Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

In message <199702220954.JAA26488@gate.flexnet.net>
jon@gzero.dungeon.com (Ground Zero Games) writes:
> OK everyone, I promised that from time to time we'd be posting some
> playtest ideas to this list to get some reactions, so here goes:

...Can't resist throwing in my thruppence ha'penny... 

> 1) We intend to do away with the artificial distinctions between
Escorts,
> Cruisers and Capitals, and have a single "sliding scale" of ship
designs
> from smallest to largest; this will also mean that Superships cease to
need
> special rules - you can build something as big as you like under the
basic
> system. (Still figuring on how to best do the damage track and
threshold
> points - have been watching the last few days' discussions with
> interest...)

As far I can tell, no matter how you write this rule, there will 
always be some more optimum sizes, and some less optimum sizes and 
the maximisers will sniff out the former as soon as they read the 
book.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep getting this bit perfect.

> 2) Under the new system, you will have more MASS per ship to play with
in
> the design (probably = to total mass rather than 50%), but out of this
you
> will have to use mass for drives and other bits that are currently
assumed
> to be part of the "other 50%" of the ship mass. The thrust rating will
> depend on the % of the ship that you devote to the drives -
preliminary
> ideas are for 5% ship mass per thrust factor. 

I (rather pompously, check the archives) threw out some ideas for
rejigging the design rules to emphasise mass over points values and
by the end of the discussion I'd talked myself round about 180
degrees.

The conclusion I came to is that the more descriptive the design
system is, the better it is, and the more constructive the design
system is, the worse it is. I know full well that this isn't going to
be a popular point of view, since for many people the engineering
aspect of a game like Full Thrust is more than half of the game ("my
designs vs. your designs"), but my first impression of the above idea
is that it is a huge retrograde step.

The more constructive the design system, the faster a flock of
maximisers will descend on it and gut it like a big wet fish.

My preferred rejigging would be to go the other way. Want to design a
ship? Write down what systems it will have, write down how many hull 
boxes it will have, write down what thrust it will have. Tot up the
points values of the systems and hull, muliply by some number derived
from the thrust. Description over construction.

> 4) Rear-arc fire MAY be allowed (for weapons that bear there), but
ONLY in
> a turn in which the ship uses no thrust from its main drive... should
> change tactics a little and possibly help to avoid the "plughole"
effect of
> all ships circling madly in the centre of the table!

Will 4-arc weapons be allowed? 

> 6) Instead of four equal 90 degree fire arcs, we may change to
fore/aft
> arcs of 60 degrees each and side arcs of 120 degrees - this brings the
arcs
> in line with the 12 course directions, and makes fire arcs easy to
judge
> from a hexagonal model base (1 base side = 60 degrees, 2 = 120). Do
you
> think this will make a great deal of difference to the game, other
than
> (perhaps) making broadside mounts a little more acctractive?

It seems counter-intuitive for submunitions to bear over a greater 
angle if side-mounted not front-mounted. Also this will make it more
difficult to trail big ships and stay in their rear-arc (always a joy).

Considering 4) and 6) together, Allan Goodal recently ran a PBeM game
where the rear-arc fire was allowed and ships mounted weapons mainly
as starboard-front-port and starboard-rear-port, which combining these
rules seem like the optimal way of mounting weapons (so all weapons bear
on the two broadsides) and it was still very much a "plughole"-type 
game.

-- 
David Brewer