Re: [GZG] FT:XD changes, part 1

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Apr 27,
2010 at 3:27 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

> >From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
> >Doc <docagren@aol.com> wrote on 04/26/2010 04:28:19 PM:
> >>From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
>
> >> I'm updating Full Thrust: Cross Dimensions to revision 1.1 and am
> >> asking for feedback.
>
> >I give response with real trepidation; differences from original
rules
> have
> >already started showing some resistance in other places to your rule
set.
> >Is any of this actual results of suggestions from the playtest group?
>
> Some of it was suggestions from me from my own playtesting; the
"official"
> playtest group doesn't seem to release its results publicly very
often, so
> for all I know I'm going to absolutely despise whatever FT3 comes up
with
> (especially if their beta fighter rules are any indication).
>

Speaking on behalf of the "official" playtest group, we are still
waiting
for Jon T to give us feedback on stuff we've been working on the past
few
years.

>
> >> * Turns in cinematic: half drive rounded UP or DOWN?
> >> In FT 2, it was rounded up so a ship with drive 3 could turn 2
> >> points. In 2.5, it was rounded down so drive 3 could only turn 1.
In
> >> FT Lite, it's back to rounding up which I copied for FT:XD. So, do
> >> you play round down or up?
>
> >>	 We play here, with Round up, and I have a small Battle group
forming
>
> >I never noticed it went to round down in 2.5; dopey moi. First
reaction is
> >round up, old man does not do change well, but I think I'd prefer
down. Go
> >figure.
>
> I thought it was always round down.
>
> >If this is in the original books, could someone point this out, i.e.
give
> >page number(s), to me? In all the text, in all the examples, either
it's
> >vague or using even numbers for velocity, at least as far as I can
find.
> >We've always been happy with 'you can't do half a turn point, but you
can
> >do half an MU...'
>
> I'm pretty sure it was in Full Thrust (2) and/or FB1.
>
> >> * Fighters
> >> Planning to add that fighters with a higher move can break off from
> >> dogfights without opponents getting a free shot. This is mostly to
> >> provide a reason for using the fast fighter type.
>
> >>	 Speed should give some advantage
>
> >The reason for fast fighters is to get there firstest with the
mostest. Do
> >you think they are overpriced for that capability?
>
> I do.  The only advantage I've seen, and this is dubious, is that
maybe you
> might be able to make sure that a dogfight happens further away from
your
> own ships.  It doesn't get you to enemy ships without having to engage
enemy
> fighters along the way, it gives you no advantages in dogfights, and
there's
> no mechanic for hit-and-run shooting or maneuvering with the extra
speed
> that gives the faster fighter an advantage.  It's basically wasted
points as
> it is in FT 2.5.
>
> The rules I use go about like this:
>
> - Fast fighters are +1 NPV per fighter, at 36 MU speed.
> - Regular fighters are costed normally, at 24 MU speed.
> - Slow fighters are -1 NPV per fighter, at 18 MU speed.
> - Any faster grade fighter can evade dogfights with slower grade ones
> without giving up a free shot.  Conversely, the slower grade fighter
may not
> evade the dogfight at all.
> - A fighter that is two grades slower not only can't evade dogfights,
but
> the fast fighters get to shoot first and the slows only may return
fire
> afterwards with the survivors.  (i.e. slow vs fast is a pretty
catastrophic
> disadvantage in dogfights.)
>
> I realize this won't work for everybody, but I kind of like it. :P
>
> E
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>