Re: Fire Control lock-on (was: Re: [FT] squadron suggestions)

>On Wednesday 22 June 2005 10:30, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>  Seeing as this subject has come up in the last few days'
discussions,
>>  I thought I'd take the opportunity to canvass some opinions from all
>>  of you out there in gzg-list-land..... this is something that's been
>>  discussed at some length in the past within the playtest group, but
>>  sometimes it's both interesting and valuable to get some feedback
>>  from a much larger group of players.
>
>What are you most trying to aim for with Full Thrust?
>
>A simple set of rules which is fast to play?
>A generic set of rules which can model all types of space combat?

I think that FT is already a combination of both - a simple fast 
basic system which may be adapted and customised as desired to 
produce a reasonable representation of MOST, if not all, backgrounds.

>
>Adding ELINT stuff improves the second but reduces the first. Some
>genres are difficult to do in standard FT (B5 for instance) without
>adding ELINT of some sort, but then if you wanted to model B5 warfare
>you can always use B5 Wars.
>
>FT is perfectly playable without ELINT, and it's not really needed
>for the standard background.
>
>Having said that, I like sensor rules, and would be quite happy with
>a more complex game system with stealth, sensors, command vessels and
>the like (B5 Wars style ELINT vessels are interesting).

Now, I feel that the point of the FCLO (Fire Control Lock-On) roll is 
exactly that it is NOT adding very much in the way of complexity - 
it's going to be one or two rolls per ship per fire phase in most 
cases (ok, maybe three or four at most if a large ship is attempting 
to lock-up the maximum number of small targets at once) - and those 
will most likely be balanced out by the fact that if a ship fails 
those rolls, you don't spend the time taken to fire it's weapons! 
Things like ECM/ECCM, stealth, agility and other countermeasures will 
just modify the roll, and thus all be resolved in one simple 
mechanism.

There is no doubt that introducing something like this (which, I must 
emphasise, is nothing more than a discussion point at present - not 
any kind of indicator as to the way we will actually decide to go) 
will make the game feel a little different - but I think that only 
testing on the table will tell if that is a good or bad thing, and 
how much the real difference is. If the general feeling is that it 
will change things enough that it will no longer feel like FT , then 
that's the sort of thing I want to know.

Jon (GZG)

>
>--
>Be seeing you, 			   ---------------------------
>Sam.					   http://www.glendale.org.uk/