Re: FT III, BIg ships and such.

Ever stop to think...and forget to start again? wrote:
> Well, I really can't talk about DS2 or SG2 'cause I haven't seen the
rules
> or anything for them around here (and I've looked, no avail). I would
like
> to see those rules and then see some kind of merger between the
systems.

You should really try to find them; I got my copies from RYDER'S ONLINE
GAMES within a week on DSII, and a couple for SGII.  I have been /very/
impressed with the systems therein.

It would really be almost impossible to merge the FT and DS/SG-II
systems; the former are based on multiple d6 resolution as has been used
in tactical wargaming for a coon's age, while DS/SG are based on the
"Full Metal Anorak" structure which uses the dice from d4 to d12 as
strength/difficulty levels, incorporating lots of opposed rolls which.
at first glance look as if they'd slow the system down a lot but, in
actuality give a far more interactive feel for very, very little given
away in speed (mainly because you end up rolling fewer dice).

> Well, I dunno 'bout that. Again, not having seen the DS*/SG* rules I
> can't comment on them directly. But FT2 seems to be a very good system
> in and of its own right. This was what hooked me into the game from
the
> word 'go'. It's already now an excellent system.

I'd say that FT could be significantly improved by going to the FMA
structure, if only because then the lines would be much easier to
interface.

> Oh, hey, I have nooooooo problems with expansions and updates and
stuff!
> A lot of things people have asked to see (campaign rules, fleet books,
> scenarios, new races/tech/systems, etc) I'd love to see in an
'official'
> capacity, and don't think anyone would have to rewrite the rules to
> incorporate them. Nosirreebob.

Campeign rules would likely require some similarity to the basic
mechanics of the basic system to really `fit' the system well; if GZG
took FT to the FMA system, they could write one set of campeign rules to
cover all three scales which, in terms of genericism, is a /huge/ win. 
Likewise with the rest.

Basically, what I'd like to see is GZG making SG/DS/FT an /integrated/
wargaming system rather than three (really, two, since SG and DS already
both use the same mechanics) seperate lines.  Support for all three
could then proceed apace; why have /just/ a fleet book when you could
have an entire Star Army book, with fleets, transports and ground
forces?  Then there becomes that much /more/ material that can be
produced without having to worry about integrating dislike mechanics.

> I *seriously* doubt anyone here was leveling insults or vehemence at
> Jon or Mike or GZG. I think a *lot* of people are frustrated from past
> experiences with other game systems that have gone from Good and
Excellent
> to Unwieldy and Ugly, and that's where the vehemence you're reading
comes
> from. I think most people were using drawing on those other systems as
> an analogy of what they feared might happen to FT.

FT will /never/ pull a GW; I think that's easily seen from any of the
activity we've seen here from their representatives.  I'd /like/ to see
them bring things into coherence, however, so the lines as a whole can
advance and maybe bring some freelancers together in providing support,
too.

-- 
Alexander Williams {zander@photobooks.com   ||Member: Evil Geniuses
		    thantos@alf.dec.com}    ||For a Better Tomorrow
============================================// => Charter Member <=

"Perhaps we should lower our mental trousers and compare the size of
 our consciousnesses?"
				       -- Jan Sands to Marvin Minsky
					  comp.ai.genetic
====================================================================
		<http://www.photobooks.com/~zander/>