Prev: RE: FT3? Next: Re: New Irregular Miniature Ships (UK)

RE: FT3?

From: davisje@a... (Jonathan Davis)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:14:52 -0400
Subject: RE: FT3?

> Good. It's not that I don't like the idea, it's just I think FT is
> pretty much perfect in it's current form. The only changes I can see
> are moving some of the fighter rules from MT into FT, and adding
> Realistic Movement (with the addition of limited rotation) as
> an optional rule. (Plus clearing up a few questionable parts such
> as Sub Packs, and beefing up Mines).

You're right.  A better idea for FT would be a third edition of Full
Thrust and a second edition of More Thrust that clears up a lot of
the explanations and house rules interpretation that we discuss on 
the mailing list.

For example, submunition packs, cloaking rules, pulse torpedoes, 
sensor rules, and others.

House rules that my group discussed over the weekend included:

 - Submunition packs can be used against fighters and missiles.
 - Interceptors can attack enemy missiles.
 - Port and starboard arc mounted missiles.
 - 'Dormant' missiles that can be dropped at zero velocity, remain
   inactive a minimum of one turn, and then may activate and engage
   a target.  (Talk about beefy minefields...)
 - Improved pulse torpedoes
	2+ 0-6"
	3+ 6-12"
	4+ 12-18"
	5+ 18-24"
	6  24-30"

FT3 could provide a lot of great ideas for running campaigns and
manuevering prior to the tabletop battle.

Jon Davis

Prev: RE: FT3? Next: Re: New Irregular Miniature Ships (UK)