Prev: Re: Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!

Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

From: John Leary <realjtl@s...>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:34:49 -0800
Subject: Re: FTIII Rules Tryout

It's like I've always said - you can get more with a kind word and a 2x4
than with just a kind word wrote: 

XXXSection 1XXXX
> None lost? Wow, did you guys have bad die rolls, or just play
> real conservative? I haven't had games go anywhere near that
> long w/out losing lots o'ships, be them FTII rules or FTIII test
> rules. Ships die real fast in my games (okay, so they're usually
> mine ;)

XXXXsection 2XXXX
> Can happen in FTII, also. Is your concern that capitals are now weaker
> defensively?
> How are you differentiating cruisers from capitals? In the current
> system, there is no differentiation per se between 'escorts',
> and 'capitals' as there is in FTII.
 If the latter, that's
> not an FTIII design. I don't usually find it much trouble bringing my
> forward-arc guns to bear (except when going against Aaron's broadsides
> fleet ;)
> It actually allows for some things to make more sense (rear-firing),
> makes for some more interesting situations/maneuverings (the 6-arc
> I don't know anything about moving FT to a boardgame or hex system.
> SMBs (salvo missle batts). I've seen these things used to great
> effectiveness, with not a lot of guessing involved. Once you know
> how to use them (bracket your target(s), for example), they can
> become very devastating.

> In FTII the problem was actually pretty significant. A-batts were
> more efficient than any of the other batteries offered, unless you
were using
> the C-batts in anti-fighter/missile mode. They've been balanced out
now to
> come in line better with the rest of the battery series. Just got to
> the design your ships. If you try applying the old FTII theories of
ship design
> to FTIII ships, you might find them to be weaker overall (I do, at any
> My $0.02 worth.  :)
> Mk


Section 1)   Yes, none destroyed.   John F. started out with a rather
poor first couple of shots, but picked up his average later on.

Section 2)   While I had not considered that at first, it may have 
been lurking in the back of the mind.  

Section 3)   I did not define the ships for the FTIII game, just used
them as presented.  The DE was mass 16,  the cruiser was in the 
mass 40 area, and the BB was mass 72 (more of less).

Section 4)   Since the 4 'A's used up 16 mass for the forward arc
only it would be an interesting experiment to try a game with the
'A's replaced with 16 'C's (5 Ea in the 9-11 and 1-3, and 6 Ea in
the 11-1 area).   (Changing the thrust to five would also have 
worked wonders, Phil mentioned that he had used the national 
characteristics in the design, I think we were ESU W/average

Section 5)   The 'where shall I put it' portion of the SMB
seemed to be rather prolonged, and not really worth the effort.
Since the same person had the missles and the SMB it was like
watching an instant replay of something not very interesting
the first time 'round.

Section 6)   I think the best thing to do with the great 'A'
debate is just agree to disagree.

New thought:   The new concept in fleet design for FTIII with the 
rear fire arc is:  place the heavy arc limited weapons to the rear
and allow the enemy to close  after starting to thrust away from his
location.  (Star Fleet Battles comes to FT.)

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: Re: Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!