Prev: Re: FT Armor Next: Re: FT Armor

Re: FTF Standard File Formats for PBEM/Utilities

From: Joachim Heck - SunSoft <jheck@E...>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 10:34:03 -0400
Subject: Re: FTF Standard File Formats for PBEM/Utilities

Brian Bell writes:

@:) I have used the following format on my Full Thrust Ship Registry
@:) pages = with an eye toward the same goal. There are 177 designs
@:) posted in this = format. Roger West also has a "Full Thrust
@:) Portable Format" which he = designed with the same purpose.
@:) 
@:) Chicago class Battlecruiser
@:) Brian Bell
@:) Mass: 40
@:) Type: Capital
@:) Clas: Battlecruiser
@:) Move: 4
@:) FTL:  Std
@:) Tech: Human
@:) Hull: Military
@:) Strm: None
@:) Prot: 2 Screens
@:) Cost: 381
@:) Damg: 20
@:)  5
@:)  5
@:)  5
@:)  5
@:) Syst:
@:) FCS
@:) FCS
@:) FCS
@:) Screen
@:) Screen
@:) AA Mega Battery F
@:) A Beam PFS
@:) A Beam PFS
@:) ADAF

  I think this is a step in the right direction.  My only complaints
would be that it doesn't follow FT terminology (Move instead of
Thrust, eg) and that there's no real need for the abbreviated nature
of the format (Spelling out "Class" instead of "Clas" doesn't save
that much space).  Oh and the first line contains a redundant mention
of the class type.  Anyway, overall I think it's pretty good.  My only
question would be how adaptable it is to rules modifications -
remember how important optional rules are to FT.  For example, maybe
the FTL drive should be mentioned under systems.  Maybe the damage row
should mention how many rows are present (so computers can more easily
read the format).

-joachim

Prev: Re: FT Armor Next: Re: FT Armor