Re: Strategic Thrust using BR25

devans@uneb.edu wrote:

> ***
> I have a copy of the game, but haven't played the actual game in
years,
> but I don't recall it being similar to A&A, except, maybe, that they
both
> have plastic figures.
> ***
>
> Well, the area movement has a feel similar to the Gamesmaster series.
But,
> you could say the same for Risk. And, I have. ;->=

    Or Uncle Wiggly! :-P

> Enough [OT], on with the topic!

    Agreed!

> ***
> No ships would possess FTL and can move one space per turn for each
> thrust factor (Depending on the economics situation, perhaps, one
space for
> every two thrust factors.) that they possess.
> ***
>
> I'd say that they could have FTL, but have to leave the solar gravity
well,
> but we each have our own PSB. ;->=

    Well, the game I envisioned would only take place on the BR25 game
board, so
nothing outside of the asteroid belt is "on board."  I suppose you could
have some
ships, even using Newtonian physics, leave the board, but it makes the
game much
more complex and doesn't get you much else.

> I've looked at the board for sometime now, trying to envision how the
> 'paths' would work; I would like the 'between' orbit paths to be a
little
> more constricted, with the 'steep' paths for moving in-system, the
more
> shallow, at least in outer orbits, going out-system. I've mentioned
playing
> with the board several times, and still haven't, so it continues to be
> wishful thinking only.

    Restricting movement on the between orbit paths sounds like a good
idea.  I
don't have my BR25 game with me at present, but I've already made a note
to myself
to take a look at that possibility.  It isn't that much more complex and
might add
another interesting level of play.

> Gradation between thrusts for movement isn't something I'd considered,
> strategic movement being different than combat, but I'd go along with,
> maybe, two steps for 5+, one step for everyone else.

    The idea I had was tat the ships were moving using Newtonian
physics.  As such,
the ships that possess the higher thrust (Pronounced "acceleration.")
could get
wherever they were going much more quickly than the lower thrust ships. 
Of course,
if you are using Cinematic movement rules, I have no idea how a gravitic
drive
would effect travel times, so feel free to choose the one that seems
right to you.

> ***
> Combat can only occur between fleets that are located in a planet's
near or
> far orbit.  Far orbit and the space on the solar system track that the
planet
> counter currently occupies are not considered the same.
> ***
>
> Wow, hadn't thought about this. Howabout a faster, say +4 thrust, can
> intercept in far orbit/deep space? Originally, I wasn't even going to
use
> the side displays, but I can always change titles. ;->=

    I like the intercept rules.  Perhaps a quick comparison of thrust
could be used
to see if an intercept is possible.  Just off the top of my head, have
each fleet
roll a number of dice (d6) equal to the lowest thrust factor in the
fleet.	You can
break up fleets at this point and let the slower ships fall behind if
you so
choose.  The fleet which rolls the most 5s and 6s gets to choose if the
intercept
occurs.  Resolve ties by the fleet with the most 6s.  If still tied, the
intercept
does not occur.  Of course, two fleets in deep space who both want to
engage can
feel free to do so.

> ***
> Mines may be placed in any near or far orbit space and on any space on
the
> solar system track.  Mines placed in the space that is currently
occupied
> by the planet counter on the solar system track do not move with the
planet,
> but ships on that space have the option to move with the planet.
> ***
>
> I'd like to see orbital mining a possibility, but I see you'd have to
designate
> such close encounters, and further map the near space.

    Strategic mining could be handled by a simple roll of the dice. 
Depending on
the concentration of the mine field, throw so many dice for the fleet,
or for each
ship if they decide to break formation, and mines hit on a 6 .

> ***
> On a d6 infantry would hit on a 5 or 6 while mech would hit on a 4, 5,
or 6.
> Only one round of combat could occur each turn for each "battle,"
except for
> landings, which would allow the defenders to roll for hits for one
round and
> then allow the one round of combat.  All ground combat is considered
> simultaneous, except, of course, the first round in a landing.
> ***
>
> Yep, I'd definitely complicate this part, though not to the level of
breaking
> out DSII. Probably map the planet ala the Traveller extension I found
in
> a JTAS, or even run with Fortress America groppos.

    I'd like to keep the ground stuff rather simple.  I see this more as
a space
game with the idea being to bring meaning to the space battles being
fought.  But
having a more complex ground combat system isn't a bad idea, it's just a
different
game from the one I'm proposing.  It would also make the game last MUCH
longer.
I'm envisioning small fleets fighting with a victory condition that can
be achieved
within 8-12 hours of play, i.e. within one day.
    I'd love to be able to play in a much longer campaign game that
lasted for
months of afternoon and weekend battles, but I'm having enough trouble
finding one
person to play Full Thrust for a few hours.

-Michael

--
Michael Sarno

http://www.geocities.com/~atomicat
Check out my updated Charlie Company web pages!
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"No nation should put the burden of war
 on its military forces alone."
 -General William C. Westmoreland,
		  US Army, retired