Prev: Re: The wide open road Next: RE: National Characteristics?

Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+@C...>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:48:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

Excerpts from FT: 8-Feb-98 FTIII Rules Tryout by John 
> Note:   The following comments a based on a PARTIAL use of the 
> FTIII design and combat rules.
>      The results of the monthly club meeting follow:
> Two FT games were presented one was FTII (By John Fox) and
> the second was FTIII (By Phil Pournelle)
[snip large FTII game]
>      The point of the above is that the entire game took
> three and a half hours, start to finish, with more than 
> fourty ships on the board.
> Phil P. presented an FTIII based game using the FTIII design
> rules.   The points on each side: 830 +/- 5.	 The attacking
> force was 2 capitals, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers.   The defenders
> had 1 capital, 3 cruisers, 4 destroyers. (As best I recall, I 
> never saw the defenders sheets.)   
>      The result was once again a draw (stratigic victory to the 
> defense).   Not one ship was lost in combat in a game that lasted
> almost three hours.  (two attacking DDs were down to the last 
> hit points.)	 
>      The point of the above is that the game while well run was
> rather dull.
Very interesting... Mark Kochte & I never had any trouble with blowing
up ships, so I am kinda curious as to what happened there.  What size
are you talking about for 'cruisers', 'destroyers', etc?  Since those
are somewhat subjective....
> Notable points: 
> 1) Cruisers will carry two screens making them (defensively) the 
>    same as capitals.
...and they can do the same in FTII.  Because of the minimum size of
shields, they lose the same proportion of offensive mass in FTIII if
they take two shields as they did in FTII.  It just depends on whether
you want more defensive ships.
> 2) Spinal mount weapons reguardless of power are of no value if
>    they cannot be brought to bear on a target.  (Sounds like the 
>    NSL is going to lose big time to me.)
>    The battleship (that I Used) had 4 'A' batteries in a forward
>    only (spinal) mount,  these were used only once (during the initial
>    close to combat) at medium range with a thrust 4 ship.   Never
>    during the game did I use the spinal or throw more than 9 dice
>    at any time.   (My secondaries were 3 'B' and 3 'C' batteries
>    with six arcs.)
I don't know that I can -- or should -- comment on this, since I didn't
see it, but I've used ships with FF arc weapons -- thrust 3 ships -- and
have generally gotten several shots off.  As for the NSL, I'd say they'd
have to fight 'Legend of the Galactic Heroes' style: lines of cap ships
with overlapping forward arcs, supporting each other with secondaries
(and smaller ships).
> 3) The change to six sixty degree firing arcs and allowing ships
>    to fire out the rear arc does not really improve the game.
>    (It will make the conversion to a boardgame/hex move system
I don't think converstion to a hex map is what GZG was looking for.
^_^;;  Anyway, I personally like the change, as it allows my broadsides
ships a lot more targets in their broadsides. ^_^
> 4) The SLM (salvo lunched missiles) look like a form of remote
>    sub-munitions pack.   One must wonder why the SLM cannot be used
>    in a direct fire mode?   (I personally dislike the guessing game
>    targetting concept.)
Hmm... personal preference, again, I rather like it.  ('Course, I also
smashed part of Kochte's line with the things, so....)
> 5) It sounds a if a number of the new weapons will require at 
>    least one reroll to reach the final damage number.
>    Is the added complexity worth the effort, or is FT just going 
>    down the Star Fleet Battles/GW road?
No comment here -- haven't used that many, except for the SLMs, and I
don't mind them -- but I do like the extra damage roll on a '6'.  Much
faster killing of ships, especially those times when I got 2 or 3
rerolls.... <grin>
> 6) The 'A' batteries have nowhere near the distructive ability
>    that the point cost/mass values indicate.	 (A sledgehammer
>    solution to what was at most a marginal problem.)

Um, the A-batts we not a marginal problem; there was *no* reason, if you
were doing even mild min/maxxing of your ships, to take B-batts in FTII.
 And you only take C-batts if they're allowed to fire for point
defence... and not always, then.

		    Aaron Teske 

Prev: Re: The wide open road Next: RE: National Characteristics?