Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

On 29/10/2015 10:39, Jon Tuffley wrote:
> It is entirely true that FTL has no game effect in the majority of
situations - I don't know how many players have ever used the "arrival
out of FTL" rules in a game….anyone here?
I was involved in a squadron-level 4-player game at Bifrost one year, in

which 2 fleets were on the table at the start of the game, and the other

two (1 "ally" for each side) arrived by FTL on a randomly-determined 
turn fairly shortly thereafter. That set-up definitely affected the game

-- my poor son had his ESU squadron arrive right in front of the Phalon 
fleet, and while his ships were recovering from jump shock, they were 
all blown away by a volley of plasma bolts!

I have to say, I like that kind of thing being a possibility (though I 
was less happy at the time <B-/), so I would much prefer the ability to 
FTL in and out during play to be kept. It also allows for different 
scenario objectives to be used as well as the ever-popular fight to the 
death -- ambushes, as mentioned by Roger; smash'n'grab raids; escape 
blockades/pirates; etc. All have long histories and many precedents in 
SF of all sorts -- everything from /Star Wars/ and/Babylon 5/ to 
Pournelle's Co-Dominium future history to /Traveller/ (even /Star Trek/ 
if you tweak the mechanics), and I'd like to continue to be able to 
re-create that sort of situation. This is very much a case of keeping FT

sufficiently adaptable to simulate many settings as part of the basic 
game rather than requiring house rules.
> The only other real effect that you get in game terms by having FTL
drives as a separate ship system is that loss of them will strand the
damaged ship in-system by making escape to FTL impossible, but again
that is quite a minor factor and more of use in campaign terms than a
one-off game.
Well, that depends on the scenario. If the objective for one side is to 
escape, then losing FTL is obviously a vital factor. Which means that 
the rules need to include the possibility of losing FTL and regaining it

after it's lost (or shut down, or whatever).
> As a completely off-the-cuff suggestion, that I haven't thought
through at all, how about doing away with the FTL drive as a "paid for"
system and making it into a fourth Core System alongside the Command
(Bridge), Life Support and Power Core icons?
I like that idea, especially if coupled with something like Roger's 
suggestion for a way to distinguish between FTL-capable ships and 
"system boats" -- so I suppose what I'm saying is that maybe the cost of

FTL should be reduced. There doesn't have to be a big difference between

FTL-capable ships and non-capable ones, and it probably shouldn't be 
that big because, as you say, the main case where whatever difference 
there is will become important is in campaigns. OTOH, in a campaign, if 
a player is going to build non-FTL ships for system defence, then there 
ought to be a benefit unless the setting indicates otherwise -- as, say,

in original /Star Trek/, where the warp drive and the matter-antimatter 
reactor(s) were the same thing. In addition, it would be good if tugs 
and battleriders were possibilities, but not to the extent that they 
become the choice of munchkins.

So overall, I would sum things up as follows:

 1. Keep FTL as a system that can operate during a game and that can be
    affected (damaged, repaired) during a game.
 2. Provide a benefit for non-FTL designs, but not such a large one that
    they automatically dominate battles with starships.

Phil
----
"We gotta get out into Space / If it's the last thing we ever do!" -- 
/Return to the Forbidden Planet/
A sentiment echoed by Phil Atcliffe (atcliffe[at]ntlworld[dot]com)