Re: beam classes: repairing; official minis

>I hadn't considered damage control when considering which class of
>beam weapon to install.  I had very little chance to make repairs
>in the two combats (an NSL SDN just pummels little NAC BBs to death).

I was going to pipe in the other day with this thought: it's a hell
of a lot easier to repair 1 Class-4 beam than a billion Class-2 beams
(as John Leary can attest to, from our PBeM duel we fought a while back
using an all-Class-2 beam ship vs a Class-4 beam ship). So while yes,
the Class-2s are more *efficient* to buy, doesn't necessarily mean that
they are the most *optimum* to buy. If your opponent is able to maintain
an open range on you, you won't be able to bring your Class-2s into
play.

>And there is a priority to the core systems when they get hit.
>Speaking of which, I dislike the bridge core system hit.  It is 
>too severe with a high die roll (4+).	No turning is not too much
>of a problem but what about all those gunners and their officers?  
>Don't we pay them to fight?  Do they need new orders every turn to 
>fire on an enemy, especially one they fired on before?

Core systems are *optional* systems. I personally think they are too
harsh, too severe, and don't like using them very much. Daryl Poe came
up with an alternate set of core/critical system hits that plays well,
yet doesn't immediately knock a ship out of the game for a bad roll.
I have his rules webbed in at:

   http://scivax.stsci.edu/~kochte/core-systems.html

>My purist miniature friend is going to order a lot of the
>"official" GZG minis, so I offered to buy one of the fleets
>so he doesn't have to spend all of his money (ain't I nice?).
>So I looked through the fleet book and decided I like the FSE
>and ESU miniature styles the best, with the ESU coming out
>favored since I dislike the carrier versions of the FSE (why
>wet navy style flight decks?).  But I dislike the lack of
>armor on the ESU ships.  I know the purist, and others, will
>dislike me changing the designs, even a little (remove some
>systems to add armor).  What are the benefits of armor vs
>no armor?  What has been the results of combats?  Any "official"
>refit suggestions I can put in the face of complainers?

For your complainers about 'official' refits, note the following
entries from the FleetBook:

(page 2, last paragraph from Introduction) "The most important thing, as
we
always emphasized in the original Full Thrust, is that you should feel
free to
modify and adapt the game to the personal preferences of yourself and
your
gaming group - use as much or as little of the new material here as you
wish,
and don't let anyone else tell you are doing it wrong!"

(page 2, under Designer's Notes) "...Each entry is a REPRESENTATIVE
EXAMPLE of
one particular class of ship for a given fleet, and IN MOST CASES IS NOT
THE
ONLY CLASS OF VESSEL THAT FILLS THAT SLOT in the fleet inventory. For
example,
the New Anglian Royal Navy has several different classes of Destroyers
in
service aside from the Ticonderoga class shown - some are much older
designs,
while others are new construction that will supplement and eventually
replace
the current classes." [emphasis mine, for any others who may have missed
this
in the FB :)]

Anyway, for what it's worth. I would be hesitant, as Tim Jones points
out,
to strip out the SLMs en mass from the FSE fleet and replace 'em with
PTs,
but beyond those radical changes...exercise your own discretion. I've
been
working on fleet rosters for the major powers (including the UN) and if
you
want ideas you can see some of the class variants I came up with for
some
of the powers (still working on the NSL, FSE, and UN) at:

    www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/***_roster.html

(where '***' can be replaced with nac, esu, un, fse, nsl...though nsl
won't
work just yet)

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
   o/		      ..     .
  /@		       .  .	      If you insist on reaching for a
  <|\			  .  )	      star, be prepared to take a long,
   |		     /\ 	      hard fall.
   |		    //
   /		 o //*		      Indy - climber, astronomer,
adventurer
  /		<%- /|\ 	      supreme. Have rope, will travel.
 /		/\ / | \