Re: FT: ICEBREAKER

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Thomas the unbeliever <g> wrote:

not the first thomas to be burnt at the stake for his beliefs :-)

> > i've not actually seen ft1.3 (as i will continue to call it :-)
> 
> OK. But convince Jon Tuffley that it *is* FT1.3 and not FT2.5 first...
> I'll believe more in the author's opinion about FT generations than in
> your :-) 

i know, i know. i'm just being contrary. sorry. anyway, i now have a
compromise - it is FT 1.2.5, or, for short, 2.5. you can say it;s FT
2.5,
and that you can add the 1 because it's the first game ever to be
published called full thrust. sorted! :-)

> > ie the
> > fleet book, but from what i've read i'm wary of it. it sounds like
the
> > design system has been overhauled to get rid of some of the daft
bits,
> > like the escort-cruiser-capital splits, 
> 
> And the total dominance of the A battery and MT missiles, and the
extreme
> usefulness of screens for huge capital ships. While none of the
changes
> were necessary for players who design ships without thinking about
> optimizing their designs, they were desperately needed for those who
do
> just that (or, at least, for their regular opponents <g>).

fair enough. i must say, i was partial to huge ships with a-batteries
and
l3 screens :-)

Tom