RE: Points, Mass and FT3 [FAO MJE-JMT-GZG]

Date sent:  11-DEC-1996 18:45:01 

>This message is addressed essentially to JMT via MJE since I'm
>basically too much of a lazy sod to print it out and post it to 
>GZG. So I'm sticking it here for the assembled multitude to kick 
>it around a bit. Maybe I'll post it straight to GZG later if no
>one can convince me it's horribly flawed.

It's horribly flawed. 8-)

>I agree with the basic list theme that says "don't arse around
>with the game". Equally I understand that GZG need to keep all
>it's products in print, all the time and that each re-printing
>offers a prime time to revise, update and improve.

It's all swings and roundabouts. On the one hand, the game works,
and we all like it. On the other, does this mean there is no room for
improvement? And as the game is almost 'perfect', any changes would
not be major, leading to a bitter feeling from those who feel they
must fork out for a new version. On the other hand, a major revision
would also be hailed as a disaster as it would make all old copies
'obselite', and replace as near a 'perfect' game as currently exists.

Jon can't win.

The only thing I can see working is if Jon rationalized FT and MT
into one book, and added more in the way of simple campaign rules,
alien tech (perhaps for Kra'Vak, Svasku and Splaaargoids) and 
a few odds and ends. Enough to make purchasing the book worthwhile
for those that already have FT and MT. This however would make
it more expensive leading to another avenue of criticism.

No one ever said a games designers life was easy.

>I also rather fancy the idea of a system based more strongly on 
>mass than points.

I'm not so sure. As you all know, I like to muck about with new rules.
The various metamorphosis of the rules I play show one thing however.
More and more, the 'new' rules peel away, back to the core. I end up
playing the basic rules in spite of myself, frankly because they
are better than the stuff I come up with. So although I'm often
enthusiastic about new ideas, the enthusiasm soon wears thin, and it's
back to the core rules.

>I'm not, however, too chuffed with "casemates" and "turrets".
>Call me a maximizer, or whatever, but I'm perfectly comfortable
>with beam weapons being 3-arc weapons first, last and always. 
>There are plenty of single-arc weapons in FT to oblige players 
>to maneuver to bring them to bear: submunitions, railguns, 
>torps, AA's, needles etc.

I don't see why railguns were not simply classed as beams that ignore
shields. The damage resolution is Abstract after all, so could be
almost anything. The mechanics of the rules do not have to match the
mechanics of the system used. I've no idea how they made it into MT.
SOMEONE must have compared them to pulse torpedoes.

And as for turrets/casemates, again it makes weapons heavier and worse.
I could live with it if you made casemates lighter, but the current
rules
have no room for maneuver.

>The "A-battery problem" is solvable in a mass-driven system by
>bumping it up to 4 mass.

The A-battery problem does not exist, and is more than taken care of
by threshold checks, needlers etc. All IMHO 8-)

>What I am primarily suggesting is that points be retained, but
>only as a simple multiple of the ship's mass.

We've no clear picture of what the new system is like, yet. Jon did say
he'd get Mike to post some 'play test' ideas to the list, as and when.
The points system might be identicle to that which David is describing.

One thing that looks like it will be in FT-III, which should make it
worth purchasing, is a finished version of the Realistic Movement
rules that can be found on Mark 'I'm not a Communist, honest guv'
Seifert's web page. (Sorry Mark, couldn't help myself).

>The points formula would go something like:

>Points = Mass * (factor-based-on-thrust + factor-based-on-tech)

>Factor-based-on-thrust could just come straight out of FT: 
>thrust/4 for escorts, 
>thrust/2 for cruisers, 
>thrust/1 for capitals and merchants.

>Factor-based-on-tech would cover the costs currently borne by
>the hull, weapons, FTL drive etc:
>(say,) a basic 3 for human military ships,
>a basic 1 for human merchants,
>+1 for FTL ships (? or not: non-FTL's carry more weapons/cargo)

In most games (non campaign) the none FTL has the advantage. I'd
not give it any bonus.

>+2 for a cloak
>+whatever for ships using particularly expensive tech.

>This latter "+whatever" factor can be used to bump up the cost 
>of ships using particularly frightening or advanced stuff, nova 
>cannon, superior sensors, ECM, whatever. I imagine the Kra'vak 
>would come in at a basic factor of 5 or more.

Perhaps all items have a tech factor. * by the single highest item.
Or would this encourage fitting low tech items on capitals and
high tech items on escorts? Perhaps an average (round down) of all
items would be in order, encouraging capitals to use lots of C-bats
to degrade the tech level penalty for those AA beams? (just add up
all the tech codes and divide by number of items) But that is almost
back to a points system. It does encourage the use of low tech weapons
though.

>Fighter groups would cost extra.

Why? They are heavy. This pumps the cost up quite a lot.

>Anyway, this way you can price up a mass x, thrust y, military,
>FTL hull and then fit and re-fit it with whatever junk you wish
>it to carry without having to tot and re-tot the points values.

>This whole points system could be written on a single give-away
>A4 sheet for those people with FT2, and appended to the well- 
>overdue fleet book. The core rules of FT need not be arsed 
>around with at all. Great swathes of irritating arithmetic in 
>the ship design process are dispensed with.

>Now would everybody be happy with this? I'd like to know.

Hell. I'd buy FT-III (Although the name FT-II plus (or gold) would
sound better) anyway. My copy of FT is getting to look a little
'well used' if you know what I mean.

>All rights to the above text and ideas waived...

Ditto.

I'd like to see a new Full Thrust, but I'd like it to be more of the
same, rather than a complete rewrite. I think my resistance to the
initial idea was more to do with the fear of major revisions than
actually not wanting a better game. Provided the core rules remain
largely unchanged, I'll be happy with FT-III, even if the Advanced
rules are changed beyond recognition. (I hardly use MT anyway).
I'll probably have to redo all my playsheets though 8-(

+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
| #include "witty_saying"	      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail : ad4@Bolton.ac.uk	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+