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

In message <009ACB2A.FACBD6A4.333@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk> Adam Delafield
writes:
> 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-)

That's the boy. I knew I'd get a sympathetic hearing from you, Adam.

[...]
> Jon can't win.

Sure he can. He can get on with writing "Jungleland" and we'll all
hail him as a wonderful, lovely man, bringing intelligent SF
gaming to the huddled masses. Or some other game. He's got 
spaceships, tanks and infantry down... JL should add house-to-house.

What new genre can he turn to next? Wacky Anime? He already carries
the figures... 

> 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.

If some kind of campaign rules were in the offing, then one track
would be to split FT/MT differently. Game rules for one, background/
campaign/interface fluff in the other.

> >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. 

Amen Brother. Testify. I'm sure some PSB can make beams ignore
armour too.

> >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.

Ah, but once you force the blighter to keep a an FTL tender handy...
that's the same mass * (2 for thrust +1 for hull +3 for FTL)... that
make an FTL-free ship an extra +6 factor here...

...Just musing...

> >+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? 

Would that be a bad thing? Tax the bollocks off big cheesey ships?
Specialised escorts?

If the +whatever factors were stricly additive it would encourage
very, very monochrome ships... all the ADAF in one ship, all the 
fighters in another, all the super-cheese-guns in yet another. This 
would mandate a certain amount of fleet cooperation and introduce a
certain fragility into fleets.

> >Fighter groups would cost extra.
> 
> Why? They are heavy. This pumps the cost up quite a lot.

Well, people seem to want fast-heavy-stealth-torp fighters... 
They've got to pay somehow. I wouldn't have a mass-mutiplier here.

Besides, this is how wet naval orbats get written. You get the HMS-
Whatevers listed, with the assigned Squadron-Numbers appended as
seperate entities. It works for me.

-- 
David Brewer