Re: UNSC beta and FB3

> Haven't played with any yet, but discussed with gaming group over
lotsa
> beer :)

Good beer I hope ;-)

> *** Disclaimer ***
> All critiques meant to be constructive and friendly, nothing intended
> to be personal or negative.

Thanks for the feedback, that is why they were posted.	My reply's are
my
opinion and not inteded to speak for Jon T, GZG or the rest of the
Playtesters.  No offense is intended, just answers and questions related
to
your comments.

> General impressions are:
>
> Hull rows:
> Superships might take advantage of 5 or 6 row hulls to reduce costs
> (when you have 200-300 hull, the extra row isn't that big a handicap).
> This could be a problem for cheese players.

If a version of CPV is implemented, this would be an expensive ship and
cheese players would start avoiding ships of this size and larger.  We
will
see.

> Anti-Matter Missiles:
> Two points.
> 1)  Instead of a new missile system with questionable PSB, we would
> rather see an expansion of salvo missile systems into a comprehensive
> family like Beams, PBLs, and K-Guns.	For example: SMLs are rated with
> 2 numbers.  The first represents the number of tubes and the second
> represents the size of the missiles launched in terms of warhead
> strength, e.g. FB1 SML = SML:6/1 = 6 missiles w/ 1-die warhead. 
Extant
> designs are unchanged, but player can choose 6/1, 4/2, 3/3, or 2/5 for
> the current designs (same MASS).  Also MASS scale for other sizes eg
> 3/1, 9/1, 12/1, etc.	Missiles extend range at expense of warhead
> strength or can increase warhead strength at expense of range without
> increasing salvo MASS.

Interesting.  Not all the playtesters like the current version of the
AMT
(and there have been quite a few) so we will see how it ends up.

> 2)  Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
marker
> missile".  We all feel that the placed-marker missile and the "roll a
> die to determine number of successful lock-on" are the two worst game
> mechanics in FT.  Would like to see a change to either a single turn
> MT-style ordnance or direct fire mechanic.  Also would like to see
> to-hit rolls for each missile (like 2+ at 1 MU).

On the other hand I have heard comments that FT is weak in that it lacks
weapons that force players to manuever (this was mainly pre FB1) so they
would not like another direct fire weapon.  The AMT is only a placed
marker
weapon, there is no lock on roll.  Sometimes area effect weapons are
needed
keep players honest and not bunching up.  Salvo missiles cause target
fleets
to get close and add bonzai jammers, this weapon like the Phalon Plasma
Bolt
keeps players from beeing too close together.

> Grasers:
> Several points; 1), 2) and 4) reflect our interest in the "generic"
> nature of FT.
> 1)  If FB3 needs a "long range beam", how about a set of MASS/cost
> figures for 6- and 18 MU range bands for regular beam batteries
instead
> of "grasers"?

Yes that keeps things more generic but another common 'bash' against FT
is
that it is TOO generic.  A heavier type of beam is common in sci-fi
universes and this is an attempt at modeling it so that it has a
different
feel from the common beam battery but still uses existing dice
mechanics.

> 2)  If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
> rather see something with the to-hit/damage mechanic of the EFSB beam
> in a single-component system.  I.e. one icon with class giving # dice
> to roll; no capacitor, charging, or charge tracking; system fully
> cycles between game turns.  Could be in a range of ranges, e.g.
> MASS/cost figures for 6-, 9-, 12-, and 18 MU range band versions.
> Perhaps a scary 12- or 18- MU variable strength SV version (works good
> for Vorlons and Shadows too :) ).

There are some problems with the EFSB Heavy Beam mechanic, it is a bit
too
good close up and it has problems when dealing with screens and we
didn't
want another screen-skipping weapon.  Versions of this weapon were
looked at
in the developent of the Graser.

> 3)  If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
> standard battery rerolls as internal secondaries rather than
additional
> hits.  We would recomend that "additional hits" be fully affected by
> screens, and additional damage by allowing a penetrating reroll on a
> *damage roll* of a "6".

Why does a "hit" have to be a single point?  I still see re-rolls as
internal hits/extra damage/lucky shots.  But then because the Graser is
more
powerful, each 'hit' does 1-6 points of damage.  In playtesting at the
ECC
there were concerns about the power of the Graser, usually after a good
set
of beam rolls to-hit and re-rolls followed by average or above damage
rolls.
Looking how it performed overall, it was quite average with lots of
missed
shots and low damage hits.  The graser just has the potential to do lots
of
damage if the dice fall a certain way.

> 4)  If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
> generic name that reflects its relation to the beam/pulsar/stinger
> family.  "Graser", "Maser", "Mason gun/accelerator", etc. are too
> setting specific.

It could change.

> UNSC ship designs:
> These were designed bythe same person or commitee that did the other
> human fleets, right?	Sigh.  It would have been nice if we could get
> away from the
> "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no matter
> the background blurb"

I did the designs based off of what is seen on the mini, some input from
Jon, and base ideas from Derek Fulton.
Yes, a fighter group was included in the largest ships because these
ships
were supposed to be from the same universe as the ships from FB1 so
naturally they would be similar in some ways.  The SDNs only have one
group
unlike most of the other FB1 races though ;-)

> and the
> "collection of ships rather than a coordinated fleet" syndromes  which
> aflict all human, KV and Phaln ship designs.

Like others have said, I'm interested in your take on how you define a
'coordinated fleet'.

Dean Gundberg

Starship Combat News
The latest information on Space Games and Miniatures
http://www.star-ranger.com
dean@star-ranger.com