endurance expenditure should be lengthened to say 6 turns
or
> something like that.
> 
> comments?
> 
> Dan
> 

Hello List and designer,
  As I mentioned once before with respect towards designing a strategic
version of FT (ie economics, shipbuilding times, etc...), FT enjoys the
same flaw that STARFIRE has - namely the pinning down of actual
space/volume configuration.
  Consider: a M1 Abrams supposedly takes up around 1600 cubic feet (or
535
cubic yards).  According to More Full Thrust, a MBT takes up 12 spaces,
and each of a "MASS" can hold 50 "spaces".  
  If one assumes that there is a 30% wastage space for holding
equipment,
then each cargo space is about 175 cubic feet, with each MASS being
about
8750 cubic feet, or roughly 325 cubic yards.  Therefore, without being
particularly nasty about those who would like to keep the volume of a
"mass" nebulous, we already have one "measurement" that would seem to
apply to FT.  For those who desire to avoid this "pinning down" of the
elusive volume per MASS ratio <grinning> ignore it.  However, the
situation with regards to the fighter endurance - that is again a
problem
that should be addressed at some point of time or another.  Endurance is
a
measure of staying power - which implies a time limit.	The question is,
what is the time duration of each turn?
  Duration is a combination of fuel duration, life support duration, and
perhaps pilot wear and tear.  How long can a pilot last?  How long did
the
bombers of world war II last?  How long does fuel last?  If there is a
fuel restriction on fighters, why not is there a fuel restriction on the
main line ships?
  I guess the real question regards to duration is based upon the life
support. How long can they survive the life support?  I find it
"unrealistic" that the duration for a fighter is only 3 turns
offensively,
AND 3 turns to return to base.
  What I would like to see happen overall, in echo of the previous
poster
who asked about extending the landing duration timeperiod, is that each
turn be given a reasonable time duration, and that each inch is given a
reasonable distance.  I believe the phrase here is "scale".  Light is
known to travel 186,000 miles per second.  In three seconds, light will
have travelled 558,000 miles.  In 5 seconds, it travels some 930,000
miles, which is approximately 1/100th the distance of an AU.  If we
assume
that the distance of 36 inches is the distance that a "beam" weapon can
travel and still be effective and you rule that the "time duration" is
one
second, then one inch equals approximately 5,000 miles!

WARNING:

  FULL THRUST is meant to be a "game" and it is meant to be fun.
Assigning scale is where it gets to be messy in my opinion, and by using
the artificial limitation of how many turns the fighters can be on the
board, I think the ugly problem of scale begins to rear it's ugly head.
My suggestion is to go back to the original rule regarding unlimited
duration.  If the reason fighter duration became an issue was due to the
unbalancing feature or strength of fighers, then the fighters themselves
should be limited, not their duration - for that implies a time scale,
which is reasonably measureable.

SUGGESTION: use the limitation that fighters can only fire 3 shots of
ship
killing power, and unlimited shots for anti-fighter work.  Returning
to the carrier or ship with fighter bays allows one to "recharge" the
ship
killing capacitors.  Variances on fighters can now include their "weapon
load outs" in the form of how many ship killing shots they have.   Also,
to be reasonable, fighters should have a higher point cost to reflect
their combat value.  I am aware that Jon would like to avoid
recalculating
the point cost values, but I would endorse this plan of action should he
ever print another edition of FULL THRUST.  As time goes one, more and
more experience is being gathered about weaponry and their tactics in
the
game.  If through general playing and playtesting, it is discovered that
certain weapons are not efficient in terms of the game, or perhaps some
weapons are overly efficient, then the point cost formula needs to be
revamped.

  In all, I like the movement system from FULL THRUST.	I also like the
combat system for the weaponry.  To get a full "tactical" feel to Full
Thrust, perhaps the 270 degree firing arc needs to be toned down to
either
a 90 degree arc, or perhaps a 180 degree arc.
  In addition, I would like to see an amendment to the rules regarding
needle beam damage and damage control parties.	It is unrealistic to
assume that anyone would be interested in using a needle beam when the
limited damage that the needle beam can do is nullified easily enough.
Consider: a ship with two damage control parties can fix the damage from
one needle beam with a 1 in three chance.  In two turns, that is 2 in 3
chance.  The needle beam takes up "mass" whereas the damage control
party
does not.  All in all, I think that Needle beam damage should not be
repairable by damage control parties - otherwise, the advent of damage
control parties makes this weapon obsolete (which some say is not worth
the point cost in any event!  Solution: make needle beams use only 1
space
rather than two...)

Hal