Re: [FT] Exactly how popular is Full Thrust?

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:08:35 +0100, "Germ" <germ@germy.co.uk> wrote:

>I was just trying to see why everytime someone asks about a
>space combat set of rules.
>Full Thrust being mentioned is a guarantee.

It might have something to do with almost no _real_ competition. FT is
easy to
learn and not too complicated. It has a straightforward design system.
Players
like to design their own ships. In many ways, FT taps into the same
impulse
that gets people buying collectible (or, put another way, "tuneable")
card
games.

There are few games as easy to learn as FT, with an easy design system,
while
still having an array of different weapon systems. Most games are either
more
simplistic, or they don't try very hard to come up with anything even
approaching vector movement, or they are exceedingly complex. Some of
them are
complex without being anywhere near as "realistic" (if you can call a
game
without true vector movement, true momentum, and only in 2 dimensions
"realistic") as FT.

I like FT, but it's not quite the perfect system for me. I find the game
drags
a little in pace for the tactical challenges it provides. I wish it was
either
faster paced or had more tactical challenges. This probably explains why
I
force certain design criteria on my home grown universes (making the
weapon
layout match the model's design, concentrate on cruisers and smaller
ships).

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know 
well!" - Joe Ancis