Re: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust Playtest? (Simon White)

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Vince wrote:

> > OK. FWIW the SV designs shown in FB2 are rather poor compared to what can
> > be built under the SV ship design rules, so if you've only built a few
> > designs of your own you might not have experienced just how powerful
> > *optimized* SV designs are.
>
> Yes, anyone can "build" a more powerful ship then the books use. SV, 
> Phalon, NSL, hell even the ESU.

The problem here is that custom-built SV ships gain far *more* power over 
their Fleet Book compatriots than custom-built ships from any of the others 
navies do. Let's look at your examples:

> Yes, One of the designed I toyed with on the SV was a BB that could lob 2 
> die at 72" (6ft), which in close range is equal to a pickle barrel of 
> dice      LOL

2 dice at 72mu means 64 dice at close range. With a reasonable hull 
integrity, a smallish carapace and some spicules for close-in defence such 
a ship would have an NPV of ~400 pts. The FB2 Ann'Var'Teth is of a similar 
size and has slightly stronger hull, but can throw less than half as many 
dice at any range. Did you use this 64-dice ship in battle, BTW?

> At the same token, I biult an NSL Dreadnought with 12 class 3 beams. 
> Again, pick every d6 you can find and start throwing.

36 dice at close range, ie. just over half of what the SV battleship above 
could throw. Assuming standard NSL hulls, engines and armour but no fighter 
bay this NSL ship would have TMF ~240, NPV ~800; so a pair of the above SV 
battleships would cost as much and have about 2/3rds as many hull boxes as 
the NSL ship... but more than three times the firepower.

> An ESU Battleship that has like 60 hull boxes.

If it is of a similar size as the FB1 battleships it won't have any 
armament to speak of; and if it BDN-sized it fits right in alongside the 
ESU Rostov (55 hull boxes) and NSL Szent Istvan (60 hull boxes).

> For shits and giggles, I toyed the designs from the books to put Wave Guns 
> and Nova Cannons and cloaking feilds on DDs andsuch. Just to see what it 
> would look like.
>
> Ok, here is my question now:
> After reading through the books and all. The books encourage you to make 
> all designs and say to feel free to toy and play around with options and 
> such. So with that in mind, what is wrong with me and my group here in 
> Cleveland liking the SV they way they and usign them as such? After all, 
> out main ouitlook is that humans are not exactly the center of the 
> universe in technology and while we have the ability to adapt and oversome 
> heartaches and defeats. You will ot always defeat an alien race in 
> straight face to fact combat. Why the invention of "TACTICS" comes in to 
> play. Out manuevering your enemy, Out numbering your enemy, and of course 
> the final factor in all hames, luck of the die rolls.

I'm curious here: How do you outnumber an enemy whose ships are rather 
cheaper per Mass than yours are, or outmanoeuvre an enemy whose slowest 
ships can make turns twice as tight as your fastest escorts?

> So why am I so wrong for liking the present designs and using them as they 
> are put?

There's nothing wrong with that for GAMING purposes.

But we're talking PLAYTEST here, not social gaming. For PLAYTEST purposes 
using the book designs only means that your experience with the game 
balance issues that arise from using home-grown Sa'Vasku designs is very 
likely to be limited. Any claim that the rules work fine as they are is 
only valid if you've actually taken the rules to their extremes and found 
them to work fine there too - but if you only use the book designs, then 
you *haven't* taken the rules to their extremes.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l