RE: St Jon - Exposed!
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@d...>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:21:23 -0500
Subject: RE: St Jon - Exposed!
Nice to see what he looks like, finally.
Also my first look at KV ground units (DS2).
And wonderful detail on the FSE ships!
DO look at the page!
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Gundberg [SMTP:Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:10 PM
> To: GZG List
> Subject: St Jon - Exposed!
>
> For those of us who have never had a chance to meet Mr. Jon Tuffley in
> person, or if you have ever wondered what a GZG booth looks like at a
UK
> convention, I just ran across some pictures of Bifrost 2000 on the web
> which
> has just those shots.
>
> http://www.sealteamsix.com/tonsha/bif00_5.html
>
> These pictures are from Tonsha who does the scratch-built FT minis out
of
> balsa wood, cereal boxes and dried vegetables.
>
> Enjoy,
> Dean Gundberg
>
> Starship Combat News
> The latest information on Space Games and Miniatures
> http://star_ranger.homestead.com/
> star_ranger@my-deja.com
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:10 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA21393;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:46:23 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRENRS91576;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 06:23:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRENPB91555
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Bzy9BFFsk51v5zjcjKD85W113mJQd3jn@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRENNH91550
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:23:24
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o903.telia.com (root@d1o903.telia.com [195.252.34.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRENMp80213
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:23:23 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t4o903p15.telia.com [195.252.35.135])
by d1o903.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09143
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:23:19 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012271423.PAA09143@d1o903.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Can a FT only Fleet be viable?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:23:43 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a79
Jon T. wrote:
>Jumping into this one a little late, a few comments:
>Actually, the points values of FT2 ships are NOT that different from
>those in FB1/2; if you look at corresponding classes from the FT2
>standard ships and typical ones from the FB1 fleets,
Um... well. Yes and no. (Sorry, Jon - I hadn't looked closely at this
before, otherwise I would've told you years ago!)
Yes, as long as you look at the ships with the same *class
designation*, Jon is right - DDs are around 100 pts in both systems,
light cruisers around 150-200, battleships and battledreadnoughts at
400-500 pts, etc. Unfortunately, the main thing an FT2 "battleship" has
in common with an FB1 "battleship" is just the word "battleship" - the
FB1 battleship can take a lot more punishment (usually 50-100% more
damage boxes), and usually carries a lot more weapons as well (or at
least a lot more *mass* for weapons!).
If you compare ships with the same number of hull boxes and the same
payload Mass instead of ships with the same nominal class designation,
the picture gets darger. For example, compare the FT2 battleship with
the FB1 ESU Voroshilev-class heavy cruiser:
Ship FT2 BB CH Voroshilev
Thrust 4 4
FTL yes yes
Hull boxes 24 28 (incl. armour)
Screens 2 1
Total payload 27 26
(incl. screens and FCSs)
Weapon TMF 14 18
(included in the total payload)
Points cost 447 262
At a first glance this doesn't look very balanced, does it? The FB1
cruiser has the same thrust rating, more damage points and more
weapons. Its defences are weaker, but its cost is barely 60% that of
the FT2 battleship.
On a closer look, you find that the payload on which the FT2 BB spends
"27" Mass (actually 24 + 3 free FCSs) would take up a massive *44* Mass
on an FB1 ship. Its "14" mass of weapons (would be 27 Mass in FBx)
throw more beam dice at all ranges than the Voroshilev's 18, and
level-2 screens are vastly more powerful than level-1 ones. Starts
looking better again. But... is it *enough* better to compensate for
the big cost difference? How much would an FB2 ship with stats
identical to the FT2 BB cost? (FB2 rather than FB1 to allow exactly
the same amount of hull boxes regardless of ship's Mass.) Let's see:
Stats: Mass Cost
TMF 97 - 97
Hull boxes 24 24 48 (Weak hull)
Thrust rating 4 19 38
FTL yes 10 20
3 FCS 3 12
4 B3-3 24 72
1 B2-6 3 9
4 PDS 4 12
Lvl-2 screens 10 30
Total cost: 338 pts
(I translate 3-arc FT2 weapons as 5- or 6-arc FBx ones; 3 FT2 arcs are
270 degrees, which isn't too far from the 300 degrees of an FBx 5-arc
weapon - or 6-arc, with the (A) arc blinded by the main engines.)
Ignoring damage control parties and (fairly) minor differences in fire
arcs for now, this FBx ship has the same combat abilities as the FT2 BB
- and it only costs three-quarters as many points. A bit surprising; I
would've expected the ratio to be reversed given the higher Mass
required by the equipment in FBx. Ah well :-/
Two more things complicate the comparisons: FBx doesn't allow level-3
screens (while it'd be almost criminal *not* to have level-3 screens on
FT2 capitals :-/ ), and all FBx ships have 4 rows of hull boxes whereas
FT2 escorts have 2 rows and FT2 cruisers have 3 rows. The small FT2
ships will retain their weapons for considerably longer than their FBx
counterparts, since they don't take as many threshold checks.
All things considered, a straight points comparison between FT2 and FBx
seem to overrate escorts (the extra threshold checks in FBx are quite
important), give reasonable results for thrust-2 capitals, but rather
poor ones for cruisers and thrust-3+ capital ships.
>...the POINTS value comes out quite similar - this was more by luck
>than any planning, but it is probably close enough for friendly (ie:
non->tournament) games.
This is a very important point IMO. Glenn, you indicated that the
points values aren't really important since you play scenario battles
anyway. In this case, simply ignore the points values completely and
let a more experienced player take care of the scenario balance until
you've gotten a better feel for the game!
Mass and cost ratings for the various FT2 and MT FTL warships (ie., not
system defence, planetary bombardment and civilians) translated into
FB2 designs (not compensated for the different number of hull rows):
...and yes, I know tables are invariably screwed up in the mail :-(
Mass/Cost in...
Ship FT2 FB2
Courier 2/15 6/21
Scout ship 4/28 10/34
Corvette 6/43 13/44
Frigate 10/65 20/68
Destroyer 14/92 28/95
CL 22/190 44/150
CE 26/195 43/150
Hvy Cruiser 32/238 59/206
Battlecruiser 40/381 81/283
Battleship 48/447 97/338
BDN 60/431 103/383 (incl. Std. fighters)
SDN 80/580 149/565 (lvl-3 screen illegal in FBx)
CVL 70/499 112/466 (incl. Std. fighters)
CV 98/687 163/682 (incl. Std. fighters)
Strikeboat 4/26 10/34
Lancer 6/39 13/44
Torp. DD 14/86 23/77
Super DD 16/105 33/112
Privateer 18/137 48/160
Needle CL 22/187 43/146
CS 28/198 40/136
CG 26/187 40/137
CVE 40/286 61/251(incl. Std. fighters)
Later,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:12 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA11342;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:56:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRFYDT93191;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 07:34:09 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRFY6S93134
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:a0n+UC4tNEnunoUejE3ajo7qv31PUNhe@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRFY5H93129
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o901.telia.com (d1o901.telia.com [62.20.252.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRFY4p85049
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:04 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t3o901p90.telia.com [62.20.253.90])
by d1o901.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA19703
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:33:57 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012271533.QAA19703@d1o901.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Proto SG2 campaign system
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:51:53 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a7e
Andy Cowell wrote:
>I can't find my DS2 rules. What's the approximate range for
>Rocket Assisted Mortars?
All DS2 artillery has "effectively unlimited" range - any point on the
table, no matter if they're deployed on- or off-table themselves.
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:12 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA11210;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:56:18 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRFYGT93227;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 07:34:13 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRFY9d93157
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:nSwUhCjpAWXugnQASaUnsvf2oosBpFoo@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRFY6H93137
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:06
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o901.telia.com (d1o901.telia.com [62.20.252.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRFY5p85053
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:05 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t3o901p90.telia.com [62.20.253.90])
by d1o901.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA19710
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:33:58 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012271533.QAA19710@d1o901.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Suggestions and Advice Solicited!
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:55:37 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a7d
Glenn M Wilson wrote:
>>>Well, my first and only FT experience has made me *very* missile
>>>conscious...
>>
>>Your maneuvers *were* rather predictable :-/
>
>You were there?
Probably not. I live east of the Atlantic, and am not aware of having
been overseas lately <g>
>Or are you just concluding that from earlier statements?
Yep.
The "default aim point" for salvo missiles is where the target ship
would end up if it doesn't use any thrust at all, or slightly forward
of it. Unless the target turns or has *very* strong engines, missiles
aimed at that point will hit (though if there are other ships close to
the target the other ships might get hit instead).
You described your maneuvers essentially as flying straight ahead at
maximum accelleration (thrust-5 engines). If this description was
correct, your ships ended up just forward of this "default aim point"
almost all the time... as you seem to have noticed, that's not always a
good place to be <g>
>And I am not sure what wouldn't have been predictable given my
>inexperience. 8^)
Not flying in nice straight lines helps a lot <g> Unless you're flying
at speed 24+, single-point turns count as flying in nice straight
lines, though - you want 2-point turns or sharper.
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:11 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA04506;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:36:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRFEVu92855;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 07:14:29 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRFESx92823
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRFEQH92818
for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:14:26
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBRFEL428033
for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:14:21
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:sKgsJhcuSWkPIrdhQPuin0BPXa5ZuRAw@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRExKH92472
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:59:21
-0800 (PST)
Received: from xr2-gw.atlas.fr (xr2-gw.atlas.fr [194.51.9.4])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRExJp82220
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:59:20 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from renaud.faivre@francetelecom.com)
Received: from relais-filtrant-01.francetelecom.fr by xr2-b.atlas.fr
with Atlas-Internet with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:59:08
+0100
Received: from [193.248.188.41] by relais-filtrant-01.francetelecom.fr
with ESMTP for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:00:37 +0100
Received: from [193.248.188.50] by relais-filtrant-01.francetelecom.fr
with ESMTP for gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:00:37 +0100
Received: from mift-gw.francetelecom.fr
by fedft02a.francetelecom.fr (X.400 to RFC822 Gateway);
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:59:03 +0100
X400-Received: by mta mtaFT2 in /c=fr/admd=atlas/prmd=francetelecom/;
Relayed;
27 Dec 2000 15:59:03 +0100
X400-Received: by /c=fr/admd=atlas/prmd=francetelecom/; Relayed;
27 Dec 2000 15:59:03 +0100
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/c=fr/admd=atlas/prmd=francetelecom/;
03D3C3A4A03B700C-mtaFT2]
Content-Identifier: 03D3C3A4A03B700C
Content-Return: Allowed
X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
Conversion: Allowed
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: (1)(0)(10021)(7)(1)(0)(1),
(1)(0)(10021)(7)(1)(0)(6),
(1)(0)(10021)(7)(1)(0)(100)
Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
X400-Originator: renaud.faivre@francetelecom.com
Original-X400-Recipients: non-disclosure;
PP-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding X400-Recipients
line
Message-Id:
<03D3C3A4A03B700C*/c=fr/admd=atlas/prmd=francetelecom/o=not21/s=faivre/g
=renaud/@MHS>
Date: 27 Dec 2000 15:59:03 +0100
From: FAIVRE Renaud TPC-SRD <renaud.faivre@francetelecom.com>
To: gzg-l <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [SG2] EW Unit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
id eBRExLH92473
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a7b
Hello !!
What is the interest of switch off and EW unit ?
(If it's already active, it get 3 EW markers by round)
Méduse
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:11 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA11205;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:56:17 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRFYHl93235;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 07:34:14 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRFYBW93174
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:M5w8mhgmAuGaLAaTsZxLFzxhF58uHpcy@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRFY8H93149
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:08
-0800 (PST)
Received: from d1o901.telia.com (d1o901.telia.com [62.20.252.241])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBRFY7p85056
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:34:07 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from oerjan.ohlson@telia.com)
Received: from default (t3o901p90.telia.com [62.20.253.90])
by d1o901.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA19715
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:34:00 +0100
(CET)
Message-Id: <200012271534.QAA19715@d1o901.telia.com>
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Can a FT only Fleet be viable?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:16:10 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a7c
Bell, Brian K wrote:
>It would be an interesting mix if you used the FT/2ndEd rules for
those
>ships and the FB1/2 rules for those ships.
>
>FT2 Advantages:
>1) Less Expensive (I believe)
I thought so as well, but see my other post on this.
>2) Strong Hulls for all ships
Only because engines don't take up any space on FT2 ships. When you
translate the designs into FBx (same Mass of weapons, same thrust
ratings, same number of hull points) most of the ex-FT2 ships end up
with Average to Weak hulls.
>3) Wider firing arcs (greater coverage)
More importantly, *cheaper* wide fire arcs (except for C-batts).
>4) Level 3 screens
This is a *huge* advantage, yes (unless the enemy uses screen-skipping
weapons). OTOH FT2 ships don't have armour.
>5) ADS (can attack non-attacking fighters)
...but very, very expensive. (ADAF, not ADS)
>6) Cheaper 'A' Beams
Another big advantage.
>7) Can't loose repair crews/More efficient repair crews
...uh? FT2 repair crews are slightly *less* efficient than the same
number of FBx ones, and although they don't die automatically as the
ship takes hull damage they can be lost in threshold checks.
Another important advantage for FT2 ships is
8) Escorts and Cruisers take fewer threshold checks than their FBx
counterparts.
>FB1 Advantages:
>1) Size (FB ships are roughly 2x the size of FT2 ships)
>2) Core Systems (FT2 does not have core systems rules)
I wouldn't class these as *advantages*, though - as most people know
size itself isn't important (it's what you do with it which matters),
and being vulnerable to losing the bridge or life support or having the
power core blow up sounds like a distinct *dis*advantage if the other
side isn't vulnerable in that way :-/
>3) Arcs for P-Torps
>4) Smaller Aft Arc
>5) More repair crews
All important points, yes.
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Jan 03 11:05:13 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA21352;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:34:14 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBRGAZG93856;
Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 27 Dec
2000 08:10:34 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBRGAXr93835
for gzg-l-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:lWp9/MXZparq5lTVbJtdtP4XcSdFkvaf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBRGAWH93830
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:10:32
-0800 (PST)
Received: from stsci.edu (tnm.stsci.edu [130.167.1.235])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eBRGAVp87574
for <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:10:31 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from kochte@stsci.edu)
Received: by stsci.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4-DNI-8.0)
id LAA24120; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:10:28 -0500
Received: from poppc.stsci.edu(130.167.236.100) by tnm.stsci.edu via
smtp-stsci
(V2.1)
id xma024109; Wed, 27 Dec 00 11:10:06 -0500
Received: from localhost by poppc (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA22162; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:09:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:09:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Kochte <kochte@stsci.edu>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Suggestions and Advice Solicited!
In-Reply-To: <003501c06e96$cc005ee0$b729d03f@pconn>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012271105200.4702-100000@poppc.stsci.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000a7f
Greetings, Pat,
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Pat Connaughton wrote:
> The greetings of the Holidays to you all and I come
> before you with a plea for help.
>
[long intro snipped]
> request (sorry for the long intro).
S'okay. Nowhere near as long-winded as some of the members on this
list can be (me included ;-).
> I plan to aquire a set of each of the principle human fleets
represented by
> FB#1. The FSE, NAC, ESU, and the NSL. Could the 'list suggest an Order
> of Battle for a typical task force of say 15 to 20 ships that woudl
> represent
> the appropriate mix of weapons and ships to typify each of the
> afforementioned
> spacial nations? SInce, plan to play a lot of FT this year, this seems
to be
> the best way to approach this.
In addition to what others have posted, I offer up the resources of
the Unofficial Fleet Rosters. THey may be found here:
http://www.bcpl.net/~indy/full-thrust/fleet-rosters.html
Note: there are still tweaks to be made, corrections to be addressed
(yes, Oerjan, I have not forgotten! :-), but overall it allows for a
base idea of what *possible* fleet compositions could be (hence the
'unofficial' aspect of it ;-).
> Also, any comments, suggestions or notes on doctrine, fleet tactics
etc
> from the list would be welcome. Part of the fun of the game is to
attempt to
> succeed while following the concepts of the nation that your're
representing
> on the gametable.
Well, I can not easily offer up something for you right off the top of
my head. I *do* have an ongoing project in putting together an
unofficial
tactics manual based on posts made over the past couple of years from
various esteemed (and not-quite-as-esteemed) members from the list. One
of these days (in my copious free time) I'll "finish" this and post it.
In the mean time...y'all keep posting tactics suggestions/idears, hear?
Mk