Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

At 09:58 AM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
>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:
>
>Please note before we start: all the ideas here are _very_ provisional
-
>they are points for discussion, not finished rules! Some of this MAY
end up
>in FTIII (and probably in the Fleet Book first), but nothing is set in
>stone at this stage. I am actively seeking feedback, but the final
decision
>as to what we use will be made from a mixture of testers' responses,
>discussions here and my own preferences.
>
>NEW DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM:
>I'm not giving rules and numbers here, because they haven't been
written
yet :).
>This is simply the rough outline of the new system:
>
>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...)

In one of my own games, my system allowed players to design their own
missles on up to dreadnoughts.
>
>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. FTL drive will use 10% of
>ship mass. This means you can build a ship with very high thrust if you
>wish, at the cost of having very little weapons space - or a very
"slow"
>one bristling with guns.....
>(OK, I know this will change the ship designs considerably, but then so
>will a simple change like making A batts cost 4 mass....)

This makes more sense than the system currently in use.

>
>3) Battery mass will be C = 1 (including all-round fire - it is in a
small
>turret); B = 2, plus 1 per additional fire arc over first; A = 4 plus 2
per
>additional fire arc over first. The numbers may not be perfect (as I'm
sure
>all the armchair mathematicians will soon tell me:)) but I think
they'll go
>a long way to fixing the age-old problem.

Not too bad.

>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!

Ahh firearcs...my favorite topic...

  a) rear arcs:  I could not see any reason why a ship's drive would be
so
noisy as to totally block rear fire.  This also stops players from
simulating SFB ships without changing the rules.  A simpler system is
this:
Allow the rear arc to be chosen like any of the others.  This fits with
alot
of science-fiction backgrounds better.

  b)  4 arc weapons:  most ships only have two places to put 4-arc
weapons,
the very top, and the very bottom.  anywhere else must be 3 arcs or
less.
Some ships can only have 1 4-arc weapon.  If the players are assigning
mini's to specific designs, then they can point to the mini and show
where
the weapons are, and weather it can mount 4-arc weapons or not.  The
laws of
physics prevents two objects from occupying the same space at the same
time.
So this limits how many 4-arc weapons a ship can carry to 1 or 2.  

>5) Fighter movement may stay basically as per FTII, but with greatly
>increased fighter move distances (24" or 36"?) and making the revised
turn
>sequence from MT a standard basic rule (ie: fighters move after order
>writing, but before ships move, so you have to anticipate the enemy's
>move). 

The fighters sound ok as is...just allow the fighters to
accellerate/decellerate like the ships do.

>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?

How about some 180 arcs?    Left side, right side, front side, aft side.

>So, there are some ideas - think them over and let me know the
reactions -
>either to the list or direct email (at this stage, please don't send
loads
>of alternative rules - I'd appreciate just reaction to the above, so I
can
>gauge feelings on it.)
>
>Many thanks!
>
>Jon T. (GZG).
>
>
--
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com