Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some
> playtest ideas to this list to get some reactions, so here goes:
>

 
> Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional
-
> they are points for discussion, not finished rules! Some of this MAY
end up
> in FTIII (and probably in the Fleet Book first), but nothing is set in
> stone at this stage. I am actively seeking feedback, but the final
decision
> as to what we use will be made from a mixture of testers' responses,
> discussions here and my own preferences.
> 
> NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
> I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been
written yet :).
> This is simply the rough outline of the new system:
> 
> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Escorts,
> Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship
designs
> from smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to
need
> special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic
> system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and
threshold
> points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
> interest...)
>

I would be very careful with the design of this system.  At the moment
it
seems that it is a simple matter to decide what mass of ship is the most
effective in a given size class.  This would effectively give us one
size
class and I am concerned that one mass would stand out (if even only
slightly) as the best of all the others.  

I rather like the current system of having the mass of ships broken up
into various hull sizes.  I would like to see a few more than the three
we
have, my preference being at about five-six or so.  It allows the idea
of
each size class having something that "it" is a little better at doing
than the rest.	Besides, having the given names for each hull size was
great for description purposes (standard names = standard reference).

 
> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
in
> the design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of this
you
> will have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently
assumed
> to be part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating will
> depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives -
preliminary
> ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. FTL drive will use 10%
of
> ship mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if
you
> wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very
"slow"
> one bristling with guns.....
> (OK, I know this will change the ship designs considerably, but then
so
> will a simple change like making A batts cost 4 mass....)
> 

The "% ship mass per thrust factor" kind of scares me away.  I would
really rather not make such calculations in order to design
ships.	I'm willing (grudgingly), but I have a number of friend who
aren't.  They want a simple system or won't consider playing (actually,
they want fleet books to choose ships from).  Just the same, if you kept
the hull size/class idea you could say that each thrust costs 1 per size
class or some such.  Easy calculation, you stay with mass only, and it
allows you to buy thrust.  

I've got reservations about going to an all mass system myself.  I
rather
like having points as a balance also.  This of course all came out
earlier
during the original debate of mass v points.  Allowing all of the mass
to
be used for systems makes me feel a little better about the idea, but
I'm
not sure how much.  

> 3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small
> turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus
2 per
> additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure
> all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think
they'll go
> a long way to fixing the age-old problem.
> 

I'm sure someone will do the mass and come up with the argument.  Sounds
like a great idea to me though.  

> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
ONLY in
> a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
> change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole"
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!
> 

-snip fighter movement-
 
> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
fore/aft
> arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs
> in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to
judge
> from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do
you
> think this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other
than
> (perhaps) making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?
>

I really like the idea of firing to the rear arc when you use no thrust.
Simple rules change and easy to explain.  I'll probably suggest this as
a
"house rule" to my group tonight.  Can't think of a much better
endorsement.

You make a very good point about the hexagonal model bases (I have more
than one fleet of SFB ships that I use with Full Thrust) and I think
that
taking it into consideration is a great idea.  I would suggest though
that
you keep it simple.  Just buy arcs in 60 degrees.  Having different arc
widths will only cause confusion and give us ship design preferences.  I
always prefer to see rules that are consistent on such things (all arcs
are X).  If you design side arcs to be wider and cost the same then
broad
side ships become a better design.  If you tried to keep balance by
saying side arcs cost twice as much (being twice as wide and there for
twice as effective) then why not just allow people to buy the arcs in
the
grades they want?  I would much prefer the decision of building large
side
arcs to be mine.
 
> So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
reactions -
> either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send
loads
> of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so I
can
> gauge feelings on it.)
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Jon T. (GZG).
> 
> 
> 

Chad Taylor